Special ed programs : Poor government supervision = Fraud, greed and incompetence

NY Times   But his success until then underscores how private contractors have taken advantage of this generously financed but poorly regulated segment of the special-education system, often called special ed pre-K, according to an investigation by The Times. 

At Mr. Park’s company, the costs to treat these 3- and 4-year-olds were enormous. The government routinely spent more than $50,000 in a single year on services for one child, according to an analysis of billing records. 

In all, that occurred 281 times from 2005 to 2012, the records show. 

The money went to Mr. Park’s company, Bilingual SEIT, and other providers of related services, including contractors that transported children to his schools. 

In the 2011-12 school year, Bilingual SEIT billed more than $17 million to the city and state, up from $725,000 it had billed a decade earlier.[...]

Yet The Times found that a network of contractors has arisen that routinely bill for questionable services. 

The Times’s investigation drew on interviews with more than 50 former workers at Mr. Park’s company, including teachers, therapists, administrators and clerks. Parents, city and state education officials, state auditors, and executives and workers at other contractors in the industry were also interviewed. 

Billing fraud appears to be common. Some contractors labeled overseas vacations and spa trips as business travel, or used corporate credit cards for jewelry or groceries. Others hired relatives for no-show jobs, or gave themselves exorbitant salaries and perks like fancy cars, even as they seldom showed up for work. One contractor put a grown son on the West Coast on the payroll, claiming he had opened a satellite office there. Another contractor lived out of state herself. 

The bar to entry was low. One preschool contractor had a previous career in Medicare fraud, federal records showed. Another was convicted of weapon possession and workers’ compensation fraud.

State and city education officials said The Times’s findings were troubling.[...]

Insensitivity to family: The Alter Rebbe admonished his son for being so engrossed in learning he didn't notice that his baby fell out of his cradle

In light of the discussion regarding Eiruvin (22a)  that a talmid chachom must be insensitive to his own needs and that  of his family - the following story raises questions. It is clear that the gemora in Eiruvin is not meant in an absolute sense. So what are the parameters? 

I would suggest that there is a constant obligation to be insensitive for the sake of Torah learning. However when a meis mitzva arises he must give up his learning until the mitzva is taken care of. In other words - Torah learning is the highest priority except in the face of a need which isn't being taken care of by others. Rashi says that one can be insensitive in providing food  - because G-d will provide. It would also following that if the wife or children can not accept living by bitachon - that this would also be a meis mitzva and the husband would have to give up his learning. However if the wife and kids can accept it - such as  the case of Rabbi Akiva's wife who accepted him leaving her for 24 years  - his obligation is to learn and not take care of his family.

Consequently the only reason the Alter Rebbe admonished his son - was that his son had accepted the responsiblity of watching the baby. It was a meis mitzva in regards to the son. Therefore doing anything other than the obligation to learn Torah is only a heter based on the immediate circumstances. Once the heter of meis mitzva goes away then the obligation of Torah learning is automatically reactivated

Chabad: Rebbe's Letters

By the Grace of G‑d
13 Kislev, 5723
[December 10, 1962]
Brooklyn, N.Y.

Greeting and Blessing:

I was pleased to receive the news of your forthcoming Dinner on the 20th of Kislev, the day after the historic Day of Liberation of the Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Shneur Zalman, author of the Tanya and Shulchan Aruch and founder of Chabad.

It is both timely and meaningful to recall the following episode from his life and teachings:

The Alter Rebbe shared his house with his oldest married son, Rabbi Dov Ber (who later succeeded him as the Mitteler Rebbe). Rabbi Dov Ber was known for his unusual power of concentration. Once, when Rabbi Dov Ber was engrossed in learning, his baby, sleeping in its cradle nearby, fell out and began to cry. The infant’s father did not hear the baby’s cries. But the infant’s grandfather, the Alter Rebbe, also engrossed in his studies in his room on the upper floor at the time, most certainly did. He interrupted his studies, went downstairs, picked the baby up, soothed it and replaced it in its cradle. Through all this Rabbi Dov Ber remained quite oblivious.

Subsequently, the Alter Rebbe admonished his son: “No matter how engrossed one may be in the loftiest occupation, one must never remain insensitive to the cry of a child.”

This story has been transmitted to us from generation to generation; I heard it from my father-in-law of saintly memory. It was handed down because of the lasting message it conveys, one which is particularly pertinent to our time. It characterizes one of the basic tenets of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement—to hearken to the cry of our distressed Jewish children.

