Rumors change a person's status- sources

There have been people who have incorrectly claimed that a person can not have his presumed status (chezkas kashrus) changed without a psak of beis din. Or that negative information can only be allowed after a psak from a beis din or a rav.

Part I: Sources mentioned by Dr. Benny Brown

A. The Babylonian Talmud explains the statement of Rabbah b. Rav Huna that ‘‘anything said in front of three people is not considered libel,’’ based on the assumption that it will spread in any case: ‘‘Your friend has a friend, and your friend’s friend has a friend.’’133

B. Rabbah stated that it is permissible to say libel in front of the offended party: ‘‘Anything said in front of the person is not considered libel.’’134 He bases this statement on the opinion of Rabbi Yosi: ‘‘I never said anything and turned around.’’ Rashi broadens this leniency even further, holding that to remove the statement from the category of libel, it is not necessary for the person to actually say the statement in front of the offended party, but enough that he is prepared to do so.135

C. The Jerusalem Talmud cites the following statement in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: ‘‘It is permissible to speak libel about quarrel mongers.’’136

D. bYoma states: ‘‘One may publicize the [identity of] hypocrites in order to prevent desecration of God’s name.’’137

E. Rav Ashi stated that ‘‘it is permitted to call a person who has acquired a bad reputation a ’gimmel’ or a ’shin’.’’ In other words, one about whom there are negative rumors138 can be degraded and called ‘‘son of a whore’’ and ‘‘son of a rotten one’’ (or ‘‘son of a stupid whore,’’ or ‘‘son of a Gentile,’’ or ‘‘son of a slave,’’ according to other interpretations), which casts aspersions not only on him, but also on his mother.139 Similarly, Rav said: ‘‘One may flog a person for negative rumors.’’140 Rashi explains that ‘‘a person about whom it is reported that he transgressed is given lashes.’’ bM.Q. records a story in which Rabbi Yehudah allowed himself to excommunicate a scholar because ‘‘bad rumors had been heard about him’’.141 Also among the rishonim (medieval rabbis), we find that it was permissible to impose sanctions based on rumors.

The Hafetz Hayim dedicates several long discussions to speaking libel about someone who has a bad reputation. In general, he objects to relying on rumors, and prohibits spreading them further:

‘‘If a rumor was perpetrated about someone claiming that he did or said something that is inappropriate according to the Torah, be it a severe prohibition or a lighter one, it is nevertheless prohibited to believe it in a resolute manner [...], and how much more so must he be careful, if he wishes to mention it to another person, not to spread it further and publicize it more.’’173 He explains the permit to denigrate, censure, excommunicate, or punish based on rumors in a manner consistent with his general approach, i.e., that it is only for the purpose of censuring ‘‘evil people’’ and excluding them from the protection of the prohibition of libel.174 He therefore limits this permit by establishing a |series of qualifications. First, the permission to speak libel about a person who is the subject of rumors does not apply to a person about whom there are isolated rumors, but only to one who is regularly the subject of rumors.175 The Hafetz Hayim agrees that for this type of person, ‘‘it is permissible to conclude that he is evil and to denigrate him, even a person who does not know him well.’’176 Second, the permit applies only to rumors about the transgression of offenses ‘‘that are well known among all Jews to be prohibited.’’177 Third, one who degrades a person about whom there are rumors can only do so in his presence (‘‘to his face’’).178 Fourth, even after all of these qualifications, the Hafetz Hayim adds an interesting note: ‘‘And I was very much afraid to write this law because of the libel-inclined persons who upon hearing one negative thing, will immediately assume that person to be evil and degrade him, and will justify their behavior as being based on this book. Nevertheless, I did not delete it, for as our Sages said in Bava Batra (89b) about Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai: ’He said it [openly – a law that the transgressors may abuse] and his source [for that] was this verse (Hos 14:10): For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just do walk in them; but transgressors do stumble on them’.’’179

Part II. Niddah(61a) is an important source for understanding the validity of rumor or lashon harah changing a chazkas kashrus.

Raba observed: As to slander [lash harah], though one should not believe it one should nevertheless take note of it. There were certain Galileans about whom a rumour was spread that they killed a person. They came to R. Tarfon and said to him, ‘Will the Master hide us? ‘How’, he replied, ‘should I act? Should I not hide you, they [the Romans] would see you. [and take vengeance] Should I hide you, I would be acting contrary to the statement of the Rabbis, "As to slander, though one should not believe it, one should take note of it". Go you and hide yourselves’.

According to Rashi, Rav Tarfon is saying perhaps they did in fact kill someone  - as the rumors say - and then it would be prohibited to save their lives because they are criminals. Consequently he refused to be involved in saving them and told them to hide themselves. Clearly Rashi understands Rav Tarfon to view the Galileans differently simply because of the rumors - without a psak from beis din.

[This is also be relevant concerning extradition. [see JLaw Article by Prof M Elon]  If goyim demanded that someone who was rumored to have committed a crime  be turned over to them -  - it would seem from Rashi that it would be permitted to give them the accused.]

Both Tosfos and the Rosh strongly reject Rashi's view. [Chofetz Chaim (6:10 takes their viewpoint]

Prof Elon explains

Why did R. Tarfon refuse to help the suspected criminals? Of what specifically was he suspicious? Rashi explains that R. Tarfon told them, "perhaps you killed, and it is forbidden to save you." Tosafot disagrees, and, citing the She'iltot, explains, "perhaps you killed, and if I hide you. I will forfeit my life to the king." According to this explanation, R. Tarfon's refusal to help them was due to concern for his personal safety rather than moral objections. The Rosh (ad.loc. 9,5) rejects Rashi's explanation for the following reason: "Is it possible that because of a mere rumor that someone sinned it will be forbidden to save his life?" He therefore accepts the explanation of the She'iltot. The Maharshal (ad.loc.), commenting on the She'iltot, writes:

There is no proof here that one should protect a murderer. Even though we do not have the power to try capital cases, nonetheless it is prohibited to save him. "So shall all Your enemies perish, God" (Jud. 6,31), and our hands should not aid them. The reason it was permitted to save them (in the case of R. Tarfon) was because there was a doubt (whether they were guilty) and (we act to save a life if there is even a possibility that it should be saved). Furthermore, each individual is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, so we can say that he definitely did not murder anyone.

