Monday, December 16, 2013

Stanley Levitt: Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer's letter to take proper precautions

From: 
 On Behalf Of Shearith Israel
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:19 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Important Information!

The letter below (language is below - PDF document with picture is attached)  was originally sent by the Rav to all Rabanim of the city in August of 2012.   

As Zusia Levitt davens in our Shul, the Rav wants all of us to take the proper precautions.  Never let a child be alone with him in any circumstance.

**********************
17 Av, 5772
August 5, 2012

Lichvod Rabbanim Chashuvim, shlit”a,

Stanley (Zusia) Levitt – pictured below – has faced multiple accusations that he molested young children in both Philadelphia and Boston.

He recently pled guilty to some of these charges.  This of course warrants our being cautious about him.

As such, I am sending you this letter with his picture.  If you should see him in your shul I would encourage you to take steps to inform your congregants in order to ensure communal safety.


Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer

What to do if the marriage is over - but one party refuses to end it?

@ DT- Thank you for responding at length. While many were critical of my assumptions and questions I don't think you addressed the issue at hand. As a psychologist I am sure you realize more than most, that not every marriage can be saved. There exists the possibility that one comes t the conclusion that the marriage is over before their soon to be ex-spouse. If the person is leading a religious lifestyle they will in consult with pastoral as well as psychological counsel. Everyone wants shalom bayit, but not every marriage was made in heaven. I find it hard to believe there is a magic formula to heal every marriage. I also think it is irresponsible to force every spouse back to their partner. Once a person availed themselves to pastoral and therapeutic services and through their competent guidance seeks divorce should he/she remain trapped? Really? If the child is young should the mother not take the child to live with her. ( I am not advocating for denial of visitation / joint custody) however child support is for the child and should be maintained by the B"D if they use it for binding arbitration.

As to the challenges made that this isn't halachically tenable approach because it is modern it must be wrong.--There are many times that times changed and the Chachamim made takanot to address the problems they faced from antiquity to modern times. At some point we as a society realized slavery is wrong, polygamy is not for us and we don't engage minors. There are so many more examples but the point is obvious. This isn't about picking and choosing "chafing," or any other disparaging comment "Dvar Torah" feels the need to insult people who might disagree with him/her.

In this regard the rabbanim of the BDA, the largest B"D for gittin in the US supports takanot like the halachik pre-nup. Before you jump down my throat, please let me know of one case that the BDA gave a p'tur, even with a get that was assisted by ORA and/or the husband felt pressure to give the get and the p'tur was not recognized. While many may critizize R'Stern or R' Shachter, l'maaseh the gittin are kosher and the women are able to go on with their lives and their future kids are able to marry.

Lastly, the idea that a husband automatically gets full custody of a boy over six is equally preposterous. Every case is unique and should be decided on it's own merits.

As i asked before what is your solution? You told me what you are not prepared for- quickie divorces. I did not advocate that position. When is a marriage over? How many psychologists do they need to see? Which rabbi do they need to consult? Is there a list? once one side consulted with a competent rav, and they agreed that the marriage was over and encouraged going to B"D is that not enough. I don't believe there is a simple solution to such complex issues. If you do, i look forward to reading about it.

Weiss Dodelson: Double Standards of the Kol Koreh signers

Guest Post by RaP: [Updated with part 2 and 3]

R. Aron Schechter's signature on the "kol koreh" against AMW is a total joke if one simply remembers what an ongoing chillul HaShem he has caused for almost 35 years by refusing the summonses of various batei din and of Rav Moshe Feinstein Z"TL to come to a din Torah, as the attached documents attest.

(The attached documents, long available online, speak for themselves and explain the hypocrisy and chillul Hashem.)

update from DT
ספר חפץ חיים - הלכות אסורי לשון הרע - כלל י
ג. וְכָל זֶה אִם הָרוֹאֶה טוֹב מִמֶּנּוּ, אֲבָל אִם הוּא (יג) חוֹטֵא כְּמוֹתוֹ, וְגַם הוּא חוֹלֶה בַּעֲבֵרוֹת הָאֵלֶּה כָּמוֹהוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לְפַרְסְמוֹ. כִּי אִישׁ כָּזֶה, אֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ בְּגַלּוֹתוֹ מִסְתָּרָיו לְטוֹבָה וּלְיִרְאָה, כִּי אִם לִשְׂמֹחַ לָאֵיד וּלְבַזּוֹתוֹ בָּזֶה. וּכְבָר נֶאֱמַר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה (הוֹשֵׁעַ א' ד'), "וּפָקַדְתִּי אֶת דְּמֵי יִזְרְעֶאל עַל בֵּית יֵהוּא", הִנֵּה כִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה יֵהוּא מִצְוָה בְּהַכְרִיתוֹ אֶת בֵּית אַחְאָב בְּיִזְרְעֶאל, כִּי נִצְטַוָּה כֵּן עַל יְדֵי נָבִיא, וְנִתְּנָה לוֹ עֲבוּר זֶה מְלוּכָה עַד אַרְבָּעָה דּוֹרוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מְלָכִים ב', י' ל'), "יַעַן אֲשֶׁר כִּלְבָבִי עָשִׂיתָ לְבֵית אַחְאָב, בְּנֵי רְבָעִים יֵשְׁבוּ לְךָ עַל כִּסֵּא יִשְׂרָאֵל", בְּכָל זֹאת נִפְקַד עָלָיו לְבַסּוֹף דְּמֵי אַחְאָב, מִפְּנֵי כִּי גַּם הוּא הָיָה רַב פֶּשַׁע:




Part 2: Weiss/Dodelson: Double Standards of the Signers:

It is well known that Rav Aron Schechter is the "first among equals" on the current American Aguda's Moetzes and that he has the final veto on any decision. Thus his signature on the "kol koreh" on behalf of the Dodelsons-Kotlers and against the Weisses-Feinsteins is not just "another signature" but it is "the signature", meaning that once he signs, then automatically his strongest allies Rav Yaakov Perlow and Rav Aron Feldman also sign. The other signers are just weaker add-ons without the prestige and automatic pull of the Aron Schechter-Yaakov Perlow-Aron Feldman (Chaim Berlin alumni) troika.

Rav Aron Schechter's signature on the anti-Weiss "kol koreh" is its strategic key and paradoxically also its weakest link, because of the fact that Rav Aron Schechter himself decades ago set the trend of refusing to appear before bais din -- any bais din -- multiple times.

There were not one, not two, not three, but four hazmonas (see attached copies of originals) that Rav Aron Schechter ignored from the bais din of the Hisachdus HaRabbanim (the Central Rabbinical Congress of Satmar founded by Rav Yoel Teitelbaum ZT"L a person and group greatly respected by Chaim Berliners -- but not when they got summoned by its bais din!) besides the hazmona from Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L at that time the head of the Moetzes and known at that time by all as the Gadol HaDor.

Rav Aron Schechter remains steadfast in his own refusal to come to bais din while at the same time it is expected that the Weisses-Feinsteins should "come running" to settle.

In addition to which,extra-judicial severe threats of an ambiguous "blood bath" were used by Rav Carlebach's opponents on behalf of Rav Aron Schechter for which they were excoriated by leading Rabbanim, such as Rav Dr. Shamshon Weiss Z"L (see his attached letter) of Washington Heights (see his obituary in  New York Times obituary for Rav Weiss ). Now if that is not called a double standard and hypocrisy, then nothing is.

One thing is certain, that the Weisses-Feinsteins are being subjected to the same cynical brutal tactics, of all-out war, as was Rav Shlomo Carlebach and in both cases Rav Aron Schechter is at the center of the fight. Remove him and his signature from the "kol koreh" and the whole case of the Dodelsons collapses with its "krumme heterim" to abuse the Weisses.

It is time for Rav Aron Schechter to remove his signature, or for it to be declared null and void, on the abusive anti-Weiss "kol koreh" and be called on his unacceptable and untenable actions and reprimanded en masse for them by the Torah world. There is nothing to fear for standing up for the Emes. The time for such "old school" bullying tactics "in the name of halacha" has come to an end.



Part 3: Weiss/Dodelson: Double Standards of the Signers

What type of people have the audacity to sign on to crazy "kol korehs" to destroy fellow-Jews befitting Amalek as in this case against the Weisses-Feinsteins, when they themselves have never responded to far more serious dinei Torah and multiple summonses from batei din and pleas from Gedolim (from Rav Y.Y. Ruderman, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, Rav M. Gifter, Rav Schwab Zichronam Livracha, and others) against themselves?

What kind of people have one standard, or lack of standard, for themselves, but expect others to follow an entirely different set of "holier than thou" declarations? How about one set of standards for everyone? Not for some it would seem.

There should be no doubt about the status of Rav Aron Schechter as a lo tzayis dino (one in contempt of bais din, see attached documents), in this case the batei din of Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L and of the CRC's founded by Rav Yoel Teitelbaum. The refusal of Rav Aron Schechter (what was/is he afraid of, that he would LOSE?) to bring to closure the matter of the genuine dinei Torah initiated by Rav Shlomo Carlebach has cost him and the Chaim Berlin people dearly. The core of the case revolves around both monetary issues relating to severance pay as well as to who is still supposed to be the authorized mashgiach ruchani of the Chaim Berlin yeshiva.