The “child” may be an infant in years, a Jewish boy or girl of school age, fallen from the “cradle” of Torah-true Jewish education, or it may be someone who is chronologically an adult yet an “infant” insofar as Jewish life is concerned, an infant in knowledge and experience of the Jewish religion, heritage and way of life.

The souls of these Jewish “children” cry out in anguish, for they live in a spiritual void, whether they are conscious of this or feel it only subconscaiously. Every Jew, no matter how preoccupied he may be with any lofty cause, must hear the cries of these Jewish children. Bringing these Jewish children back to their Jewish cradle has priority over all else.

Rav Sternbuch: Media reports of his "Mizrachi speech" are not accurate

Rav Sternbuch has been visiting Tzfas for a few days. Someone who just visited him told me that Rav Sternbuch was very upset with the media accounts of what he allegedly said at the recent Satmar dinner.  He claims that "many things were inserted by the reporter that he never said."

I hope to get greater clarification in the near future.

Two more cases of babies' herpes linked to metzizah

CNN   Editor's note: The content of this story may disturb some readers.

update 4/9/13 JPost is reporting that the initial report was incorrect and that only one additional baby - not two - has herpes.
update 4/10/13 I am not poskening. I am providing a forum for people to discuss issues. There seems to be two approaches here. There are those who are saying "you are a moron for endangering your child for a practice which has absolutely no religious significance." These people's major goals are showing 1) MP has not religious significance 2) It is dangerous 3) no intelligent person would do it.
=====================================================
update 4/16/13 U of Penn issues disclaimer and says study was misquoted
================================================
update 4/11/13  U of Penn study finds no increased danger for MP

Jewish leaders this week pointed to a recent independent study by Penn Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania that found little evidence to support the claim that a circumcision practice known as Metzitzah B'Peh (MBP) leads to an increased likelihood of herpes in infants.

 In a study published in December last year, University of Pennsylvania's Center for Evidence-based Practice reviewed several studies linking circumcision with oral suction, a common ritual for many Orthodox Jews, and herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 1. Though four published studies since 2000 suggested that such a link does exist, Penn doctors found the evidence to be "small and significantly limited."

The study was cited in an appeal filed Monday in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals challenging a New York City Department of Health (DOH) regulation that seeks to place limits on the practice.

  ==========================
My approach is to try to provide cognitive empathy. I want everyone to understand the basis of thought underlying the two sides. So while Doc-J has provided an excellent example of those who are convinced that only delusional nut cases would do MP - I wanted to explain that it is possible not to be stupid or irresponsible and do MP. I am not advocating or rejecting it.

Historically MP was disavowed to the degree to which it was shown to the poskim that it is dangerous. See Sheilas Dovid cited in the Sdei Chemed's kuntres on MP. Very little is accomplished by telling frum people who have a clear mesora for many generations in their family and communities that they are ignorant savages and are violating halacha. Once this need for defeating the opponent fades it is easier to have a discussion and find a solution..[see comments  for the rest]

New York (CNN) -- Two more infants have contracted the herpes virus after undergoing an ultra-Orthodox Jewish type of circumcision, which has been linked to the spread of the potentially deadly virus to newborn boys, according to the New York City Health Department.

In the ritual, known as metzitzah b'peh, after removing the foreskin of the penis the person performing the procedure places his mouth briefly over the wound, sucking a small amount of blood out, which is discarded. Antibacterial ointment is applied and the wound is bandaged. The health department says the procedure is dangerous because the contact with the mouth could transmit diseases such as herpes.

Most adults are infected with the herpes simplex virus type 1, and while they may have no symptoms, the virus may be present in their saliva, according to the health department. (It is different from herpes simplex virus type 2, which is usually transmitted sexually.)

"While HSV-1 in adults can cause the common cold sore, HSV-1 infection in newborns is very serious," a department statement says.[...]

Doheny meat scandal - a story of betrayal by those who were respected & trusted

This describes all the disturbing details regarding the recent meat scandal in Los Angels prior to the store being sold. The article clearly indicates that perhaps the greatest problem is the alleged betrayal of the community by someone who was highly respected and trusted for years as  well as the failure of the kashrus supervision to aggressively follow up on rumors of wrong doing.

Jewish Journal    On Thursday, March 7, at 6:10 a.m., a van and an SUV sit in adjacent parking spaces, in the lot of a McDonald’s near the junction of the 101 and the 405 freeways, their rear lift-gates open. 

Mike Engelman, the driver of the SUV, with the help of the driver of the van, loads something into the back of the SUV. Then Engelman, who owns Doheny Glatt Kosher Meat Market, one of Los Angeles’ largest distributors of kosher animal products, drives off, headed to Pico-Robertson to open his shop. 