This story, together with all the various commentaries (of which only some have been cited above) embodies the different attitudes toward the question of harboring a murderer. Rashi maintains that it is prohibited, even if there is merely a doubt whether he committed the crime; Tosafot contends that R. Tarfon refused them help because of concern for his own safety and not because it was intrinsically prohibited; the Rosh supports harboring one who is only rumored to have committed a crime; and the Maharshal states unequivocally that one should not help a murderer, except where there is a doubt concerning his guilt, in which case we apply the principle that he retains his presumption of innocence.

In sum, we have two different approaches - but they both can lead to view a person differently simply because of rumor without a psak from Beis Din.

Rashi says is is prohibited to save a  criminal even if it just a rumor because perhaps the rumor is true. This is a moral issue. Thus the rumor changes the persons status in terms of aiding him which would include not saving his life. It would also follow that one could fire or refuse to hire a person based on rumor because if the rumors are true then he is not fit for job. This is in fact the view of the Sho'el U'Meishiv and others. A suspected criminal or sinner can be treated as if he is a sinner or criminal.

On the other hand, the Rosh and Tosfos based on the She'iltos says that it is not a question of prohibition to save a criminal - it is whether your life becomes endangered if the rumors are true. Saving someone who is rumored to be a murderer means he might be dangerous to the one who provides the aid either because he is dangerous or because the government will kill the one who helped him. If there were no danger of death - but only loss of money or suffering - than it is reasonable that they would require aiding the rumored criminal or sinner because after all he should be presumed innocent without beis din. Therefore only if there was a possibly of danger to life if the rumor were true - would it be permitted to treat the accused differently. In short the rumors would have to indicate that the accused is a rodef to have an impact on his presumptive status.

However I looked up the She'iltos that both the Rosh and Tosfos base themselves on and there is a major problem. The She'iltos does not say not to save the rumored murderer because it endangers your life. He says because helping might cause suffering. Thus while the She'iltos is disagreeing with Rashi's claim that helping criminals (even rumored ones) is prohibited. He disagrees with Tosfos and the Rosh who say not to help because it is potentially fatal. The She'iltos says it is enough if the helping might cause suffering or inconvenience. 

This is the She'iltos (129). There is no alternative version for the word tzar in the Mirksy edition found on Hebrew Books.

. הנהו בני גלילא דנפק קלא עלייתו דקטלו נפשא, אתו לקמיה דרבי טרפון אמרו ליה: אטמירנן מר. אמר להו: אמור רבנן, לישנא בישא אע״ג דלקבוליה לא מיבעי, למיחש ליה מיבעי, דילמא איתא למילתא, ולא מסתייעא מילתייכו, וגרמיתון צערא לדילי נמי, אזילו אתון אטמירו נפשייכו.

To be continued

  

Still having problems with Disqus? - some solutions

RaP just sent me some information regarding the proper settings in Firefox to use with Disqus.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/974960
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/983328

"The Shabbos Project" - Problems which cannot be ignored!

The Shabbos Project

 

Guest post by RaP

 

What will be "the morning after the day before" ?
That is the $64,000 question so to speak if one thinks about it!

To what does this really refer?

No question about it that something truly extraordinary has happened with the way the Shabbos Project has caught on worldwide. Best wishes to everyone concerned for its greatest success. Mazel Tov to South Africa's Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein on his great milestone, who has now become a truly global outreach Kiruv rabbi following in the footsteps of Rav Noach Weinberg and the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and in fact building on their great successes and examples.

But coming back to the big question, the Shabbos Project begs the REALLY big questions that come in its wake! With its great successes come the great questions, challenges and problems that cannot be ignored or pushed aside under the rug of the current catchy euphoria.

How does the whole notion behind the Shabbos Project (to make people more observant of Torah Judaism via Shemiras Shabbos, a noble goal) mesh with TODAY's reality that in many places around the world, the MAJORITY of people who regard themselves as "Jews" are either married to gentiles given the skyrocketing intermarriage rate, or are the children of non-Jewish mothers (father Jewish and mother gentile and never converted), or are converts of Reform, Conservative, civil marriages and various non-Orthodox denominations of Judaism who "think" they are "Jews" but according to Orthodox Jewish Law (the Halachah) they are still 100% gentiles.

This is the reality that faces us:

"Interfaith marriage in Judaism [Wikipedia]: A 2013 survey conducted in the United States by the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project found that intermarriage rate to be 58% among all Jews and 71% among non-Orthodox Jews." [Reference:] Poll Shows Major Shift in Identity of U.S. Jews The New York Times, October 1, 2013: "The first major survey of American Jews in more than 10 years finds a significant rise in those who are not religious, marry outside the faith and are not raising their children Jewish — resulting in rapid assimilation that is sweeping through every branch of Judaism except the Orthodox. The intermarriage rate, a bellwether statistic, has reached a high of 58 percent for all Jews, and 71 percent for non-Orthodox Jews — a huge change from before 1970 when only 17 percent of Jews married outside the faith. Two-thirds of Jews do not belong to a synagogue, one-fourth do not believe in God and one-third had a Christmas tree in their home last year...The survey uses a wide definition of who is a Jew, a much-debated topic. The researchers included the 22 percent of Jews who describe themselves as having 'no religion,' but who identify as Jewish because they have a Jewish parent or were raised Jewish, and feel Jewish by culture or ethnicity. However, the percentage of 'Jews of no religion' has grown with each successive generation, peaking with the millennials (those born after 1980), of whom 32 percent say they have no religion...Reform Judaism remains the largest American Jewish movement, at 35 percent. Conservative Jews are 18 percent, Orthodox 10 percent, and groups such as Reconstructionist and Jewish Renewal make up 6 percent combined. Thirty percent of Jews do not identify with any denomination. In a surprising finding, 34 percent said you could still be Jewish if you believe that Jesus was the Messiah...Jews from the former Soviet Union and their offspring make up about 10 percent of the American Jewish population...Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist of American Jewry at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, in New York, and a paid consultant on the poll, said the report foretold 'a sharply declining non-Orthodox population in the second half of the 21st century, and a rising fraction of Jews who are Orthodox.' The survey also portends 'growing polarization' between religious and nonreligious Jews, said Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz, senior director of research and analysis at the Jewish Federations of North America..."