Rav Moshe Feinstein stated and ruled (see above documents) that as long as the matter has not been brought to closure, that Rav Carlebach remains as the only legitimate mashgiach ruchani and that no one is allowed to replace him. Rav Moshe Feinstein further ruled that as long as the matter is not resolved in bais din, then a regular salary is still owed to Rav Carlebach which after 35 years would amount to quite a big sum since Rav Carlebach is still B"H alive and active and has never abandoned his title and claims.

To re-affirm his support for Rav Carlebach in the midst of this ongoing situation, Rav Moshe Feinstein granted him a personal semicha (see attached).

But it goes further than that, a few years back Chaim Berlin yeshiva in Brooklyn was faced with a challenge from the nearby Veretzky yeshiva, that is under the control of the Rabbonim and Balebatim who run the "Landaus minyan" in Flatbush. The Chaim Berlin people had thought they had "automatic rights" to a key adjacent corner property but were surprised to find that Veretzky had beaten them and had submitted a winning offer.

Of all the absurd scenarios of self-delusion, the Chaim Berlin people imagined they could commence with a din Torah against the Veretzky people. To the shock and consternation of all, the Veretzky people hired an expert to'en who basically formulated a halachic argument (see attached) based on the events of Chaim Berlin refusing to respond to Rav Carlebach's din torah and the various hazmonas (see above originals) that were issued.

The to'en for Veretzky's formulation al pi din Torah states quite clearly that the Chaim Berlin people are "lo tzayis dino" (see his attached three page argument). Not just that, but to make sure his case was heard, it was sent to several important batei din with all related documentation. Behind the scenes the Chaim Berliners were humiliated and frantic, supposedly even Rav Elyashiv ZT"L was consulted on the matter, and basically his response was that "people who do not go to a din Torah when they are summoned, cannot summon others to a din Torah" until such time that they settle all prior dinei Torah. And so the matter has rested with Veretzky getting its way teaching an important lesson that has evidently still not been learned, because now "new avenues" are found via fake "kol korehs" that are not worth the paper they are written on.

The moral of the story is that we are dealing with very dangerous people here. The ruthlessness and cynicism of the Dodelsons and their Kotler puppet masters is only exceeded by the cynicism and brutality of Rav Aron Schechter and the Chaim Berlin people who are too intimidated to stand up against his floundering ways (too many to count, such as his support for Schick, Hersh, Tropper-Guma-Kaplan, Kranczer etc that ALL blew up in his face).

It is time for American Torah Jewry to wake up and realize that they are being led down the garden path by terrible Pied Pipers who worship only one thing: BIG Money. Money talks! Forget about HKB"H, Rav Moshe Feinstein, the CRC, Halacha, all the old-time great Gedolim of America, but forge signatures of fake "kol korehs" and join the MOs and ORA and get into the NY Post, blast away at the family of Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L because you want to set up a "new world order" of money worshipping roshei yeshiva etc. is how the Schechter-Perlow-Feldman troika come across. And just as the moral and human failures Schick and Hersh and Tropper and Guma and Thomas Kaplan and Kleinman who all had/have plenty of money to back themselves up and "bribe" their way to top influence, the Dodelsons are loaded and using their wealth to wage an all-out war for a "get" by trying to destroy the Weisses-Feinsteins that is hurting all of Klal Yisroel.

Wake up everyone before you all fall victim to this modern-day Egel HaZahav Golden Calf as the new fake and false "god"!

Reporting Sexual and Domestic Abuse: by Rabbi Dr. Belovski

The following was graciously sent to me with permission to post by  Rabbi Dr. Harvey Belovski. See his  website for other items A version of this study first appeared in the 2014 Jewish Year Book.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Primary problem isn't how to make divorce easy or equitable - it is to convince couples to work on their marriage

  I received the following question in one of the comments. It is a reoccuring question - especially for new readers who have not followed the discussion from the beginning. Therefore I am reposting his question and my answer.


R Eidensohn-
I apologize if this was something you addressed in an earlier post. Can you clarify the position you maintain regarding a woman who feels trapped in a marriage.
I think everyone can agree on a few salient points:
a- The pressure to marry early, and often after only a few weeks of meeting a person, will yield many "wrong" matches.
b- It is better that when a couple have irreconcilable differences both sides deserve freedom to go on with their lives.
c- the corruption of batei din is a "davar yaduah" and many people are concerned when dealing with a B"D.
With these ideas in mind (if you disagree with these assumptions, please respond) what is a woman supposed to do if she is trapped in a loveless marriage? Is she supposed to remain trapped? Is applying terms "moredet" really applicable? Do we really believe nowadays a woman is "commanded" to "obey" her husband? Can she only apply for divorce if he agrees? Another term that I have seen on your site and others is "maus aly." I also think that term is antiquated in our society. Meaning, a woman who doesn't want to live with her husband should not be forced to. Also her choice not to remain married in no way compromises her claims to custody and support. Also using a get as financial leverage is inherently unfair because the bias is on the man's side.
Towards a solution, I don't understand why every B"D can not demand a get and then hold the p'tur until the the resolution of the conflict? Lastly, when there is no unified B"D system what koach does one court have over another to force anyone to do anything? What are your solutions to preventing the next agunah?
I responded

yes Daniel your questions have been discussed in great detail in previous posts

I am not going into a repeat that which is readily available by reading past posts and discussion. Let me just state something which you have failed to include in your list of important concerns.