Almost exactly one hour later, in the parking lot behind Doheny Meats, the mashgiach (rabbinic overseer) from the Rabbinical Council of California (RCC), who had unlocked the doors to the store and the distribution center just 10 minutes earlier, is nowhere in sight.  Engelman signals to an employee to unload the SUV. The employee takes out eight boxes, hundreds of pounds of unidentified meat or poultry, and wheels them into the store through its rear door.

This entire sequence was captured on video by a private investigator, and on Sunday afternoon, March 24, Rabbi Meyer H. May, president of the RCC, watched the video in horror. What he saw wasn’t just Engelman undermining the supervision of his agency; he also saw the rabbinic supervisor, who is never supposed to leave the premises, break with RCC protocol. [...]

The once-beloved butcher

Mike Engelman used to be known as the butcher with the highest-quality kosher meat and poultry in Pico-Robertson. His store is located within a 10-minute walk of four major kosher markets, and Doheny Meats serves as both a supplier and a stand-alone shop that carries animal products — including rare meats like bison and elk — and little else. The  employees’ white hats and aprons, the sparkling white display case, the thick white paper in which cuts of meat are wrapped — the entire shopping experience there feels like a throwback to a time when most people knew their butchers by name.

Which is what it was: Doheny has been around for more than 50 years, and Engelman made good service a selling point. Whole chickens bought from Doheny, for instance, were passed through an open flame to singe any stray feathers off of the skin. Doheny delivered its products locally, but also drew customers from other cities. At one point in the early 1990s, Doheny was making monthly deliveries to a synagogue in the South Bay and, according to the store’s Web site, which, as of April 1, had been taken down, Doheny had scheduled a delivery to a buying club in San Diego in March and was set to make similar shipments to the San Francisco Bay Area as well.

It was Engelman’s success on the distribution side — selling to caterers, markets, restaurants and hotels, including luxury venues like the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, which made up the majority of the volume of his business — that raised suspicions. [...]

Rabbinical courts can lock up husbands indefinitely

Times of Israel   In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that husbands who refuse to grant a bill of divorce to their wives can be imprisoned for indefinite periods. A case that has been ongoing for 12 years brought about the ruling, which challenged a law that had only allowed for recalcitrant spouses to be slapped with up to 10 years behind bars.

 

The case in question involves a couple with four children who began divorce proceedings in 1995 after the woman alleged physical abuse. In 2000 the local rabbinical court handling the file ordered the husband to immediately grant his wife a Jewish bill of divorce, or get.

According to Jewish law, a woman who is refused a get by her husband is considered an aguna, a chained woman, and is forbidden to remarry.

When the man refused, he was arrested and imprisoned for 10 years, the maximum sentence allowed by the Law of Sanctions, which grants rabbinic courts the authority to apply pressure and impose punitive measures on recalcitrant husbands. Among other things, the court can revoke an offender’s driver’s license and passports, and even jail him, until he acquiesces.[...]

update - Rav Shlomo Dichovsky discusses the issue of get me'usa and various types of pressure [click link for full article]

גט מעושה

בעיית גט מעושה מתעוררת לפני שלב סידור הגט – בדיון על עצם ההסכמה לתת או לקבל גט. כששני הצדדים מסכימים, אין בכך שום בעייה; למרות שיש בתי דין המנסים גם במקרים כאלה לשלוח את הצדדים לשלום בית. לדעתי מדובר ב'ברכה לבטלה', בהקשר זה אני נוהג לומר ש'שלום בית עושים בבית', ולא בבית הדין!

כשאחד הצדדים מסרב לסידור הגט, והמקרה המצוי הוא שהאשה מבקשת להתגרש ובעלה מסרב, אז מתעוררת הבעייה. כאן יש מדרגות שונות בפסיקת הדין:

האפשרות הנמוכה ביותר היא דחיית התביעה לגירושין. כשבית דין פוסק כך, הוא למעשה קובע שהצדדים ימשיכו להתדיין בינם לבין עצמם, עד שאחד מהם יוותר.

כשבית הדין מחליט שעל הבעל לגרש את אשתו, לפעמים המסקנה היא שאי אפשר לחייב גט, ואז רק 'ממליצים לתת גט'. ברור שמדובר בפסק כמעט חסר שיניים לחלוטין, שכן מה תקפה של המלצה זו? רבים מעדיפים לא לקבל את ההמלצה, ולהשאר בסרבנותם העיקשת.