The above sources are brief descriptions of the situation of Jewry in North America and certainly worldwide since if anything it is worse in the UK, Europe, South America, and even Australia and New Zealand, all places with significant Jewish populations.

South African Jewry, home and epicenter of the Shabbos Project, is unique because in spite of its slipping from Halachic observance of Judaism, such as keeping Shabbos properly, yet nevertheless South African Jews have remained loyal to the concept of attending Orthodox shulls where men and women sit separately, employing only duly ordained Orthodox rabbis, subscribing to the standards laid down by the South African Orthodox Bais Din in all matters, and just considering themselves "Orthodox" -- but once they land up in places like the USA and Canada and even Israel they find out very quickly that they are not regarded as truly Orthodox since they do not observe Shabbos according to Halachah and do not send their children to Orthodox yeshivas etc.

The point being that while the Shabbos Project and other similar initiatives to enhance a more Orthodox mode of Judaism works within South Africa for South African Jews given their unique heritage and milieu, it does not automatically translate the same way in far-off America, Israel and elsewhere where the local Jews are VERY assimilated, intermarried, have irrevocably abandoned their faith altogether by even becoming Christians.

So the question is, once the Shabbos Project "hits" this "reality" in the way that an "irresistible force (i.e. Shabbos Project) hits an immovable object (assimilation & intermarriage") aka "the morning after the night before" -- the big question is, what will happen and are the people in charge aware of what they are up against outside of South Africa? And note, even with international rabbis involved, those rabbis do NOT deal with such questions because outside of South Africa they service strictly Orthodox or Charedi populations most of the time.

Logically speaking there may come a "project" that will have to face how to deal with masses of intermarried Jews and how to inform people who are not Halachically Jewish that things like he Shabbos Project are not meant for them and that they should please step back. This may sound "messianic" but there have been efforts from very Orthodox outreach sources in this direction, such as by the failed EJF project, that have come seriously asunder and crashed on the rocks due to this very question because the rabbis do not have one approach to CONVERSION and even more troubling PROSELYTIZATION to gentiles, a hugely DIVISIVE issue, unlike something as universally marketable as proper Shabbat observance for Jews who wish to do so!

Have the South African Chief Rabbi and his planners and rabbinic partners all over the world thought this through to its end game and final conclusion or are they just riding on the wave of "ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise"?

What happens a few "projects" down the line or even what happens now during an actual Shabbos Project someplace when the gentiles married to Jews or those who consider themselves to be "Jews" etc discover or are informed, as they invariably will be, that they are NOT truly Jewish in the sense of Jewish Law-Halachah? Do they leave the Shabbos table? What about the wine? Who answers the Halachic Shaylos at the end of the day and has a suitable body of Poskim been chosen already and in place to deal with the tidal wave of inevitable questions?!

These are serious questions for all those involved to seriously come to terms with and be prepared to face as the time comes closer. In South Africa there is the acceptance of the local one and only Orthodox Bais Din, something that does not exist in most places, except in Israel and perhaps in the UK.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed! or as the boy scouts succinctly put it "be prepared"! And as always, life is stranger than fiction!  Once again Mazel Tov to everyone who has made the Shabbos Project such a popular success and here's wishing for the success of the Shabbos Project and many more that will bring Klal Yisroel to a Teshuva Gemura, Amen!

What if Age Is Nothing but a Mind-Set? The conscious use of placebos

NY Times    One day in the fall of 1981, eight men in their 70s stepped out of a van in front of a converted monastery in New Hampshire. They shuffled forward, a few of them arthritically stooped, a couple with canes. Then they passed through the door and entered a time warp. Perry Como crooned on a vintage radio. Ed Sullivan welcomed guests on a black-and-white TV. Everything inside — including the books on the shelves and the magazines lying around — were designed to conjure 1959. This was to be the men’s home for five days as they participated in a radical experiment, cooked up by a young psychologist named Ellen Langer.

The subjects were in good health, but aging had left its mark. “This was before 75 was the new 55,” says Langer, who is 67 and the longest-serving professor of psychology at Harvard. Before arriving, the men were assessed on such measures as dexterity, grip strength, flexibility, hearing and vision, memory and cognition — probably the closest things the gerontologists of the time could come to the testable biomarkers of age. Langer predicted the numbers would be quite different after five days, when the subjects emerged from what was to be a fairly intense psychological intervention. 

Langer had already undertaken a couple of studies involving elderly patients. In one, she found that nursing-home residents who had exhibited early stages of memory loss were able to do better on memory tests when they were given incentives to remember — showing that in many cases, indifference was being mistaken for brain deterioration. In another, now considered a classic of social psychology, Langer gave houseplants to two groups of nursing-home residents. She told one group that they were responsible for keeping the plant alive and that they could also make choices about their schedules during the day. She told the other group that the staff would care for the plants, and they were not given any choice in their schedules. Eighteen months later, twice as many subjects in the plant-caring, decision-making group were still alive than in the control group.

To Langer, this was evidence that the biomedical model of the day — that the mind and the body are on separate tracks — was wrongheaded. The belief was that “the only way to get sick is through the introduction of a pathogen, and the only way to get well is to get rid of it,” she said, when we met at her office in Cambridge in December. She came to think that what people needed to heal themselves was a psychological “prime” — something that triggered the body to take curative measures all by itself. Gathering the older men together in New Hampshire, for what she would later refer to as a counterclockwise study, would be a way to test this premise.

[...]

Placebo effects have already been proven to work on the immune system. But this study could show for the first time that they work in a different way — that is, through an act of will. “As far as we know today, the placebo responses in the immune system are attributable to unconscious classical conditioning,” says the Italian neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti, a leading expert in placebo effects. In Benedetti’s experiments, a suggestion planted in the minds of test subjects produced physiological changes directly, the way a dinner bell might goose the salivary glands of a dog. (In one study, healthy volunteers given a placebo — a suggestion that any pain they experienced was actually beneficial to their bodies — were found to produce higher levels of natural painkillers.) “There’s no evidence that expectations play a role as well,” Benedetti says. Langer plans to further analyze the subjects’ saliva to see whether they actually have the rhinovirus and not just elevated IgA. [...]