When two people marry - whether it is because of an arranged match, 6 dates, 4 years of dating or living together for 5 years - there is a possibility that one or both will feel that they could do better after 1 day or 20 years of marriage. The question now is what should be the response if your daughter or son come to you after 6 months or a year  of marriage and says - "I don't think I want to spend the rest of my life with him/her. He/shey bores/irritates/repulses me and I feel I can do better because obviously this is not my beshert."

You refer to such couples as "trapped". You might be aware there is a profession called marital counseling which in fact deals with couples with such problems. Many times it is possible to change the relationship to a positive one. Marriage is usually not something that works without effort. For some that effort has to be primarily in the beginning and others need constant vigilance and others have marriages fall apart after 30 years. Rav Shlomo Zalman once agreed that a particular couple with mental health issues could get married but only on the condition that they agreed to go to marriage counselling for 20 years and the money set aside in advance. I know a young lady who decided she had made a mistake after a week of marriage because she thought her husband's nose looked funny.

It is clear that the halacha does not accept the idea of divorce on demand - something which according to secular society for the last 20 years - is a G-d given right. It is expected in halacha that a couple who have married - especially if they have children - will not simply walk about from marital difficulties but will work on shalom bayis or marital harmony. This is important because it is clear that there is no such thing a divorce which doesn't have negative consequences - especially on children. Your questions are really only relevant after all avenues to achieve shalom bayis have failed.

In the present case Gital walked out of the marriage after 10 months and one child. Despite the pleading of her husband to make the marriage work - she agreed only to go to a therapist of her choice for no more than 4 sessions. The therapist said the marriage could be saved. Gital said she wasn't interested in saving the marriage. She left him saying "you are not a bad person just not for me".

What I am saying is that the halacha puts great emphasis on a stable family. That is really the issue - not the involvement of beis din. If obtaining a get is easy - there is no stability to family life. (And that has a negative ripple effect on the community.) There is no motivation to work at marriage. It is the Hollywood values system. As long as bells are ringing and birds are singing you know that this the right relationship.When the excitement dims that proves that it is time to move on to another relationship. For example it is not unusual when a doctor finishes his medical training - with the devoted support of his wife - he divorces her  for a better and more exciting woman. One Californian said, "When your wife turns 30 it is time for a change." That is not the Jewish way!

The Power of Vulnerability by Allan Katz

The Schechter blog post about great people making mistakes is not so much that they never make mistakes but they (should) embrace their vulnerability ownership of their mistakes and do Teshuvah.This is what earned Yehuda the kingship and the fear of his vulnerability that lost Saul his being king. Embracing vulnerability is important for making our personal lives and relationships more meaningful and an important trait of leaders . I share Brene Brown's research on the power of vulnerability   -  Using your real name on the web takes courage as you expose your vulnerability 
The Power of Vulnerablity (click this link for full article)
Brene Brown  has exposed the world to power of vulnerability and how vulnerability can make our lives better. Her TED talks on 'the power of vulnerability and listening to shame ' have had more than 15 million views.  Embracing vulnerability is also what characterizes great leaders and entrepreneurs, and what earned Judah – Yehuda, Jacob's son the honor of being the king and leader of the Jewish people. Judah admits and confesses that he is the father of the child, his daughter-in-law, Tamar is carrying. This public admission exposed his vulnerability and subjected him to the jibes of the populace. He could have protected his dignity by pretending to pardon Tamar .Instead he proclaimed – she is right , the signet ,the wrap and staff are from me , she is more righteous from me .Because Yehuda was able to judge himself and admit his mistakes he was given the role of king who would  be the judge of his people. In order to judge the people with 'truth, justice and peace ' one needs to appreciate the vulnerability of others.   It was the failure to expose vulnerability that caused Saul the king, to lose his crown to David. Instead of accepting the rebuke of the prophet Samuel for keeping alive the sheep, the women and Agag the king, Saul tried to justify his actions and not admit his sin.  King David admitted his wrong doing with Bat Shiva and   embraced his vulnerability. His kingship remained intact despite his sin. Rabbi David Lapin, the author of   Lead by Greatness   lists vulnerability as one of character traits that define great leaders. Vulnerability is the courage to admit and confront their own vulnerability. The owner of the largest advertising agency wholly owned by a woman in the USA, Gay Gaddis said that when you shut down vulnerability, you shut down opportunity. Entrepreneurship is all about vulnerability. The source of Yehuda's embracing his vulnerability was the name his mother gave him. Leah gave thanks to G-d for enabling her to be the mother of one- third of Jacob's 12 sons .She had been granted more than her rightful share. The name Yehuda comes from the root ' o'deh' which means – I give thanks. It also means –I admit or confess. So Rabbi Lapin explains that when we are grateful and give thanks we are actually admitting and confessing we did not deserve it or we were not entitled to the goodness. Not only apologizing exposes our vulnerability, but also being grateful and offering thanks. [Click link above for rest]