הדרגה הבאה היא 'חיוב גט' – פה מדובר בפסק בעל שיניים, יש לו משמעות כלכלית, למשל לגבי חיוב מזונות או צווי הגבלה.

הדרגה החמורה ביותר היא 'כפיית גט'. בעבר היו 'כופין בשוטים', בימינו רק מכניסים למאסר (ואולי חבל שכן). עד שמגיעים לשלב זה שני הצדדים כבר מרוטים, סחוטים ומותשים; ובית הדין נוקט בצעד החריף ביותר שברשותו, כדי לשבור את עקשנותו וקשי ערפו של הסרבן, בתקווה שהמאסר יועיל.

ברוב המקרים לא מגיעים לדרגה האחרונה, אלא נשארים באמצע.

השו"ע )אבה"ע קנ"ד כא) הביא את מחלוקת הראשונים, אם ניתן לכפות גט במקומות בהם הגמרא לא כתבה בפירוש שכופים, אלא רק 'יוציא'. הרמ"א מסיק, שמאחר ויש מחלוקת בין רבותינו, אין לכפות בשוטים, אך ניתן לגזור על הציבור שלא ישאו ויתנו עמו. כלומר – כפייה עקיפה מותרת, מדובר במניעה של החברה לסייע לאותו עברין, ולא בפגיעה ישירה בו.

הלכה זו הייתה במשך שנים רבות ללא יישום מעשי, שכן איך נוכל לגזור על כל הציבור, וגם אם נגזור – מי ישמע לנו? אך בחמש-עשרה השנים האחרונות המצב השתנה, שכן נחקק החוק ליישום פסקי דין רבניים, הקובע סנקציות רבות כנגד סרבני גט, ברוח הכפייה העקיפה שהרמ"א התיר: חסימת חשבון בנק, שלילת רישיון נהיגה, או שלילת רישיון עסק (למי שצריך רישיון כדי לעבוד, כגון רופאים, עורכי דין, וכדומה). באופן זה ניתן, לכאורה, לכפות גט בלי לחשוש לגט מעושה, כשהוחלט שהבעל חייב לתת גט לאשתו.

אלא שברבים מהמקרים הגבלות אלו לא יעילות: יש אנשים שלא מחזיקים חשבון בנק, או שמנהלים את ענייניהם הכספיים על-ידי אדם אחר; על-פי-רוב נהגים הנוהגים ללא רישיון נהיגה (מכל סיבה שהיא) לא נתפסים; ברוב המקצועות אין צורך ברישיון עסק; וממילא אין בהגבלות אלו כדי להכריחו לגרש.

בעייה נוספת, הקיימת ברבים מתיקי הגירושין, היא בעיית 'מאיס עלי'. מדובר בסוגייה שלמה בהלכה, השייכת בכל מקרה בו הצד התובע גט הגיע למסקנה שאינו מסוגל לחיות יותר עם השני, ללא בעייה אובייקטיבית שניתן לשים עליה את האצבע. בנושא זה קיימת מחלוקת בראשונים – הרמב"ם (אישות י"ד ח) פסק שכופים את הבעל להוציא אם האשה מאסה בו, שכן 'אינה כשבויה שתיבעל לשנוי לה'; אך רוב הראשונים דחו דין זה על הסף, וכדברי המגיד-משנה שם:

"וכל מי שראיתי דבריו כתב שבדין הגמרא אין כופין את האיש להוציא, אף באומרת מאיס עלי; ועל זה הרבו בראיות ברורות, וקראו תגר על כל הנוטה מדבריהם, והם סבורים שאפילו נישאת בגט שנתן מחמת כפייה זו – תצא. וכבר פשטה הוראה הזו בכל ארצותינו...".

ואכן, הן לשו"ע והן לרמ"א, אין לכפות על טענת 'מאיס עלי', אלא רק על המקרים המפורשים בגמרא (מומים, ניאוף וכד'). ברוב המקרים היום, הטענה היא בדיוק זו – הצד התובע חש מאיסה נפשית, בחילה נפשית וכדומה. לכאורה מדובר במקרים ללא פתרון, כיוון שכאמור אי אפשר לכפות באופן ישיר, וגם הכפייה העקיפה לא יעילה ברבים מהמקרים. הצדדים ממשיכים להתכתש, בבחינת 'ירעו עד שיסתאבו'.

כאן ניסיתי להוביל מהלך של 'כפייה ללא כפייה'. פרסמתי את דברי ב'תחומין' ט"ו, תחת הכותרת 'מידתיות בכפיית גט'.