Terror Attack in Jerusalem - Hamas says it is natural for them to kill babies

Arutz 7   A baby girl was killed and eight people were injured Wednesday, after a terrorist hit them with his car outside the Givat Hatachmoshet (Ammunition Hill) Light Rail stop.

"A private car hit passengers from the light rail near the police national headquarters. The car's driver attempted to escape and was shot, apparently by a police officer from the Jerusalem district," police spokeswoman Luba Samri said in a statement.

Footage of the attack has now begun to circulate. The grainy security video appears to show a white car careening across the median and straight at pedestrians, mowing down one of them.

One of the wounded, a three month-old girl, died after being rushed to Hadassah Har HaZofim (Mount Scopus). She has now (8:00 pm) been named as Chaya Ziso, hy"d.

Shimon Helperin, the infant's grandfather, toldArutz Shevathat the Ziso family - which had been waiting for a child for years - had been returning from prayers at the Western Wall (Kotel) when they were struck by the terrorist. [...]

"This is a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and invasion of our land by the Jews, particularly on the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount - ed.)," Hamas spokesman Hossam Badran stated on official Hamas television.[...]

Allan Katz - Shemittah and meeting your kids' nutritional needs

Guest post by Allan katz

I recently said to a friend – that the people who cannot  afford the expensive ' hechsherim' , the super glatt meat, the suits and Borsalino hats, women's wigs and Pei'ot , the imported or Nochri fruit and vegetables during Smittah, bug free ( but plenty of insecticide ) vegetables are buying these products , while those who can afford them don't. And it is not  just a question of different communities spending money on different things or having different priorities, but it seems that the poorer communities are cutting back on healthy nutrition and this  is impacting on kids' health development with problems of underweight kids and malnutrition. Stringent bug-free standards for vegetables mean that kids may also be missing out on many important green and leafy vegetables.

There is a video clip of the Harav Ovadia Yosef Z'TL on the -Credibility of the Heter Me'chirah hechsher . The interesting point for me was his statement that if you have extra money to spend, buy produce from the Otzar Beit Din. I have heard his son, the chief rabbi of Holon remark how families and especially the bigger families could not afford to pay the exorbitant prices of the Smittah le'mehadrin produce and meet the nutritional needs of their families.

I was wondering whether parents , educators and rabbis reflect on the saying – when you are machmir in one area you are mei'kel in another area ?

IDF Finally Admits: Hamas Planned Terror-Tunnel Massacre

Arutz 7   The IDF has confirmed rumors, circulating since last summer's war with Gaza terrorists, that Hamas was planning a massive attack on Israeli communities by hundreds of terrorists who would infiltrate into Israel via the vast network of "terror-tunnels" dug from Gaza into Israeli territory.

In an exclusive Vanity Fair report, IDF spokesperson Lt. Colonel Peter Lerner finally revealed that in destroying the tunnel Israel may have prevented a coordinated massacre of its civilians on an unprecedented scale.

"Hamas had a plan," he said. "A simultaneous, coordinated, surprise attack within Israel. They planned to send 200 terrorists armed to the teeth toward civilian populations. This was going to be a coordinated attack.

"The concept of operations involved 14 offensive tunnels into Israel. With at least 10 men in each tunnel, they would infiltrate and inflict mass casualties."

An unnamed senior military intelligence figure elaborated further on how the attack was meant to pan-out: "First, get in and massacre people in a village. Pull off something they could show on television. Second, the ability to kidnap soldiers and civilians using the tunnels would give them a great bargaining chip." [...]

Joey (Deutsch) Diangello - courageous advocate against child abuse and rape survivor - buried in Monsey

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz - A message to Family Members/Love ones of Abuse survivors

Over the joyous Yom Tov of Succos, a 34-year-old man named Joey DiAngello tragically died. His Levaya (funeral) was in Monsey this past Sunday. He was a passionate advocate for abuse prevention and victim's rights, having been molested in a Brooklyn Mikva when he was an innocent seven-year-old child named Yoeli Deutch.

After Joey/Yoeli's burial, a dozen friends of his gathered to share their memories of his all-too-short life. One of the people who spoke was a middle-aged, chassidic man. He softly stated that his son had been abused many years ago and said, "I am terrified that I might be here one day burying my own son."

He said that his family is following the advice they received from Rabbonim and professionals who are knowledgeable in these matters [to give their son "space" and the love/support he needs] even though, "it is very, very difficult for us to do that."

My message to parents, siblings, and loved ones of abuse victims is that you please, please listen to the wise words of that father and support the survivors in every way possible. And to all members of our community, always keep in mind that you never really know what pain and suffering people are contending with.

We are burying far too many of our kids who couldn't deal with the pain and confusion of the childhood abuse that shattered their innocent lives - and for many of them, the support they get from you could be the difference between their life and death.[...]

pix11

*MONSEY, N.Y. (PIX11) –* The marker on the freshly-dug grave in the Monsey Cemetery had the name “Joel Deutsch” in Hebrew, the name 34-year old Joe Diangello was given at birth in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Diangello had walked away from the Satmar Hasidic community — and his name — at age 17, ten years after suffering what he said was a brutal sexual assault in a mikvah bath on Marcy Avenue.

“I think when that person raped me, he murdered my Jewish soul,” Diangello told PIX11 Investigates in early 2009, when he finally started going public with his story.

Diangello was buried Sunday by members of the Hasidic community, not long after he was discovered dead in his Manhattan apartment by a social worker.

His close friends who became his true support system in recent years, after Diangello’s family rejected his new lifestyle, said he would not have wanted a Monsey funeral.

Diangello certainly stood out in a crowd, with his dyed, jet-black hair, black fingernails, and heavy metal t-shirts.

The cause of death was listed as a drug overdose, but many friends insisted to PIX11 it must have been accidental, since Diangello had been taking a more positive outlook on life.

He was running marathons, working as a medical biller from his apartment, and enjoying Yankee games.

Still, his life was one filled with pain. [...]

Should sexual abuse be accepted as an inherent part of football - Sayreville Scandal

NY Times    SAYREVILLE, N.J. — The freshmen were easy prey in the locker room. They slinked away when the older varsity boys barreled in, blasting their music, shooting each other with Nerf guns and stripping down with the kind of confidence that freshmen could only fake. Intimidated by the older boys, most played invisible. But on the day of the second game of the season, Sept. 19, the freshmen became targets in a pastime very different from football.