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Tzitz Eliezer - Halacha is binding even when it goes against your nature

I just came across this important Tzitz Eliezer (14:98) this Shabbos. He explains why we find that regarding the justification for a man divorcing his wife - the three views of Beis Shammai, Beis Hillel and Rabbi Akiva are the opposite of their normal views. He explains that Torah observance is not based on one's natural predisposition or personal feelings - but rather through trying to understanding  the Torah and Mesorah as to what G-d expects. Each of them decided that the Torah - in this case - was the opposite of their normal approach and thus they subjugated their natural feelings for what they considered right and wrong - to comply with what they felt the Torah wanted..

He is directly addressing the Dodelson supporter's assertion that the halachos of divorce are a chilul haShem and that they should be modified or ignored. While this Tzitz Eliezar is aleph beis to anyone who considers himself a ben Torah, there seem to be many who consider themselves to be frum who need to be reminded.


שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק יד סימן צח
ומפליא הדבר שבפלוגתא זאת שבין ב"ש ב"ה ור"ע מתי שמותר לו לאדם לגרש את אשתו אנו רואים לתנאים קדושים אלה כאילו כל אחד קובע בזה ההיפך מטבעו ומהנהגתו, בית שמאי הקפדן, כביטויו של חז"ל עליו בשבת ד' ל' ע"ב ואל יהא קפדן כשמאי הוא זה שסובר כאן שלא יהא בעל קפדן לגרש את אשתו משום שמצא אחרת נאה הימנה או משום שהקדיחה תבשילו והקניטתו, ולא יגרשנה אא"כ דוקא אם מצא בה ערות דבר, ובית הלל שאמרו עליו בשבת שם ענותן כהלל הוא זה שסובר כאן שמותר לו לבעל להקפיד ולהיות קפדן עד כדי לגרש את אשתו מפני זה שהקדיחה תבשילו, וכן רבי עקיבא שאמרו עליו חז"ל בתענית ד' כ"ה ע"ב שהיה מעביר על מדותיו, הוא זה שסובר בכאן ההיפך מהנהגתו ושאפי' אם הבעל מוצא אחרת נאה הימנה יגרשנה, וזה אומר דרשוני?
ונראה לפרש בהקדם דברי רבותי הגדולים: ממה שמובא בההקדמה לס' שו"ת לבוש מרדכי בשם הגהמ"ח ז"ל שאמר לפ' דברי הגמ' בסנהדרין ד' פ"ט ע"ב דאיתא: קדמו שטן [לאאע"ה =לאברהם אבינו עליו השלום=] לדרך א"ל הנסה דבר אליך תלאה, הנה יסרת רבים וידים רפות תחזק כושל יקימון מיליך כי עתה תבא ותלא, א"ל אני בתומי אלך, א"ל הלא יראתך כסלתך, א"ל זכר נא מי הוא נקי אבד וכו', וביאר הכוונה, שהשטן בא ועשה לו לאברהם אבינו הרבה חשבונות של מצוה ושל כבוד שמים שחלילה לו מעשות כדבר הזה לשחוט את יצחק, כי יצא מזה חילול השם גדול שהרי הוא הראשון שהכיר והמליך את בוראו על כל העולם כולו והפיץ ברבים מידותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שהוא רחום וחנון ורב חסד ומרבה להטיב עם ברואיו, ועתה כשהוא בעצמו יתאכזר על בנו יחידו לשחטו הרי יעשה תורתו פלסתר, וכולם ירננו ויאמרו שלא יתכן כזאת שה' מקור הרחמים והחמלה יצוה על אכזריות נוראה כזאת, ויגרום הדבר שהעולם כולו יחזור לאחור לטעות בעבודת עצביהם, ויתחלל שם שמים בעולם, ולכן עליו לחשוב הפסד מצוה כנגד שכרה ולמנוע א"ע מעשות זאת, וזהו שאמר לו השטן הנה יסרת רבים וידים רפות תחזק וגו', ואיך תעשה כעת הדבר הזה, ועל זה ענה לו אברהם אבינו