טענתי התבססה על דעות באחרונים, שאונס ממון לא נחשב אונס גמור, וברגע שאדם מוכן לגרש את אשתו כדי להיפטר מתשלומים, מסתבר שאכן הקשר ביניהם רופף ונפשו לא קשורה בנפשה. הרב הרצוג התייחס למקרה זה, כשישב כדיין בבית הדין הגבוה לערעורים, ודייק מהרמ"א שאונס ממון לא נחשב אונס. גם הסברה מובאת בדבריו (ב'היכל יצחק'), שכמו שאדם עשיר יעדיף לשלם סכום סמלי ולא לגרש את אשתו, כך גם כל אדם; 'גט מעושה' שייך דווקא בפגיעה שאי-אפשר לסבלה, כמו ייסורי גוף או עונש ממוני כבד ש'מהרס אותו' וממוטט אותו לגמרי.

מכאן שקנס שלא ממוטט את הבעל – אף אם מדובר בסכומים גבוהים דיים – לא נחשב כאונס לגבי כתיבת גט, והגט אינו מעושה!

דברים דומים מצאתי ב'תורת גיטין' (קל"ד ד) וכן ב'אגרות-משה', לגבי אדם שהסכים לגרש על דעת שיתן סכום מסויים, ולבסוף הצריכוהו הערכאות לשלם יותר. הגדיל לעשות ה'צמח צדק' בתשובתו, שאפילו אם יש הפרש עצום בסכום המדובר, אין בכך כדי להפוך את נתינת הגט לנתינה פגומה ('קט"ו לעומת תקט"ו לא מחשיב אונס'). אדם שאוהב את אשתו וחפץ בה, יסכים אף לקבל מספר סתירות לחי (או קנס) ולא לגרשה. לגבי אדם שמוכן לגרש את אשתו כדי להימנע מקנס כזה (במידה ולא מדובר בהקרבה עצומה, זה לא קנס שהורס אותו!), מסתבר לומר שממילא לא חפץ באשתו ונכון לגרשה מרצונו.

ניתן לצעוד אף צעד נוסף – הרב ישראלי, ב'עמוד הימיני', טען שבימינו מאסר הוא רק הגבלת חופש התנועה ולא הרבה מעבר לכך. אמנם, ברור שלא מדובר בחוויה נעימה, אך גם ברור שלא מדובר בסכנת חיים כבעבר (ואפשר שאכן היוצא מבית האסורים כיום, פטור מברכת הגומל). כשם שברגע שנפתח תיק גירושין מוגבלת יכולת היציאה מהארץ של שני הצדדים, כך גם מאסר (לזמן מוגבל!) יכול להחשב להגבלה גרידא. לכן לדעתי ניתן להציע לסרבן לא רק קנס, אלא גם עונש מאסר לשלושים יום, ובכך ייבחן: אם חפץ באשתו באמת ובתמים, יסכים לקבל על עצמו מגבלה זו; ואם הוא מוכן לגרשה על-מנת להימנע מישיבת בית הסוהר, כנראה שמלכתחילה רצונו היה לגרשה, וסירב רק כי רצה לצערה או לסחוט ממנה סכומים אלו או אחרים.

דברי אלו עוררו התנגדות אצל חברי. כשהרציתי את הדברים בכנס לאחרונה, ניגש אלי דיין צעיר ואמר לי שלדעתו כל הנחת היסוד שלי שגויה – ברבים מן הבתים, כך טען, מלכתחילה לא קיימת תחושת דבקות חזקה בין האיש והאשה, וממילא כל צער קטן יכול להחשב כאונס גמור! במקום תגובה, סיפרתי את דבריו לאשתו; הנחתי שהיא כבר תסגור איתו את החשבון...

Chief Rabbi of France under attack for plagiarism & deception

JPost   Gilles Bernheim, the grand rabbi of France, refused to quit on Tuesday despite admitting to several counts of plagiarism and to deception about his academic credentials.

The revelations have shocked France's 600,000-strong Jewish community and he has come under pressure to quit, but Bernheim said that resigning would be a "desertion" as he came clean on one of the faithful's main radio stations in the country.

Gilles Bernheim, the grand rabbi of France, refused to quit on Tuesday despite admitting to several counts of plagiarism and to deception about his academic credentials.

The revelations have shocked France's 600,000-strong Jewish community and he has come under pressure to quit, but Bernheim said that resigning would be a "desertion" as he came clean on one of the faithful's main radio stations in the country. 