“Hootie hoo,” the older players yelled before their home game that night, flicking the lights on and off and on again. Then they tripped a freshman in a T-shirt and football pants, letting loud music muffle any noise the boy made as he fell. Two pinned the younger boy’s arms, while others punched and kicked him — not viciously, but hard enough to matter, two witnesses said. He curled into the fetal position and was groped by his attackers.

What happened during that episode and in three other locker room attacks in subsequent days at Sayreville War Memorial High School prompted the arrest of seven varsity players on hazing and sexual abuse allegations, the cancellation of the football season and another round of introspection about the sport and its recent spate of scandals. [...]

The freshmen may now be minimizing any abuse because of the scorn that has been directed their way. Prosecutors here face a challenge: building a case not on physical evidence, but on the testimony of teenagers who live in a world of often cruel peers, a place where threats of drop-kicking and jumping someone are as common as texting “LOL.” [...]

Some players said they thought that the attacks were just part of being on the team, a way for the varsity players to show that the chosen freshmen belonged to the Bombers family. They said the popular freshmen were targeted, not the weak ones. Yet others were scared of the older boys.

“They think they’re joking around, but I don’t think it was a joke,” a witness to the first attack said. “I said, ‘This is nasty.’ ” [...]

The "scientific" claim that Jack the Ripper was definitely Jewish - is false

It was recently reported that a scientist had proven through DNA that Jack the Ripper was Jewish. It is now being reported that the claim is false because it is based on an elementary but devasting error which renders the evaluations totally worthless.

Arutz 7

The scientist who carried out the DNA analysis that identified Victorian-era serial killer "Jack the Ripper" as a Jewish barber named Aaron Kosminski has apparently made a fundamental error that fatally undermines his case, according to several top experts.

Scientist Jari Louhelainen is said to have put a decimal point in the wrong place when using a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) database to calculate the chances of a genetic match between DNA left on a shawl that allegedly belonged to one of Ripper's victims, Catherine Eddowes, and was supposedly discovered near her body, and DNA taken from descendants of Eddowes and Kosminski.

The apparent error, first noticed by amateur criminologists in Australia blogging on the casebook.org website, “has been highlighted by four experts with intimate knowledge of DNA analysis – including Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting,” according to The Independent.

Professor Walther Parson of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck has reportedly “echoed” Professor Jeffreys' concerns, as have Mannis van Oven, professor of forensic molecular biology at Rotterdam's Erasmus University, and Hansi Weissensteiner, also at Innsbruck and one of the scientists behind the computer algorithm used by Dr Louhelainen to search the mtDNA database.

Louhelainen used the database at the Institute of Legal Medicine to match a DNA fragment from the shawl with Karen Miller, the three-times great-granddaughter of Eddowes. Another DNA fragment was matched to a descendant of Kosminski's sister who asked not to be identified.

The error seems to have been made in the calculations linking Eddowes and Miller. If the critics are right, Louhelainen's calculations were wrong and virtually anyone could have left the DNA that he insisted came from Eddowes. This means that Eddowes cannot be connected to the shawl, and that therefore, no DNA connection can be made between Kosminski and Eddowes.

Rav Schochet - prominent Chabad rabbi - bans Telushkin Book For Heresy Content

Chabad Info October 17, 2014

In a scathing letter written by the Av Beis Din of Toronto, Rabbi Gershon Elisha Schochet, he categorizes the Telushkin book as heresy, and demands that the Rabbi who permitted it recant his permission 

In a letter written a few weeks ago, Rabbi Gershon Elisha Schochet, Av Beis Din of Toronto, asks Rabbi YY Shusterman, Rov in Beverly Hills California, if he permitted the reading and disseminating of the Telushkin book.

After a response was not forthcoming, he chose to publish the letter:

I have heard a rumor, that you have supposedly approved the book of Telushkin, and additionally, you have ruled, in your capacity as a Rov More Hora’ah for Chabad, that Shluchim should encourage the distribution of the book.

I am sure you are aware of the Rebbe’s opinion prohibiting the use of books which were written by unscrupulous individuals, even when there is no inherent problem with the content of the book. And the Rebbe held the same regarding books which only referenced such publications.

Also, you are surely aware of the Rebbe’s extensive correspondence regarding the Conservative movement, it’s “Rabbis” and leaders – that the Halacha is they are considered heretics.

You are surely aware of the famous ruling by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, that a Conservative “Rabbi” is not trusted for testimony in Jewish court just by the mere fact that he is affiliated with said movement, and he doesn’t need any prior warning before being disqualified…

Regarding the author, Telushkin – there is no need to do any research, for it is clearly known to anyone who searches the internet that he serves as a “Rabbi” in a Conservative temple, where a woman serves as a “Chazanit” and his assistant “Rabbi” is from the Reform movement,

Although this would have been enough for someone who is a G-d fearing Jew, and even more so for a Chossid of the Rebbe, and even more so for one who presents himself as a Rov who rules according to the directives of the Rebbe – to completely prohibit the above book.

More so, in this case (without even discussing the issue of the author), when many people who are considered G-d fearing Jews, and known around the world as smart people who are busy with spiritual issues (I am not talking about those “leaders” who are well-versed in politics, PR and monetary issues) – have said that the book has some terrible ideas which constitute a Chilul Hashem, so much so that anyone who has any inkling of a connection to the Rebbe, and more so if he has an iota of Hiskashrus, would immediately denounce this book.

I therefore turn to you and ask you, in the name of Anash and their descendants which are here and those that will come, that you please tell me that this rumor is a lie, and there is no inkling of truth in this matter.

If G-d forbid there is some truth to this rumor, I demand you tell me what the reasoning behind your ruling is, and if you made your decision independently or after consulting with other Lubavitcher Rabbonim and Mashpiim, and tell me their names and reasons.