ואני בתומי אלך, אין לי כלום עם כל החשבונות האלה, עלי להיות תמים עם ה' ולמלאות אחרי פקודתו בשלימות ובדייקנות. כי ציוי ה' עומד למעלה מכל החשבונות, ומוטעים המה ביסודם כלפי הצו העליון עיין שם, ובהקדם גם דברי ספר אור יהל להגרי"ל חסמן ז"ל פ' ויחי שכותב לבאר מאמר חז"ל בתענית דף ה' ע"ב דאיתא: רב נחמן ורב יצחק הוו יתבי בסעודתא וכו' א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת, א"ל וכי בכדי ספדו ספדנייא וחנטטו /וחנטו/ חנטייא וקברו קברייא, א"ל מקרא אני דורש שנא' ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ה' ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים, וכותב לבאר וללמד מזה יסוד נפלא, דהנה אם אדם יראה בעיניו את ראובן חבירו, ושומע קולו ונדמה לו לקול שמעון, ודאי ישפוט שחוש שמיעתו הטעהו, ובאמת ראובן הוא ולא שמעון כי חוש הראיה יותר חזק מחוש השמיעה, כ"ש אם יאמרו לו על אחד שמת ורואהו עומד לפניו, מי פתי יחשוב אחרת שאמירה זו אינה מכוונת, והנה ראה זה פלא, שרב נחמן תמה ושואל: וכי בכדי חנטו חנטיה? בא ר"י ומשיב לו מקרא אני דורש, ומה תשובה היא זו? הא ראינו שמת חנטוהו וקברוהו, אולם חז"ל השמיענו בזה, שאם נסתר חוש הגשמי ע"י מה שמצאנו בתוה"ק איפכא, ע"כ מסיקים מזה שחוש הגשמי הטעה, ורק נראים כחונטים, כי מכיון שמקרא אני דורש עפ"י הכללים האמיתיים שנתנו לנו מסיני, הרי שהקב"ה אומר כן, וממילא ברור שרק נדמה להם שמת, אבל חי היה, ככה למדו חז"ל תורה, וזהו ההבדל הגדול והריחוק הנורא שבין דעתנו לדעת חז"ל, מן ההיפך אל ההיפך, שאצלנו בעניותנו העוה"ז הוא מציאות והתורה נדרשת, משא"כ חז"ל בעיני קדשם המה ראו את התורה בחושיהם כמציאות, וכשמקרא אני דורש בטלים ומבוטלים כל החושים ועיני הבשר, כי שקר המה טועים ומטעים, ורק נראה להם שחונטים יעו"ש בנעימות דבריו.
והוא הדבר איפוא גם בנידוננו, התנאים הקדושים כשנקטו קו בהליכותיהם בחיים לא היה זה מפאת נטית מזגם הטבעי לכך, אלא מפני שמצאו מהלכים לכך בתוה"ק, שמאי מצא שהדרך דרך - התורה היא להתנהג בקפדנות ושזוהי הדרך לשמור את דרך עץ החיים היא מצוותיה וחוקותיה של תוה"ק, ואילו היה מוצא שצריכים לשנות את הקו היה מיד משנה אותו בלי כל היסוס, ואותו הדבר גם הלל, הוא מצא שצריכים להתנהג בענוה ולכן התנהג ככה, ואם היה מוצא שצריכים להתנהג אחרת היה מתנהג אחרת, וכן גם רבי עקיבא שמצא שצריכים לנקוט בקו הנהגה של מעביר על מדותיו, ואילו מצא אחרת היה מתנהג כפי שמצא, ואם כן אין כל פלא אם בדרך ההנהגה שבין איש לאשתו מתי שאפשר לבעל לגרשה נקטו כל אחד מהם בקו אחר מכגון שנהגו בהליכותיהם עם בני האדם. כי בכאן כל אחד מהם מקרא הוא דורש על כך עפ"י הכללים שהיה לכל אחד מהם בקבלה מרבם, ומכיון שמקרא המה דורשים בזה אם כן סברו שככה היא הקבלה בזה עד למשה מסיני, ואם כן בטלו לפי תומת צדקתם הגדולה את הקו שנקטו להם בדרכי הליכותיהם עם בני האדם, ולא הביטו אם דרכם כאן סותר לדרכם האחר, וקבעו בכאן את ההלכה בזה לפי המקרא שדרשו בזה, כי כאמור גם דרכם האחרת לא בחרו מפני נטיית מזגם הטבעי כי אם רק לפי שמצאו שכך היא דרך התורה, ולכן אם כאן מצאו המקרא אני דורש שמורה לנקוט בכאן קו אחר נקטו כפי שמורה להם הדרש, כי צו התורה עומד למעלה מכל החשבונות, ומוטעים המה כלפי הצו הזה, וכל החושים ועיני הבשר מבוטלים כלפי המקרא אני דורש, כי זהו המציאות, וזוהי הדרך דרך התורה ללכת בה ואחריה בתמימות מבלי לנטות ימין או שמאל.