"It would be an act of pride and against the collegial structure that presides over decisions. I assume my functions fully," Bernheim, 60, a modern Orthodox Jew who was elected grand rabbi in 2008, told Radio Shalom.[...]

Bernheim's troubles began last month when a blogger accused him of copying a 1996 text by the late French post-modernist philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard to use in his 2011 book Forty Jewish Meditations.[...]

Last week, another blogger accused Bernheim of plagiarism in a 2002 book and L'Express magazine revealed he had not earned the prestigious rank of philosophy professor that was often attached to his name.[...]

What is music?

 Guest post by Yehuda Z.

It is customary during Sefiras HaOmer and the 3 weeks to refrain from listening to music. In addition, the prohibition against music at weddings in Jerusalem is well known.

In recent years, many music groups have produced a capella albums. However, many of them have people imitating the sounds of musical instruments. Some of these people are extremely talented, and it can be hard to distinguish between the sounds they are making and music produced by instruments. This has led me to seek a Halachic definition of music.

To clarify this, I ask a number of questions:

• Is a sound music only if it is produced by a musical instrument? And what exactly is a musical instrument? A number of instruments are mentioned in TaNa"Ch including metal horns (valveless trumpets and the like), stringed instruments (lyres and harps of sorts), and drums (mentioned in conjunction with Miriam at the Red Sea). But are instruments limited to these?
• Must a musical instrument create sounds mechanically or is an electric organ also considered a musical instrument? How about a synthesizer where the musician literally shapes the sound wave?
• Although drums are mentioned as instruments, they are permitted at weddings in Jerusalem. Would steel drums be permitted? If not, why are various percussion instruments such as cymbals permitted?
• If one were to prohibit all instrument-like sounds as music regardless of their source, would an album of singing with no accompaniment be permitted? What if the album had people singing harmony lines?
• Finally, how does the Halacha look at music that is reproduced electronically where the sounds are really just bits of paper resonating to an electric signal in a speaker? Is this music? Are the sounds a kazoo make considered music? After all, the difference between a symphony coming through a speaker and a kazoo music is just a question of degree. Otherwise, they are essentially the same.

In trying to define music, I find myself returning to two texts: 

• The Gemara in Sukka 51b, לוים עומדין בכלי שיר ואומרים שירה, the Leviim standing with their musical instruments and saying Shira.
  
• The Gemara in Erachin 33b, השיר שהלוים היו אומרים במקדש, ביום הראשון היו אומרים וכו', the Shir that the Leviim said in the Mikdash, on the First Day (Sunday) they said, etc.

It appears that the Gemara in Sukka clearly refers to the Leviim making music with instruments, but the Gemara in Erachin seems to use the same language to describe singing, with no mention of musical instruments. If so, perhaps music is Halachically defined so that there is no distinction as to the source of the sound at all. If music is prohibited, so too would singing. On the other hand, if singing is permitted, than so too would be music.

I would be glad to hear your insights. If you have sources, even better.

And may we all be zocheh to hear the Shira of the Leviim in the Beis HaMikdash bimheira.

Does Rav Shternbuch really believe that all RZ hate their religion

 Major update 4/10/13 Rav Sternbuch says the media distorted and added to his words http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/rav-sternbuch-media-reports-of-his.html


Guest Post of Dr. Nachum J. Stone regarding this morning's post from Rav Shternbuch: Rav Sternbuch attacks Mizrachnikim for hating religion [Nachum Stone is a graduate of Yeshiva University and University of Maryland . He has been practicing dentistry and giving shiurim in Maale Adumim for the last 26 years.
His son got engaged to Ofra this morning.]

He asked me to add that he is not naïve or condescending

 I decided to include Dr. Stone's essay  in the hopes that his well written essay gives a basis of communication between the two worlds.

 updated with my introductory comments

Dr. Stone your essay is well written and condescending. You paint a rather black and white picture - when shades, colors and textures would be more accurate. Your belief that charedim are not hated but only resented - apparently reflects your experience - but that is not what goes on in the world. As Elie Wiesel put it - there is no greater hatred than hatred of brothers.

You give absolutely no credence or even possibility that charedi hashkofa has any legitimate basis in the sources. You seem to assume as something that is obvious that chareidi gedolim are incapable of understanding simple hashkofa - which you in your greater wisdom have been trying to share with them for years. You claim that the chareidi view of Judaism is a major distortion which serves only to protect them from their responsibilities to the greater community. The possiblity of it having any legitimacy seems outrageous to you.