With a blessing for a Ksiva V’chasima Tova,

Rabbi Gershon Elisha Schochet

New book reveals that Eichman was truly evil - not banal

update Oct 14, 2014  of the controversy from Jewish Review of Books

"Richard Wolin’s review of Bettina Stangneth’s newly translated book about Adolf Eichmann caused a stir, mainly about Hannah Arendt and the banality (or not) of evil. Yale Professor Seyla Benhabib responded in a New York Times piece, others blogged, and Wolin responded in an essay on our website. Now Professor Benhabib has rejoined the debate and Professor Wolin has replied a final time. Here's a guide to the exchange from the original review to its last installment."

• The Banality of Evil: The Demise of a Legend by Richard Wolin
  Bettina Stangneth’s newly translated book Eichmann Before Jerusalem finally and completely undermines Hannah Arendt’s famous “banality of evil” thesis.
• Who's on Trial, Eichmann or Arendt? by Seyla Benhabib
  On September 21, 2014, on The New York Time’s website, Seyla Benhabib argued that a “rejection of the ‘banality of evil’ argument . . . does not hold up” and took issue with Wolin’s review.
• Thoughtlessness Revisited: A Response to Seyla Benhabib by Richard Wolin. Richard Wolin responds to Benhabib’s “ringing reaffirmation of Hannah Arendt’s notion of the banality of evil.”
• Richard Wolin on Arendt’s “Banality of Evil” Thesis by Seyla Benhabib
  Seyla Benhabib rejoins the debate, contesting Wolin’s critique of Arendt’s banality thesis on historical and philosophical grounds.
• Arendt, Banality, and Benhabib: A Final Rejoinder by Richard Wolin
  In the final installment of the exchange, Wolin defends and amplifies his critique.

 ---------------------------------------------------
NY Times  [See also Jewish Review of Books]  Ever since his capture in the early 1960s, Otto Adolf Eichmann, who was in charge of Jewish affairs during the Third Reich, has been the subject of unsettled and passionate controversy — centered, above all, on Hannah Arendt’s portrait of him at his 1961 trial. Her “Eichmann in Jerusalem” in many ways mirrored Eichmann’s own self-presentation. She insisted that, contrary to expectations, the man in the dock was not some kind of demonic Nazi sadist but a thoughtless, relatively anonymous, nonideological bureaucrat dutifully executing orders for the emigration, deportation and murder of European Jewry. Arendt’s insights — that genocide and bureaucratic banality are not necessarily opposed, that fanatical anti-Semitism (or for that matter, any ideological predisposition) is not a sufficient precondition for mass murder — remain pertinent.

Yet as Bettina Stangneth demonstrates in “Eichmann Before Jerusalem,” her critical — albeit respectful — dialogue with Arendt, these insights most certainly do not apply to Eichmann himself. Throughout his post-1945 exile he remained a passionate, ideologically convinced National Socialist. He proudly signed photos with the title ­“Adolf Eichmann — SS-­Obersturmbannführer (retired)” and, quite unlike a plodding functionary, boasted of his “creative” work. At one point he described the mass deportation of more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews as his innovative masterpiece: “It was actually an achievement that was never matched before or since.”

The enduring image of Eichmann as faceless and order-obeying, Stangneth argues, is the result of his uncanny ability to tailor his narrative to the desires and fantasies of his listeners. Arendt was not the only one to be taken in, and Stangneth, an independent philosopher living in Hamburg, is able to present a more rounded picture on the basis of previously unmined archival sources, particularly Eichmann’s own compulsive notes and jottings made in exile, in conjunction with the elusive series of taped conversations known as the Sassen interviews. These were exchanges organized in Argentina by the Dutch Nazi journalist Wilhelm Sassen and attended by a small group of old Nazis and their sympathizers. [...]

It is in these interviews and Eichmann’s own notes that he gave uninhibited vent to his version of the Holocaust and his involvement. Since he had a penchant for tailoring his endless chatting and voluminous writings to what he believed his audience desired, it may not be immediately evident why his statements in Buenos Aires should be considered more authentic than the “little man” portrait he painted in Jerusalem. The answer lies in the stance he took against what his Nazi and radical-right audience wanted to hear. For they were intent on either denying the Holocaust altogether, or outlandishly regarding it as either a Zionist plot to obtain a Jewish state or a conspiracy of the Gestapo (not the SS) working against Hitler and without his knowledge. Eichmann dashed these expectations. Not only did he affirm that the horrific events had indeed taken place; he attested to his decisive role in them. Hardly anonymous, he insisted on his reputation as the great mover behind Jewish policy, which became part of the fear, the mystique of power, surrounding him. As Stangneth observes: “He dispatched, decreed, allowed, took steps, issued orders and gave audiences.”

Like many Nazi mass murderers, he possessed a puritanical petit-bourgeois sense of family and social propriety, indignantly denying that he indulged in extramarital relations or that he profited personally from his duties, and yet he lived quite comfortably with the mass killing of Jews. This was so, Stangneth argues, because Eichmann was far from a thoughtless functionary simply performing his duty. He proceeded quite intentionally from a set of tenaciously held Nazi beliefs (hardly consonant with Arendt’s puzzling contention that he “never realized what he was doing”). His was a consciously wrought racial “ethics,” one that pitted as an ultimate value the survival of one’s own blood against that of one’s enemies. He defined “sacred law” as what “benefits my people.” Morality was thus not universal or, as Eichmann put it, “international.” How could it be, given that the Jewish enemy was an international one, propounding precisely those universal values? [...]

Former student confronts her alleged abuser – a trusted gym teacher and coach

My father, locked in his body but soaring free

In 2011 Ronnie Cahana suffered a severe stroke that left him with locked-in syndrome: completely paralyzed except for his eyes. While this might shatter a normal person’s mental state, Cahana found peace in “dimming down the external chatter,” and “fell in love with life and body anew.” In a somber, emotional talk, his daughter Kitra shares how she documented her father's spiritual experience, as he helped guide others even in a state of seeming helplessness. 

 ========================

What's it like to live with-locked in Syndrome?

Three years ago, Rabbi Ronnie Cahana suffered a rare brain stem stroke that left him fully conscious, yet his entire body paralyzed. It’s a condition known as “locked-in syndrome.”

Last month, TED Fellow Kitra Cahana spoke of her father’s experience at TEDMED (watch her talk, “My father, locked in his body but soaring free”), revealing how her family cocooned Rabbi Cahana in love, and how a system of blinking, in response to the alphabet, patiently allowed him to dictate poems, sermons and letters to his loved ones and to his congregation.