Affluenza (abuse from poor parenting) successfully used as excuse in drunk driving murder

Time Magazine    Is bad parenting an excuse for murder?

That’s what Scott Brown, attorney for Ethan Couch and an expert witness psychologist, implied when he used the term “affluenza” to argue against intoxication manslaughter and assault charges for his client. Couch, 16, was on trial after he stole beer from a Walmart last summer, got drunk at a party, and gunned his car into four victims who had stopped on the side of a Burleson, Tex. road to help a stranded motorist. All four died, and both passengers in Couch’s pickup truck who were riding in the open bed were tossed from the vehicle; one is unable to move or talk due to brain injuries.

But even though Couch was behind the wheel, it wasn’t he, argued psychologist G. Dick Miller, who should bear the burden of punishment for the tragedy. Instead, it was his parents, who raised their boy with few limits and even less discipline, indulging him to the point where he was unable to appreciate the importance of rules and laws, not to mention the consequences of breaking them.

Brown and Miller may have twisted the term a bit – affluenza more often refers to overconsumption and materialism, or the general psychological malaise, lack of motivation and guilt that wealthy young people feel as a result of their extreme privilege. Brown and Miller took it further, to incorporate the lack of accountability and belief among entitled rich kids that money can solve all problems.

Their definition placed the blame at the feet of Couch’s parents, who, according to CNN, allowed their son to drink at age 13. “There are certain things that society expects from parents in terms of providing for their children,” says Dr. Cindy Christian, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on child abuse and neglect. “Children need physical things – food, clothing, shelter and education. And they need nurturing, love and discipline. Parents are responsible for teaching their children right from wrong.”

Couch’s defense argued that his parents did not fulfill this responsibility adequately; could that be considered neglect, or even abuse? “If you think of what children need, and what parents are supposed to be providing, then yes, theoretically you could make the argument that [such parenting] is neglectful,” says Christian, who chairs the child abuse and neglect prevention program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. [...]

Friday, December 13, 2013

Rabbis Epstein Wolmark Belsky alleged beating of Rabbi Rubin:Village Voice documents

Guest Post from OutragedDecember 13, 2013 at 4:49 AM

The Village Voice reporter who recently wrote a story on Rabbi Mendel Epstein posted online some of the  court documents  from Rabbi Avraham Rubin’s civil lawsuit against Rabbis Belsky, Wolmark, Epstein, and Ralbag, Jay “Yaakov” Goldstein, and others, for their roles in the kidnapping and beating of Rabbi Rubin.

Page 17 – 20 has transcripts from a telephone conversation with Rabbi Belsky in which Rabbi Belsky admits that he ordered that Rabbi Avraham Rubin should be subject to kfiyah bshotim (coercion with the use of force).

Pages 21 – 26 has transcripts from a telephone conversation with Jay “Yaakov” Goldstein in which he describes participating in the attack on Rabbi Avraham Rubin.

One of the documents posted online is an affidavit by Michael Vecchione, the prosecutor who was in charge of the case, which the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, left by DA Joe Hynes, refused to prosecute. Interestingly, Michael Vecchione has also been involved in other cases in which DA Hynes has refused to prosecute politically-connected Orthodox Jews who committed crimes against other Orthodox Jews. For example, see these posts on Frumfollies and Daas Torah:




Thursday, December 12, 2013

Asarah B’Teives – Different than other Fasts? by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5 Towns Jewish Times    Rav Yoseph Karo (Bais Yoseph 550) cites the view of the Avudraham that the fast of Asara b’Taives is different than all of the other fasts.  How so?  If Asarah b’Taives were to fall on Shabbos (which it doesn’t), it would not be pushed off to another day.  It would have to be observed on the Shabbos itself.

Why would this be the case?

The Avudraham explains that it is on account of a verse found in Sefer Yechezkel (24:2), “On that very day..”  which equates it to Yom Kippur.   Rav Karo states that he does not know from where the Avudraham derived this .  Rav Karo further notes that the tenth of Taives will at times fall on a Friday, but none of the other fasts ever do.  In Shulchan Aruch itself (550) Rav Karo rules that none of the four fasts set aside Shabbos[1], but we will deal with the view of the Avudraham in this essay.
UNDERSTANDING THE RATIONALE
We must also try to understand why it is, according to the Avudraham, that Asrah B’Taives is different than the other fasts, and why the Avudraham chose to state this difference regarding Shabbos when he himself writes that it never actually falls on Shabbos!
Also, notwithstanding that the fast appears in Tanach – at the end of the day, it is a Rabbinic enactment.  Oneg Shabbos, enjoying ourselves on the Shabbos, is according to most Poskim – a Torah obligation!  Why would Asarah b’Taives set Shabbos aside?

FOUR POSSIBILITIES [...]