In sum the caricature of yiddishkeit that you ascribe to Rav Sternbuch and the chareidim perfectly mirrors their view of you and your community.  But hopefully that will change.

  ===============

I am very reluctant to say anything in public.

What good comes from this discussion? Does Rav Shternbuch really believe that all RZ hate their religion, their Torah? All the great talmidei chachamim and their baalei batim hate the Faith?! All of the Briskers [ not R David and his isolationists, but the true Rambamists ] hate the Torah ?!

Who hates who here? What Talmid Chacham says of fellow Jews “Amalek” ? I pray that that quote was in error. I still havent met any  yid, frum or otherwise, who hates chareidim , despite [ as proven by?] the erev pesach debate on your blog

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/rav-moshe-sternbuch-concerning-dreadful.html

I know many who hate charedi politics, who cringe every time MK Gafni opens his mouth, but they still NEVER express hatred for the man himself. R Shternbuch is valiantly carrying on the fight on behalf of R Sonnenfeld ,but who gains from this invective?

In Moreh Nevuchim 3:46 Rambam [ it's long , the paragraph on chatat seirim] identifies the first, most recidivistic, and deadliest, sin of am yisrael as sinat achim .

I'll attach here a link to a short essay I wrote almost 2 years ago that was posted on the Havolim blog that addresses the tension between various groups in the religious community that has since festered into today’s “declaration of war” .

http://havolim.blogspot.co.il/2011/07/dr-nachum-j-stone-guest-post-on.html

In the course of his vort on the unique circumstances of Milchemet Midyan, K’vod Baal Achsanya, HaRav HaGaon B, asked why is it that “Frum Jews [who] hate the Chareidim for avoiding the draft.” I would like to try to explain on a few levels. Firstly, no one I have ever met hates the Chareidim for anything. A much more accurate description would be resentment.

It should be noted that all draft-dodgers are looked down-upon in Israeli society. Citizens protest if non-soldiers are hired for entertainment. Most job applications inquire of one’s military service. It’s just part of a society whose existence is so fragile.

HaRav B seems to want to include modern Chareidi draft-avoiders in Rambam’s military exemption. [This is not the place to debate that point, but it is not universally accepted that Rambam exempts ANYONE from a Milchemet Mitzvah. V’AKMAL ] I have never heard any of the yeshiva students make such a claim, but to do so would be ridiculous. Can any contemporary Talmid Yeshiva claim to “פרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם”? These are the same Talmidim who whine when their stipends are 2 weeks late? Who think that all businesses are somehow "obligated” to give them a special discount? Who demand equal funding as army-veteran university students? Are any of them on that level?

Even if we were to grant that the Rambam Levite exemption exists, it certainly is not obligatory upon anyone to exempt himself. Imagine if these “Klei Kodesh” were in the army. Would it not change the nature of the army to a Machaneh Kadosh? How would motivation change, how would morale change? How would the self-image of these Bnei Yeshiva change? The army already has special yeshivishe units. Perhaps they are not perfect, but if they were more heavily populated, they would function better too!

The original agreement between the Chazon Ish and PM Ben Gurion was intended to free-up a few hundred superior scholars to replenish the rabbinic cadre after the holocaust. Now, the Torato Umanuto exemption has become an almost mandatory burden on all who would call themselves Chareidi. They are pariahs if they don’t “choose” the exemption. So the system is abused, and the newspapers duly report the sophisticated massive fraud. 

Fictitious students get government stipends to learn in largely virtual yeshivot. Perhaps the Chilul Hashem drives some of the disgust? Are all the Chareidim being stigmatized because of the abuse of the few? Certainly. On the other hand how many of the Talmidei Yeshivot are true matmidim whose time can’t be sacrificed for communal defense? So the 95% who abuse the system give all the others a bad name!

This leads us to the heart of the problem. The future Talmidei Yeshivot are indoctrinated from a young age, that they are the true defenders of Israel. Without their precious learning we would lose all our wars! It’s hard to fault the kids; the ideology is axiomatic for them. So, not only do they not serve. Not only do they not respect or thank those who serve (and die…) but they hold themselves superior. I think we’re very close to an answer to HaRav B’s question.

Another point raised was “Shevet Levi had the job of davening for Klal I’m sure they did.Unfortunately, these modern-day self-appointed Leviim have neglected that part of their job. The contemporary non-participants would rather stomp out of shule than daven for the soldiers, even the dead ones. They won’t use a siddur that includes a prayer for our soldiers [really, I’ve seen them check]. I had one guy leave the ammud as shatz one Shabbat [and then the building] when asked to say the mishbarach for the soldiers- in the middle of a war! Yes, in America, there’s more of a chance that the Chareidim will pray for the soldiers, there’s less of a chance that the youth might be tempted to be one. Yet still, those shules that do daven for the soldiers are few.

There’s a strange paradox here. On the one hand, the individual Talmid Yeshiva can’t be faulted for doing what absolutely everyone around him is doing, what he has been trained to do since birth. It would be quite radical for him to do otherwise. Indeed, the few charedim who do join the army probably are trying to get out of the charedi system anyway. On the other hand, many in the younger charedi leadership have told me that they know that what they are doing is probably wrong, definitely causing friction, and unlikely to last in the long-term.But they see themselves powerless to change anything; the “street” won’t let them. So the “street” doesn’t bear personal responsibility, but is responsible for the perpetuation of an intolerable situation that guarantees animosity.

We should also bear in mind something very important psychologically- who else doesn’t serve? The Arabs. Who else claims to hate the state and wishes for it to disappear- Simplistic? Yes. But herds think simplistically.

To close, I too, would like to quote our parsha: האחיכם יבאו
למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה?!

Rav Sternbuch attacks Mizrachnikim for hating religion

  Major update 4/10/13 Rav Sternbuch says the media distorted and added to his words http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/rav-sternbuch-media-reports-of-his.html

Bhol  Translation by RaP:

The Ra'avad [speaks out] Against the Mizrachnikim:

They are haters of the faith [Judaism]. Now they revealed their "true faces". First explicit [public] criticism. The Ra'avad [Rosh Av Beis Din] of the Eidah HaChareidis, the Gaon Rav Moshe Shternbuch, chose to speak out against the entire Religious Zionist [Mizrachi] sector: "The Mizrachnikim are haters of Judaism [sonei das]. Today they revealed their true faces." By way of distancing from the [Religious Zionist] entity he did not [even] agree to mention the name of [Naftali] Bennett [head of the HaBayit HaYehudi party]: "In holy places one does not mention such names."

From the time of the pact between Lapid and Bennett, for the first time a Chareidi leader comes out with a sharp [verbal] attack against the Religious Zionist community.

During a memorial meal [seudas  hillula]  in memory of the [second Satmar Hasidic Rebbe, Rav Moshe Teitelbaum] ADMO"R 'Beirach Moshe' of Satmar ZT"L [may his saintly memory be a blessings] that was held last night Motzei Shabbos [Saturday night] in the Bais HaMedrash of Satmar at Rechov Yonah in Jerusalem, the Ra'avad of the Eidah HaChareidis the Gaon Rav Moshe Shternbuch spoke out [nosei devarim], and [verbally] attacked Naftali Bennett and the Religious Zionist community. The Ra'avad distanced himself from [that] group/sect [kat] and did not even [stoop] to mention the [actual] name of Bennett: "In holy places one does not mention such names, but someone with a knitted kippa [kipa seruga] has [now] appeared before us [tzamech lanu] and has joined [in friendship] with people who rejected the yoke [of Torah and Mitzvos]. And [Bennett] has decided to lead a war. Not only with us but also with HaKadosh Baruch Hu [God]."

The Ra'avad did not leave it at that, but he [Rav Moshe Shternbuch] also chose to attack the entire Religious Zionist community: "For years we knew that the Mizrachnikim were haters of [our] faith [sonei das], but they were always careful to display themselves as "lovers" of [our Jewish] faith and that they themselves are "religious" [dati'im] and they came to preach [lidrosh] in synagogues, today they revealed their true [hypocritical double] faces because they have joined with the haters of the [Jewish] religion [sonei hadas].

[DT RaP left off this paragraph which I translate here] "The Zionists and the deniers are the Amalek of this generation that want to destroy religion. The Satmar Rebbe was against the Zionists and deniers from the beginning and he said that it is prohibited to join with them. This that some of them wear a kipa has absolutely no significance.

בהמשך חזר אחר האג'נדה האנטי ציונית המנחה את העדה החרדית: "הציונים והכופרים הם העמלק שבדור הזה שרוצים להחריב את הדת. "הרבי מסאטמאר זצ"ל היה מהתחלה נגד הציונים והכופרים ואמר שאסור להתחבר איתם, מה שיש להם כיפה על הראש זה 'שמעטקלה' כלום".  

Rav Yitzchok Hutner: Holocaust Jewish Observer 1977

   Rav Hutner - Holocaust 

Prof Kaplan's 1980 Tradition article

Also read  Professor Larry Kaplan's critique in Hakirah