Kitra began documenting her father’s recovery in photographs and video, creating layered images that — in contrast to her photojournalistic work — are more abstract and emotional. “I wanted to try to find a way to take photographs that reflected the mystical things that were happening in the hospital room,” she says. “How do I explain, in a photograph, the power that another human being has to either add or detract from the healing of another person? I started a process of trying to tell a story in images.”

As Rabbi Cahana began to regain his ability to speak, Kitra started recording his voice. She is now in the process of developing this body of work for an exhibition to help raise support for his ongoing care and rehabilitation.

Below, see Kitra’s stunning images — accompanied by her father’s poems — and hear more about the thoughts behind them. But first, a Q&A with Rabbi Cahana himself, in which he describes his own experience.[...]

The Beggars of Lakewood - New York Times

NY Times    Once a year, Elimelech Ehrlich travels from Jerusalem to Lakewood, N.J., with a cash box and a wireless credit-card machine. During the three weeks he typically spends in town, Ehrlich — a white-bearded, black-suited, black-skullcapped, wisecracking 51-year-old — haunts the many local yeshivas, schools where Jewish men, mostly in their 20s, study the Talmud and other texts. Sometimes he loiters around the condominium complexes where students live with their young wives and growing families. Some days he hires a driver to take him to the houses of local ashirim, rich men. Throughout town, he greets old friends, asking after marriages made since his last visit and new babies. And at every stop along the way, he asks for money.[...]

The yeshiva students may not give much, but nearly all of them give — and there are so many of them. Between 1990 and 2010, Lakewood’s population doubled to about 92,000 residents, largely because of the growth of its ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. Conveniently located equidistant from New York City and Philadelphia, Lakewood is home to Beth Medrash Govoha, the nation’s largest yeshiva. The school, founded in 1943 by the refugee Rabbi Aharon Kotler, has seen its student body swell to about 6,500, making it just smaller than Harvard College. The growing Orthodox movement encourages young men to forgo or postpone higher education for religious study, and the yeshiva has benefited from that. Other schools have followed suit, setting up shop in Lakewood. Most students are married, and families with five or 10 children are common.[...]

Lakewood is becoming a medium-size city, but in many ways, it’s a pre-World War II European village, right down to the Yiddish and, to an extent, the clothes. The spiritual ecology of the town revolves around the Torah, which obliges that all Jews, even those who are in need themselves, give to charity. And so Lakewood — full of broke students, most likely at the peak of their adherence to Jewish law — has given full expression to the generous tendency of small, diasporic communities, which can be amplified when they find a little piece of the world to call their own.

It’s not that Lakewood residents enjoy having their doorbells rung two, three or four times a day to hear a hard-luck story. But while other towns may criminalize beggars or tell them to move along, Lakewood has an obligation to fulfill — Jews are literally family, according to the Torah. So the town came up with a modern solution to an ancient problem: paperwork. Beggars are registered and licensed in Lakewood, as a means of preserving trust in this community that aspires to be a village but is outgrowing that label.[...]

Aaron Kotler, who hosted me one night this summer in Lakewood, is the president of Beth Medrash Govoha and the grandson of its founder. He dresses in banker’s pinstripes, is an avid cyclist and, seemingly alone among the middle-aged men of Lakewood, speaks without a trace of Yiddish singsong. He has been instrumental in bringing real estate investors to town to feed the growing need for housing. I asked Kotler what he thought of the culture of begging. “I think that people of quality want to live in a place that has a flavor of doing chesed,” or kindness, he said. He questioned whether the door-to-door begging was “the most effective way to raise money,” but ultimately he looked on it favorably. [...]

Sleep deprivation prevents removal of toxic waste from brain

Conservative rabbi is supported by congregation after announcing he is gay and divorcing his wife of 20 years

Washington Post   The leader of one of the Washington region’s most prominent synagogues on Monday came out as gay, telling his thousands of congregants in a brutally personal e-mail that a lifelong effort to deny his sexuality was over and that he and his wife of 20 years would be divorcing. [...]

In his letter to the congregation of 1,420 households, and then in an interview, Steinlauf described an in­cred­ibly close relationship with his wife, whom he met in rabbinical school. The pair, he told The Washington Post, spent the past three years “desperately looking at one another, thinking, how can we hold onto this marriage, because we love one another so much?” And concluding that a reality he’d walled off since he was a boy wasn’t going away. [...]

Washington Post  The full text of an e-mail from Rabbi Gil Steinlauf to the Adas Israel congregation:

Dear Friends,

I am writing to share with you that after twenty years of marriage, my wife Batya and I have decided to divorce. We have arrived at this heartbreaking decision because I have come to understand that I am gay. These are great upheavals in my personal life, as in Batya’s and that of our children. But it is plain to all of us that because of my position as Rabbi of Adas Israel, this private matter may also have a public aspect. We recognize that you may well need a period of reflection to absorb this sudden news. I am most grateful for the support Adas’ lay leaders and clergy have provided my family and me in the short time since I brought this matter to their attention. That support makes it possible for us to prepare for this new chapter in our lives, and for me in my ongoing service as Rabbi of Adas Israel Congregation. [...]

A text I’ve sat with for years is from the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 72b) and states, “Rabbah said, any scholar whose inside does not match his outside is no scholar. Abaye, and some say Ravah bar Ulah, said [one whose inside does not match his outside] is called an abomination.” Ultimately, the dissonance between my inside and my outside became undeniable, then unwise, and finally intolerable. With much pain and tears, together with my beloved wife, I have come to understand that I could walk my path with the greatest strength, with the greatest peace in my heart, with the greatest healing and wholeness, when I finally acknowledged that I am a gay man. Sadly, for us this means that Batya and I can no longer remain married, despite our fidelity throughout our marriage and our abiding friendship and love. As our divorce is not born of rancor, we pray that together with our children we will remain bound by a brit mishpachah, a covenant of family. [...]

Philosophers Debating G-d from NY Times blog

NY Times    by Gary Gutting

This is a concluding reflection on my series of 12 interviews with philosophers on religion. I’m grateful to all of them for the intelligence, clarity and honesty with which they responded to my questions, and to the readers, who posted hundred of comments on each interview. It seemed natural to keep to the interview format, even though I (G.G.) had no one to interview except myself (g.g.). Taking some of the recurring views and concerns expressed by the readers into account (there were too many to cite individually), I’ve tried to submit myself to what I hope was the polite but challenging voice questioning my interviewees.

G.G.: What was the point of talking to a bunch of philosophers about religious belief?

g.g.: The immediate impetus came from the poll I cited at the beginning of the first interview: 73 percent of philosophers said they accepted or were inclined to atheism, while 15 percent accepted or inclined to theism. Only around 6 percent identified themselves as agnostics. I would have expected a good majority to identify as agnostics.

G.G.: Why did you expect that?

g.g.: The question of whether God exists is a controversial one: there have been, and still are, lots of smart, informed and sincere people on both sides. So it would seem that philosophers, committed to rational reflection on the big questions, wouldn’t be atheists (or theists) without good reasons. But it is also obvious that the standard arguments for and against God’s existence — first-cause arguments, the problem of evil, etc. — have stimulated an enormous amount of debate, leading to many complications but to no consensus. (To get a sense of contemporary discussions on theism see the Stanford Encyclopedia’s articles on the cosmological argument and on the problem of evil.) Given this, it seemed to me that at least a good proportion of philosophers would be agnostics, undecided about God’s existence.

G.G.: So you wanted to talk to philosophers to see why they accepted or denied the existence of God. What did you find out?

g.g.: Well, the theists were pretty much as I expected. None claimed to have a decisive argument for God’s existence; that is, an argument they thought should convince any reasonable person. Alvin Plantinga claimed that there are lots of “pretty good” arguments, but allowed that they aren’t conclusive, even though they may be “as good as philosophical arguments get”— which I take to mean that they can make it rational to assert God’s existence, but don’t make it irrational to deny it.

Sajjad Rizvi suggests something similar when he says that theistic proofs “allow believers to fit their faith in God into a rationally coherent framework,” even though atheists may not find them rationally compelling. But the two other theists, John Caputo (a Catholic) and Howard Wettstein (a Jew) think that arguing for God’s existence misunderstands what religion is all about.

In my experience, all this is typical of philosophers who believe in God. As Daniel Garber noted, once upon a time believing philosophers thought they had arguments showing that atheism was irrational. Nowadays, the most they do is argue that it can be rational to be a theist.[...]

Rav Triebitz:Chol HaMoed Sukkos - What is Beis Din?

 Update - It will be  Monday night at the home of Dr. Shulem in Har Nof at 8:30.

Rav Triebitz will be speaking this chol haMoed Succos regarding the nature of beis din. What is the authority of beis din  in the absence of semicha and community authority? What is the relationship of beis din to secular courts and what should it be?

The Jewish community is faced with many challenges and problems which require a source of authority - is that the beis din and if not what are the alternatives?

Those who are interested in joining this discussion Jerusalem - please contact me at yadmoshe@gmail.com

Problem with the Theory of Evolution or "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" (Wizard of Oz)

My recent posting about Evolution elicited many heated comments. To set the record straight - I am not a champion of a particular biological explanation. I simply wanted to note that the **IDEA** of creation through evolution and change - is not inherently heresy. (There is a parallel issue - which also elicits heated comments - of whether Torah was given in its entirety at Sinai or whether the Five Books of Moshe were given together with the 13 Midos at Sinai - and the halacha was generated over time - but that is for a different post). What is heresy is to deny that G-d is the ultimate source of everything.

 On the other hand, Evolution is clearly more than simply a scientific theory. As Prof Abraham Luchins once pointed out to me - The Theory of Evolution elicits incredible emotional defensive and offensive responses from scientists when it is challenged on rational grounds. When I was studying biology at R.P.I., my professor introduced Evolution by saying first there was matter, this sloshed around for millions of years until organic molecules developed. Several million years later single cells were developed and then evenutally multi- celled creatures. I raised my hand and politely asked him how he got from step 1 to step 2 to step 3 to step 4. What was the mechanism? He looked at me in astonishment. "But if you don't believe this is what happened -  that means you are a fundamentalist!" Obviously the most obscene and degenerate state possible. The following Ted presentation illustrates my point.

The following is a recent book which attempts to explain how random selection produce complex traits. At least it acknowledges that there are fundamental problems with the Theory of Evolution. Again the fact that Evolution has problems doesn't mean that the world was literally created in 6 24hour days.

Scientific American Book Review: Arrival of the Fittest

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution transformed our understanding of life's diversity, but it could not fully answer a basic question that still vexes scientists: How does nature introduce complex traits? As evolutionary biologist Wagner puts it, natural selection “does not innovate, but merely selects what is already there.” The latest evolutionary science, however, is beginning to reveal how new traits arise in the first place. “What we have found so far,” Wagner writes, “already tells us that there is much more to evolution than meets the eye.” Drawing on his own and other researchers' work, he explains how large numbers of random mutations within species can combine to form the intricate and innovative traits seen in our planet's vast diversity.

Beis Din - Authority comes from being agents of Israeli beis din which had semicha - how does that work?

Tur (Choshen Mishpat 1): Today, when there is no ordination, all the judges are unqualified according to the Torah, as it is written, “before them,” [Exodus 21:1] meaning before ’elohim, as written in the pericope, which is to say ordained [judges], and we interpret that to mean “before them and not before laymen,” and we ourselves are laymen [in that sense]. Therefore there are no judges with authority from the Torah except if they act as the agents [of the ordained judges of Palestine].

Prof Radzyner has a very interesting article on the authority of the contemporary beis din [click link]

Abstract: A sugya just a few lines long in the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 88b, had enormous influence on the development of Jewish law in the area of the authority to pass judgment given to rabbinical courts in our day. According to the simple, commonly accepted understanding of this sugya, the Tannaim ruled that the Torah forbade men who had not received ordination to act as judges, and as a result, the judges in Babylonia were permitted to adjudicate, of necessity, only as agents of the judges of Palestine we act as their agents). The article reexamines these positions. The first part suggests two new ways to understand the essence of the agency of which R. Joseph spoke in the sugya. The second part of the article reexamines the source of the prohibition, to the extent that it exists, against adjudication by laymen