CONCLUSION
Ultimately, of course, the halacha is not like the Avudraham.  However, we can still derive remarkable insight and inspiration from all four of the explanations to his words.  We should contemplate the words of the Yaaros Dvash that Asarah B’Taives encompasses all three tragedies.

We can be inspired from the fact that, according to both the Yaaros Dvash and the Bnei Yissasschar, beginnings do matter and they matter enormously.  They carry within them messages of tremendous import.

The idea that the Chsam Sofer presents of Asarah B’Teives being unique in that it is an opportunity to change the course of our future is also something that should be welcomed.  Finally, one can also learn much from the opinions of the Minchas Chinuch and Rav Soloveitchiks that the fast days are indeed very weighty, and at least according to their view, they would even set aside the Shabbos itself were it not for other factors.

We should utilize all of these explanations to help add vitality to our observance of the fast days in general and Asarah B’Taives specifically.

Weiss-Dodelson: A plea from a friend of Gital & Avraham Meir


Dear Avrom Meir and Gital,

Personally, I am sick to my stomach by what has been going on. First of all, Avrom Meir, it's time to be the big boy here and give Gital her get.  Second, I want to point out how sick I am by the Dodelson family. Going after the father who supports Avrom Meir I can understand, but you sank to a whole new level of low! A 70 year old grandmother and grandfather who are very well respected people and who's whole lives are based on shalom, is sick and mind blowing to me. I think that the Dodelson family owes an apology to Rav Reuven and Rebbitzin Sheila, a public one, because you publicly made them look bad and said hurtful things.

As far as taking or trying to take down a yeshivah you better ask God to forgive you and ask the entire klal yisroel to forgive you for the chilul hashem and disgrace that you caused. I am saying it the way it is because no one else seems to have it in them. Shame on those who signed things without really knowing what is going on. And when they did, could not find the strength to make things right. At this point I turn to Rav Malkiel Kotler who is the rosh yeshiva in BMG, I just don't know how you allowed this to go on.

Gital, I feel bad for you but not that you are an "aguna". Avrom Meir, move on, get a life, try to find someone else. Realize your family is getting hurt, losing their livelihoods, stop being so selfish and open your eyes. Realize, both of you, will not have time to ever see the kid you are fighting over  because you are to busy getting nowhere! You both lost! Face the music, give a get. And Gital, realize what you have done and suffer the consequences. It's time to get it over with. Enough aggravation caused on both ends. Enough money spent. Enough chilul hashem.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: A supporter of Gital responds to my postings

I recently had an exchange of a emails with Atara Levine - a staunch supporter of Gital - who doesn't think very much of my postings or me and stated that I was headed for a hot place in the next world. When I suggested that she write a guest post, "that explains Gital's strategy and perhaps give some inside information as to how the gedolim you cited support Gital's pronouncements and actions." she sent me the following. 

I agree with her that the basis of the present chilul hashem started when these major rabbinical figures signed this Kol Koreh which has no basis in Shulchan Aruch or poskim.
============================================
sure thing my friend. please post this guest post. it includes e/th.

Regarding the matter of Avrohom Meir Weiss, son of Yosaif Asher Weiss: He went to court and refused to come to Bais Din. A Siruv has been issued against him by Bais Din Mechon L’hoyroa. And, for more than three years he has been withholding a Get from his wife.

The laws regarding Avrohom Meir are detailed in Shulchan Aruch (Jewish Code of Law). He is to be dealt with like someone who is in Niddui. No one may come within four amos of him; no one may eat or drink together with him; he cannot be part of a zimun nor may he count towards a minyan, etc.

We turn to the administration of the Yeshiva of Staten Island, where he studies, to protest against him and to remove him from the Kollel.

We also turn to Artscroll (where his father and uncle who support him work) to protest against his family and to remove them from their positions, for it is not fitting that Torah should be transmitted through them.

We have been asked by the family of the Agunah, and by those who wish to save her from the chains of her detention, what is permissible according to the Torah. Is it permissible to protest against him and to gather in public protest and is it permissible to make it known publicly and in the newspapers?

We state that, according to the Torah, it is permissible and it is a mitzvah to protest against him, to gather publicly in front of his house and in other places, and to make the matter known publicly and in the newspapers in order to save an oppressed woman from her oppressor and an Agunah from being chained.

There is an obligation upon anyone who is able to do so, to influence Avrohom Meir that he should listen to Bais Din and that he should give a Get.

We affix our signatures on the 22nd day of Shevat, 5773
Rabbi Yaakov Perlow
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky
Rabbi Aharon Moshe Schechter (in great and deep pain due to the Chillul Hashem which has brought us
to take this step)
Rabbi Aharon Feldman
Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld
Rabbi Nota Tzvi Greenblatt
Rabbi Tzvi Schechter
Rabbi Moshe Heineman (I agree with all of the above until he comes to Bais Din)
Rabbi Elya Dov Wachtfogel
Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer