Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Is Trump ‘Presidential’? Is Anyone?


Of the many words Donald Trump has uttered over the last nine months — all the insightful insults and blustery boasts, all the syntax-slaying murk that sometimes boomerangs back into sense and all the hateful hate that doesn’t — last month brought a new flash of negative élan. Trump was speaking at a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., when he took stock of his own demeanor as a candidate.

“Now, my wife is constantly saying, ‘Darling, be more presidential.’ I just don’t know that I want to do it quite yet,” he told a packed, ready-to-rock house. “At some point I’m going to be so presidential that you people will be so bored. And I’ll come back as a presidential person, and instead of 10,000 people, I’ll have about 150 people, and they’ll say, ‘But, boy, he really looks presidential!’ ”

When we’re thinking about voting for president, we’re also thinking about what’s “presidential.” I never know quite what that means, except that, like the sitcom-wife version of Melania Trump in her husband’s anecdote, I kind of do. It connotes carriage and posture and intelligence. It captures dignified comportment and a degree of knowledge. It’s the ability to depict leadership, from lecterns to tarmacs. It’s partly cosmetic — is this person tall, passably fit, loosely attractive, warm? — and almost entirely presentational. It’s the seriousness a candidate has to project in order to be taken seriously, only without seeming dour or battery-operated. “Presidential” used to be something to aspire to. All of that authority, know-how, gravitas, good posture and moral rectitude — it seemed so important, so adult, so American.

But Trump has tapped into something else about “presidential”: If it’s a performance, then it can be switched on and off as needed. You can trace this tactic as far back as, improbably, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In her book “Voting Deliberatively: F.D.R. and the 1936 Presidential Campaign,” Mary E. Stuckey writes that, during the summer months before the election: “F.D.R. concentrated on being presidential. So determinedly nonpolitical was he, in fact, that Roosevelt didn’t actually acknowledge he was running for re-election until late September.” But when he finally did campaign, Roosevelt “came out swinging” against his Republican opponents. In Stuckey’s rendering, “presidential” requires remaining above the fray that running for president invariably requires leaping into.[...]

By the late 20th century, “presidential” had become entirely bound up in technological savvy, and Reagan, as could be expected from a former president of the Screen Actors Guild, was an artist when it came to optics. Brian Balogh, a professor at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and co-host of the radio show “BackStory With the American History Guys,” told me that “Reagan’s stroke of genius was to continue running against the establishment while he was actually the president.” This was a man who, during his 1984 re-election bid, had Air Force One land just outside the Daytona International Speedway to attend the Fourth of July Firecracker 400. “A lot of people,” Balogh said, “would say that was unpresidential.” A decade later, the nation would be in the midst of an ongoing fit over all things “unpresidential,” thanks to Bill Clinton’s sax playing, his stated preference for briefs over boxers (on MTV!), his extramarital affair.[...]

Obama’s demeanor has always suggested that he believes in the office; Trump’s has always suggested that he doesn’t. If Trump is a student of history, he has surely surmised that “presidential” is a kind of fraud, one he can put to farcical ends on the campaign trail. In order to seem presidential, he’ll just have to pause being “demagogic,” “sexist,” “authoritarian,” “bigoted” and “nationalistic.”

And once he officially gets the nomination, his final opponent will bring “presidential” to another crossroads. The national data set for the concept has been almost entirely male. But has any 2016 candidate checked off the “presidential” boxes more dutifully than Hillary Clinton? She embodies both the authority and the stodginess of the term. She’s serious, sturdy, studied and commanding. Unlike Trump, she has a track record of public service. She is also, arguably, the face of what a sham that gravitas can be; people simply don’t trust her.

Americans don’t yet know what to do with a presidential woman. Neither, it seems, does Clinton. Trump is making “anti-presidential” look easy, while she’s making the real thing look hard. That neurotic quality is what Kate McKinnon, on “Saturday Night Live,” pours into her strange, affectionate incarnation of Clinton: wanting the job so badly that she can seem pathologically presidential. She just happens to be running against somebody happy to act as if he doesn’t really want it at all.

As Attention Grows, Transgender Children’s Numbers Are Elusive



The Obama administration’s directive last week instructing public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify with has set off an intense debate.

Many politicians and parents have raised alarms about privacy and warned of predatory boys sneaking into girls’ bathrooms. But others say that such accommodations are critical protections for a vulnerable population.

For all of the heated debate, a central fact remains elusive: How many students are we talking about?

No one knows for sure. Researchers have not figured out how to obtain consistent, reliable answers from teenagers, much less younger children. 

The best estimates are that the population is small, probably under 1 percent of adolescents. [...]

====================================

Transgender Bathroom Debate Turns Personal at a Vermont High School


The way A J Jackson tells it, he kept his head ducked down and pretended to fiddle with his cellphone as he walked into the boys’ bathroom and headed for a stall at Green Mountain Union High School here.

But the way some of his classmates see it, A J was still Autumn Jackson, a girl in boys’ clothing, who had violated an intimate sanctum, while two boys were standing at a urinal, their private parts exposed.

“It’s like me going into a girls’ bathroom wearing a wig,” Tanner Bischofberger, 15, a classmate of A J Jackson’s, who was not one of those in the bathroom, said this week. “It’s just weird.” [...]

And the dispute has driven apart young people who grew up together and were once friends.

Some say the new rule opens the door to sexual predators disguised as someone they are not. Others say it just violates tradition. A society has rules for a reason, and this is one of those rules, that’s just the way it is, they say.

But on a more basic level, students at Green Mountain are complaining that a small vocal minority of gay, lesbian and, as far as they know, one — or maybe two — transgender students among them are trampling on the rights of the majority to decide what the rules of conduct should be. [...]

Mr. Jackson has gradually been making the transition from a vivacious girl with a big smile and long wavy locks to a husky boy with chopped hair dyed several shades of green, snakebite piercings in his lips and gauges embedded in his earlobes. His chest is visibly bound, and because he has not yet started taking male hormones — he plans to do that, and also to have “top surgery,” he says — his face is smooth and still has feminine contours. He once thought he was lesbian, and is still attracted to girls.[...]

Hank Mauti, a school board member and retired sawmill worker from Andover, said he wondered why Mr. Jackson would feel compelled to use a boys’ bathroom when there were six single-use gender-neutral bathrooms in the school.

“What about the little boy that reported it?” asked Mr. Mauti’s wife, Wanda, repeating the rumor, in an interview in their home, under a trophy of a moose that Mr. Mauti shot. “As far as I can tell, his discomfort hasn’t been addressed.” [...]

Melania Trump: Julia Ioffe 'Provoked' anti-Semitic Death Threats


Melania Trump, the wife of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on Tuesday suggested that journalist Julia Ioffe “provoked” the anti-Semitic abuse she faced from Trump fans after publishing negative profile about her.

“I don’t control my fans,” Melania said in an interview with DuJour. “But I don’t agree with what they’re doing. I understand what you mean, but there are people out there who maybe went too far. She provoked them."

Ioffe, who is Jewish, received calls from people playing Hitler speeches, told that she “should be burned in an oven,” “be shot in the head,” and was sent photoshopped images of her in a concentration camp uniform.

In a statement released last week, ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt urged Trump to denounce the barrage of anti-Semitic comments by some of his supporters on social media. “The onus is now on Donald Trump to make unequivocally clear he rejects those sentiments and that there is no room for .. anti-Semitism in his campaign and in society,” Greenblatt said.

Trump refused to condemn his fans in an interview with CNN.

“You hated this article in ‘GQ’ about your wife, Melania. Julia Ioffe wrote it. Since then, some of your supporters have viciously attacked this woman, Julia Ioffe, with anti-Semitic attacks, death threats. What’s your message to these people when something like that happens?” Wolf Blitzer asked the presumptive Republican presidential nominee during an interview on Wednesday. “I’ll tell you, I haven’t read the article, but I hear it was a very inaccurate article and I heard it was a nasty article… They shouldn’t be doing that with wives. I mean they shouldn’t be doing that,” he responded. [...]

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Who Was Abused? The victims of false abuse charges and claims of satanic rings

It is important to keep in mind that just as there is the horror of child abuse - there is also the horror of false accusations. The following article describes some of the victims of crusading prosecutors and child protective services who manipulated children into giving false testimony and destroying their own parents. Despite the fact that most of these witch hunt convictions were overturned - sometimes after the innocent spent decades in jail - the people responsible for these serious miscarriages of justice are unrepentant and are still convinced that they were right. Caring for children and being horrified by child abuse - does not justify the wrong that is done to get a conviction of anyone who is accused of child abuse.


For a more realistic appreciation of the horrors of having your own children taken away and pressured into giving false testimony that resulted in sentences of over 200 years for each of the parents - there a movie depicting an actual case "Just ask my children". The innocent parents remained in jail for 12 years while their children were in 16 different foster homes - until their sentence was overturned.




=====================================
NY Times  by
There are several ways to view the small white house on Center Street in Bakersfield, Calif. From one perspective it's just another low-slung home in a working-class neighborhood, with a front yard, brown carpeting, a TV in the living room. Now consider it from the standpoint of the Kern County district attorney's office: 20 years ago, this was a crime scene of depraved proportions. According to investigators, in the living room with brown carpeting and a TV, boys between the ages of 6 and 8 were made to pose for pornographic photos. On a water bed in the back bedroom, the boys were sodomized by three men, while a mother had sex with her own son.

But look at the house once again -- this time, through Ed Sampley's eyes. Twenty years ago he was one of the boys molested in the house where sex abuse was part of the weekend fabric. That's what he told Kern County investigators. That's what he told a judge, a jury and a courtroom of lawyers. The testimony of Sampley and five other boys was the prosecution's key evidence in a trial in which four defendants were convicted, with John Stoll, a 41-year-old carpenter, receiving the longest sentence of the group: 40 years for 17 counts of lewd and lascivious conduct.

Now for the first time in 20 years, Sampley is back in the driveway of that small white house. "It never happened," he tells me. He lied about Stoll, an easygoing divorced father who always insisted the neighborhood kids call him John rather than Mr. Stoll and let them run in and out of his house in their bathing suits, eat popcorn on the living-room floor and watch "fright night" videos.

Last January, Sampley and three other former accusers returned to the courthouse where they had testified against Stoll. This time they came to say Stoll never molested them. They are in their late 20's now. They have jobs in construction, car repair, sales. A couple of them have children about the same age as they were when they testified. Although most of the boys drifted apart after the trial, their life stories echo with similarities. Each of them said he always knew the truth -- that Stoll had never touched them. Each said that he felt pressured by the investigators to describe sex acts. A fifth accuser isn't sure what happened all those years ago but has no memory of being molested. During the court hearing to release Stoll, only his son Jed remained adamant that his father had molested him, though he couldn't remember details of the abuse: "I've been through many years of therapy to try to get over that," he told the court.

Maggie Bruck, co-author of "Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children's Testimony" and a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, says no long-term psychological studies exist that track groups of children involved in alleged sex-abuse rings, in part because of confidentiality issues. But Bruck has studied follow-up interviews of children involved in cases similar to the notorious McMartin preschool trial. Some kids continue to believe they were abused. Bruck suspects it's because their families or therapists have reinforced the stories of abuse. "The children say they don't remember the salient, allegedly terrifying details," she told me. "But they are sure it happened."[...]

"They told me that John Stoll was a bad man and I needed to help put him in prison so he wouldn't hurt any more children," Sampley says. "They said everything would be O.K. if I just told them something had happened." And at some point -- Sampley doesn't remember when or exactly why -- he changed his story. He told them yes, Stoll had done something very bad to him. And Stoll had done worse things to other boys.

By then, the investigators were convinced they were on the trail of another sex ring. Kern County prosecuted the first major child-sex ring in the United States in 1982, and within two years the investigations of Stoll and the McMartin teachers in Manhattan Beach, Calif., were under way. The hysteria began creeping across the country, to Maplewood, N.J. (Wee Care Day Nursery), to Malden, Mass. (Fells Acres), and to Great Neck, Long Island, where the documentary "Capturing the Friedmans" takes place.[...]

Prosecutions of child sex-rings later led to dozens of studies about interviewing techniques, many of which suggested that with a little coaxing, children tell adults what they think the grown-ups want to hear -- especially if it means they will go home sooner or be rewarded for providing information. Several years ago two Chicago boys, 7 and 8, were accused (and later exonerated) of killing 11-year-old Ryan Harris. In part, the boys were enticed by a McDonald's Happy Meal to confess.


James Wood, a psychologist at the University of Texas at El Paso who studies interview techniques used with children, says investigators should use nonsuggestive prompts to help kids to narrate their own stories. "They shouldn't tell children they have information from other witnesses," he says. Or praise them when they provide information. Or express disapproval when they don't. Murillo, who retired from the D.A.'s office a couple of years ago, won't talk about her investigations in detail, but she did say: "We never pressured the children. Those boys were telling the truth when they first testified."[...]

Bakersfield isn't a town that welcomes challenges to law enforcement. Though it's just two hours north of Los Angeles, the city feels more like Texas than California, surrounded by miles of oil and agriculture fields. Many residents are proud of the small-town conservative flavor. On its Web site, the Kern County D.A. office highlights having "the highest per-capita prison-commitment rate of any major California county," and the longtime district attorney, Ed Jagels, a subject of the book "Mean Justice," by Edward Humes, is considered one of the toughest prosecutors in the state. (Jagels declined comment for this article.) "You have to understand the power of Ed Jagels," says Michael Snedeker, an attorney who helped overturn 18 convictions of Bakersfield defendants in sex-ring cases and co-author of "Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt" with the journalist Debbie Nathan. "He is more important than the mayor in that city. He's more feared than J. Edgar Hoover on his best day."

In three years during the 1980's, Jagels and his predecessor prosecuted eight sex rings involving 46 defendants. Consider the example of Scott Kniffen, who agreed to be a character witness for his friends Alvin and Deborah McCuan, accused of molesting their own children. Within weeks, Kniffen and his wife, Brenda, were under arrest for supposed involvement in the same sex ring. They were subsequently convicted. (Their convictions were reversed 12 years later). Or consider Jeffrey Modahl. He was a single dad of two daughters who suspected two relatives had molested his girls. After Modahl asked Velda Murillo for help, Murillo's suspicions turned to him. He was sentenced to 48 years in prison for running a family sex ring that included tying his preadolescent daughters to hooks in a bedroom. (No evidence of hooks was ever found.) "Velda said, 'Tell us what happened and you'll go home,"' remembers Carla Jo Modahl, who was 9 when she testified against her father and subsequently tried to commit suicide several times after his conviction. "I didn't understand what would happen. I didn't realize it until everyone was in prison." Carla was scared that if she recanted her testimony, she, too, would be imprisoned. Still, when she was 12, she told a judge she'd lied on the witness stand. The judge didn't believe her, and her father remained in prison for a dozen more years -- until his conviction was finally reversed.[...]

The convictions of most other defendants in Kern County molestation rings were overturned -- including Margie Grafton's and Tim Palomo's -- as appellate judges issued often harsh rebukes of the county's overzealous prosecutions [...]

Certainly prosecutors aren't chasing phantom sex rings as they once did, and investigators are more educated about proper interview techniques, but some of the investigative tactics and the mind-set from that era still linger. In England and Israel, sex-abuse investigators routinely videotape their interviews. In the United States, only a minority of prosecutors and investigators are required to do so, and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, an organization of child-protection workers, has never officially supported recording interviews. Some members have claimed it confuses juries.

"It's shameful -- they should have taken a stance on it a long time ago," says Wood, the University of Texas psychologist and an Apsac member. "If you want to know what really happened, without an audiotape of the interview it's like trying to diagnose lung cancer without an X-ray." If Murillo and Ericsson had recorded the interviews, life might have turned out differently for Stoll and his co-defendants, as well as for his accusers. The McMartin trial ended without convictions after the jury saw videotapes of therapists' suggestive questioning of kids.

Still, discredited child-sex rings like McMartin actually may not be a bogeyman of the past. Some parents, therapists and child-protection professionals continue to believe ritual sex abuse took place at McMartin preschool. "In 10 to 15 years, there will be an attempt to rehabilitate the ritual abuse scare," Wood says. "You can bet on it." [..]

Court gives Jerusalem property - held by Arab squatters since 1948 - back to Jewish owners


Jerusalem Magistrates Court Justice Anna Schneider ordered the evacuation of three East Jerusalem properties Tuesday, as they were found to have been purchased by Jews before 1948 but then invaded by Arabs. 

The three properties in question were purchased in the thirties by the Arica family, Jews who immigrated to Israel from Syria. In 1948, the family fled after the Jordanians tried to kill and rape the sons and daughters of the family while the men fought on various fronts.[...]

But the property was eventually restored due to the effort of Jerusalem City Council member Aryeh King. [...]
On Tuesday, Schneider ruled that the Arab residents were unable to prove their rights to the property, and that the documents were highly likely to have been forged. 

"The defendant failed to prove that the rent was paid," she added. "He did not even present one receipt for the rent." 

For these and other claims which arose during the hearing, the justice deemed the tenant's claims against King "irrelevant." 

"The defendant must vacate the leased property and is not entitled to any compensation," she added, noting that the tenants "have no one to blame but themselves." 

The judge further ordered the defendant to pay court costs and attorneys' fees amounting to 15,000 shekels ($3928).

Chicken Pox Outbreak Has Infected 75 mostly unvaccinated children so far in Williamsburg


The outbreak occurred in an Orthodox Jewish community in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, according to officials, with 75 cases reported so far.
Of the patients affected, 72 percent of them had not been vaccinated against the disease, officials said. The patients range from infants to children up to 10 years old.

Monday, May 16, 2016

Supreme Court rules - with support of Beis Din - that Get refusers can be prevented from leaving Israel even if not Israeli citizens

bhol

פסק דין חדש ותקדימי התקבל בבית הדין הגבוה, לפיו בסכות בתי הדין בארץ לעכב יציאה מהארץ של סרבן - אף אם אינו אזרח ישראל


תקדים - בית הדין הרבני הגדול קבע כי בסמכות בתי הדין הרבניים להוציא צווי עיכוב יציאה מהארץ גם למי שאינם אזרחים ישראלים. 

הדיינים הרב אליהו הישריק, הרב יצחק אלמליח והרב מימון נהרי כתבו פסק הלכה החובק לא רק את המשפט העברי לדורותיו אלא גם את הפסיקה האזרחית לדורותיה. בית הדין הרבני הגדול החליט לקבל ערעור על פסק דין של בית הדין הרבני האזורי, שלא אישר צו עיכוב יציאה נגד אזרח ארצות הברית שאינו אזרח ישראלי. 

הדיון נסוב סביב שני בני זוג אמריקאים שנישאו בלייקווד שבניו ג'רזי, שם נולדו להם שלושה ילדים. לפני כשנה עזב הבעל את הבית ועבר לניו יורק. לאחרונה הגיע הבעל לביקור קצר בישראל ובעת שהותו הגישה האישה כנגדו תביעת מזונות וגירושין לבית הדין הרבני האזורי. כמו כן בקשה האישה להוציא כנגד האיש צו כעיכוב יציאה מהארץ. 

בית הדין הוציא תחילה צו עיכוב יציאה כמוקבל במעמד צד אחד. בתגובה, הגישו הבעל ובא כוחו בקשה לביטול הצו בטענה כי אין בסמכות בית הדין הרבני בישראל לדון ולעכב בישראל תושב חוץ. דייני בית הדין הרבני האזורי קיבלו את הבקשה והחליטו לבטל את צו עיכוב היציאה. האישה ובא כוחה מיהרו להגיש ערעור לבית הדין הרבני הגדול, ובקשו גם עיכוב ביצוע של ביטול עיכוב היציאה. 

בתחילת הדיון בבית הדין הרבני הגדול הציעו הדיינים לבעל באופן פרקטי להתגרש לאלתר ולהשאיר את יתר ענייני חלוקת הרכוש, המזונות, הסדרי הראיה וכו' להכרעת בית הדין בארצות הברית או בישראל בשלב מאוחר יותר. הבעל 'זיגזג' בהסכמתו ובסופו של דבר סירב. 

Kaminetsky-Greenbaltt Heter: A clear refutation of an alleged justification for the heter

update: added Bavli Yevamos (88a) to analysis

Last night I was given a possible justification for the infamous Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter. It was claimed that the Yerushalmi (Yevamos 15:4) states that once a beis din has given a psak that a woman could remarry - the heter remained valid even though the basis for the psak was lies and a misunderstanding of elementary halacha.

On the surface it looks like support. In essence the Yerushalmi describes a case where a woman remarried based on the psak of beis din who had two witnesses testify that her husband had died.

Then the husband comes to court - and the court denies that he is the husband and beats a talmid chachom who suggests otherwise. Thus it seems that a mistaken psak can validate a second marriage as we have in the case of Tamar Epstein.

However it is clear that is not the accepted halacha. The Yerushalmi only applies when there is a sofek as to the validity of the claim that the man is actually the first husband. as shown in Shulchan Aruch (E.H 17:56-57) - when it is clear that the first husband is in fact alive - the woman can not rely on the mistaken psak to remain married.

This is also a clear rebuke of the nonsensical view of Rabbi Greenblatt that once he has given a psak he does not need to retract it in the face of evidence that the facts and the halachic analysis are clearly wrong. Besides the fact that the two witnesses that he relied on (two therapists ) did not testify before beis din, one of them is not frum and the other one received his information from Tamar - and did not speak with Aharon Friedman at all. Even if they were kosher witnesses it is clear that their assertions about mental illness are wrong. Finally his psak is a blatant twisting and misuse of Rav Moshe's heter.

In sum, we have witnessed the shameful corruption of halacha by two gedolim. Even though it has been claimed that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has accepted the psak of Rav Dovid Feinstein that the heter is invalid - he has never actually stated such, He has not said that the heter is wrong but only that his son claims he will accept Rav Dovid Feinstein's ruling. And not only has he not told Tamar Epstein to separate from her husband he has reportedly told them not to separate despite the psak of Rav Feinstein.

תלמוד ירושלמי (יבמות טו:ד): פיסקא: עד א' אומר כו'. עד א' אמר מת ונישאת ובא אחר ואמר לא מת הרי זו לא תצא. מפני שאמר משנישאת. [דף עט עמוד ב] הא אם עד שלא נישאת ונישאת תצא.
אמר ר' יוחנן זו דברי רבי מנחם בי רבי יוסי. אבל דברי חכמים בין אמר משנישאת בין שאמר עד שלא נישאת לא תינשא. ואם נישאת לא תצא.

רב נחמן בר יעקב בשם רב נישאת על פי עדים שנים אפילו אתון אמרין לה לית אתנו.
 רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק בעי הגע עצמך שהוא אדם מסויים כגון אימי. אמר רבי יוסי בי ר' בון ולית כמן בר נש דמיי לרבי אמי?

אתא עובדא קומי דרבנן דתמן אמרין ליה לית אתנו. קם אבא בר בא ולחש לה גוי אודנה. אמר לה בחייך הב לה גט מספק. קמו תלמידוי דרב ומחוניה אמר ערקתא יקד וספסלה יקד. שמואל אמר תמן הוינא ולא ערקתא יקדת ולא ספסלה יקדת אלא אבא הוא דלקה. וקם לה.

 אתא עובדא קומי רבי אימי א"ל אין בריא דהיא שריא לך אלא תהא יודע דבניה דההוא גברא ממזירא קומי שמייא. והוה רבי זעירא מקלס ליה דו מקים מילתא על בררא:

Yerushalmi (Yevamos 15:4) If a single witness testified… If a single witness testified that the first husband was dead and she remarried and then someone came and said the first husband was still alive – she does not have to leave the second husband. That is because the Mishna says she had remarried before the witness came. But if she had not yet remarried and then this witness came and testified that the first husband is alive – if consequently she married she needs to leave the second marriage.

 Rav Yochanon said this is the view of Rabbi Menachem but the view of the Sages is that it doesn't matter whether this witness came after she remarried or whether the witness came before she remarried – she is not allowed to remarry. But if she remarried she does not have to leave the second husband.

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rav, if she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses– even if one of the said he is her first husband[1] – we say to him that we don't recognize him as the first husband.[2] [Because there are two witnesses that he died we tell him that he just looks like the first husband or we simply tell him that he is not the first husband because two witnesses said the first husband is dead]

Rabbi Shmuel said, What if the first husband was famous such as Rav Ami[3]  whom everyone recognizes[4]  (by reputation and by brilliance but not by direct recognition)– would you still say he can't be the first husband [since two witnesses have testified that he is dead]? Rav Yosef said do you think there is no one in the world who is similar in greatness in Torah to Rav Ami?[5] [Since she has been permitted to marry by two witnesses, a person is not believed when he claims to be the first husband]

There was an actual case[6] that happened with the Rabbis of Babylonia concerning a woman who remarried based on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband was dead and afterwards the first husband came to beis din [and announced he was still alive]. The beis din said that that they did not recognize him as the first husband[7] and that the woman did not have to leave her second husband. Abba bar Bah stood and whispered in the ear of the second husband[8] – give your wife a Get because of a sofek – because it appears that this is actually the first husband and the witnesses lied. The students of Rav arose and beat Abba bar Bah[9]  because he disagreed with Rav (their rebbe)  - before them or because Rav was the official authority of that place.

It was said that the strap[10] that they beat Abba bar Bah as well as the bench that he was on during the beating – caught fire to show that  the beating was not in accord with the halacha.

Shmuel[11] said he actually had been there during the beating and in fact there was no strap or bench that burnt but that he saw Abba beaten and then he stood and left. In other words the halacha was in fact according to the students of Rav that he deserved to be beaten for telling the second husband to give a Get.

There was such a case that was presented to Rabbi Ami[12] and he said to the second husband , It is not clear that that she is permitted to you. You should know that your children from her are are almost certainly considered mamzerim before Heaven. Because before G-d everything is revealed as to whether it is true that this man is not the first husband.

Rabbi Zeiri praised Rabbi Ami[13] as one who knows how to present the matter clearly and reconcile the two views.
========================================= 

Yehuda added this from the Bavli 
(Yevamos 88a):MUST . . . LEAVE THE ONE AS WELL AS THE OTHER etc. Rab stated: This was taught only in respect [of a woman] who married on the evidence of a single witness, but if she married on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses, she need not leave.44 In the West45 they laughed at him. ‘Her husband’ [they remarked] comes, and there he stands, and you say: She need not leave!’ — This46 [it may be replied] was required only in the case when the man47 was not known.48 If he49 is unknown, why is she to leave [her second husband] even where she only married on the evidence of a single witness? This is required only in the case where two witnesses came and stated, ‘We were with him49 from the moment he left until now, but you it is who are unable to recognize him’;50 

Regarding Rav's statement in the Yerushalmi that even if the husband comes back we don't remove a Heter given based on two witnesses: the Bavli Yevomos 88a brings it and says it only applies when we don't recognize the husband, and in fact in Eretz Yisrael they laughed at the thought that we would allow her to stay married if the husband is here. Tosafos explains that the husband returning is far better then two witnesses. Even the Yerushalmi itself in Yevomos 10'5' according to Korbon Ha'eidah's text says that we do not pasken like Rav because he is contradicted by a Mishna. The Ramban on the Parsha of Eidim Zomimin in Shoftim says that the dead person returning cannot make the pair of witnesses into zommimin because the posuk only refers to cases that require some investigation, but if the man returns then it is obvious that the witnesses lied.

Halacha:
Divrei Chaim[14] (E. H. 1:42): She can remained married to the second husband and anyone who raises questions about the psak deserves to be beaten and the children are totally kosher – as is expressed by the Yerushalmi. [This apparently means if there are only rumors or his identity is not established by two witnesses]

Shulchan Aruch[15](E.H. 17:56): A woman whose husband left to a foreign country and she receives news that he died – if she remarries and afterwards her first husband comes – it doesn't matter whether she remarries based on a single witness or based on two witnesses – and even if she did not have intercourse with the second – she must leave both husbands and she requires a Get from both of them and she does not get a kesuba from either of them (even if the first husband takes her back).

Shulchan Aruch[16](E.H. 17:57): If a woman is told that her husband died and she remarries and afterwards she is informed that he in fact had been alive when she remarried – but he has subsequently died. Any child born to her prior to the death of her first husband is a mamzer according to the Torah. Children born after the first husband died are not considered mamzerim. There are some who say that they have the status of rabbinic mamzerus.

Shulchan Aruch[17](E.H. 17:58): … If a woman was forced to remarry by the mistaken psak of a major beis din – she is considered that she had been forced against her will and therefore she is permitted to her first husband after the mistake is discovered (Rashba 1189 as mentioned in Beis Yosef).

Aruch HaShulchan[18](E.H. 17:256): A woman whose husband went far away and then she was told that he died and she remarried and afterwards her husband returned – the Sages fined her with many punishments. … And even if she remarried based on two witnesses that the husband had died – because of the great damage that she did by remarrying when she was still married to the first hsuband and because of the potential for producing mamzerim it is appropriate that she be punished for the sake of other women that they should hear and fear that the same happen to them. After all she did sin to some degree since we see that the witnesses were false – she should have checked more carefully whether what they said was true...





[1] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו): אפי' אתון. אפי' באו בעליהן אח"כ:
[2] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד):  אמרין ליה לית אתנו. אין בנו כח להוציאה הואיל ואמרו שנים שמת בעלה של זו אמרינן זהו איניש אחרינא הוא וקלסתר פניו דומה להראשון א"נ לית אתנו אין אתם בעליהן של אלו שהרי העדים העידו שמתו:
[3] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד) הגע עצמך. אמור לנפשך אם הבעל השני הוא אדם חשוב ומפורסם כר' אימי שהכל מכירין אותו וכי נאמר שאחר הוא:
[4]  דברי חיים (אבן העזר חלק א סימן מב): ועתה לא נשאר לנו רק מה שאומר הבליעל הפסול לעדות כפי מכתבם (יעוין בדבריהם) [אין בדבריו] ממש דבעל על עצמו לא נאמן וגם כי הוא פסול:
ומה שמגזם בדבר לפי הנראה שהוא איזה תחבולה ורמאות עיין בבית מאיר [בתשובותיו שבסוף הספר סי' ח'] שם מבואר בהדיא דאין לחוש לפטומי מילי כי האי וכן מבואר בירושלמי [יבמות] פט"ו הל' ד' וזה לשונו ר' נחמן בר יעקב בשם רב נישאת על פי עדים שנים אפילו אתון אמרין לה לית אתנו ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק בעי הגע עצמך שהוא אדם מסוים כגון אימי אמר ר' יוסי בר בון ולית קמן בר נש דמיי לר' אמי אתא עובדא קומי דרבנן דתמן אמרין ליה לית אתנו עכ"ל הרי גם שהי' מפורסם כר' אמי היינו שלא היו מכירין על פניו רק בחריפות ובדבריו דברי תורה שאמר וסיפורי מעשיות בין הבריות ואפילו הכי קאמר שאין לחוש לזה וזה ברור:
ויתר דברי הירושלמי שם צ"ע במה שלחש לבעל שיוציא מספק וקמי שמיא גליא הלא אינו מותר בה רק כשנשאת להעד ואומרת ברי לי ואם כן מאי ספיקא גבה וצ"ע לפרש:
כללו של דבר שהאשה זו מותרת לישב תחת בעלה והמוציא קול עליה ראוי להכותו כמבואר בירושלמי והוא מוציא דיבה והבנים כשרים גמורים:
[5] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): ה"ג ולית תמן א"נ ולית כאן בר נש וכו'. וה"פ וכי אין בכל העולם אדם גדול בתורה כר' אימי ואיכא למימר זה אדם אחר שבא לכאן מסוף העולם וטעמא דמלתא כיון שיצאה בהיתר ע"פ שני עדים שוב אינו נאמן אף על פי שבא בעצמו:
[6] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): אתא עובדא. בא מעשה כזה שניסת ע"פ עדים ואח"כ בא בעלה לפני חכמים שבבבל:
[7] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): אמרין ליה לית אתנו. ואין מוציאין אותה מן הראשון:
[8] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): ה"ג ולחש ליה גו אודניה וא"ל בחייך הב לה גט מספק. וה"פ אבא לחש לבעל השני באזנו שיתן לה גט מספק דנראה שזהו הבעל הראשון ושקר העידו:
[9] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): קמו תלמידיה דרב. והכו אותו על שחלק על רב רבן בפניהם או באתרא דרב:
[10]  קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): ערקתא יקד. הרצועה שהוכה בה אבא וגם הספסל שרבע עליה בשעה שלקה שתיהן נשרפו להראות דשלא כדין לקה:
[11] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): שמואל אמר. שם הייתי בשעת ההכאה ולא הרצועה ולא הספסל נשרפו אלא ראיתי שאבא נלקה ועמד והלך לו ל"א וקם לה הלכתא כתלמידי דרב:
[12] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): תא עובדא. בא מעשה כזה לפני ר"א וא"ל להבעל השני שנשאה אין בני היא מותרת לך אלא הוי יודע שבניך מאשה זו קרוב לודאי שהן ממזרים לפני המקום ב"ה שלפניו גלוי אם האמת אתה שאין זה בעלה:
[13] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): והוה ר' זעירא. משבח ליה לר' אימי שהוא יודע להעמיד הדבר על בוריו שעשה לדברי שניהם:
[14]  דברי חיים (אבן העזר חלק א סימן מב): ועתה לא נשאר לנו רק מה שאומר הבליעל הפסול לעדות כפי מכתבם (יעוין בדבריהם) [אין בדבריו] ממש דבעל על עצמו לא נאמן וגם כי הוא פסול:
ומה שמגזם בדבר לפי הנראה שהוא איזה תחבולה ורמאות עיין בבית מאיר [בתשובותיו שבסוף הספר סי' ח'] שם מבואר בהדיא דאין לחוש לפטומי מילי כי האי וכן מבואר בירושלמי [יבמות] פט"ו הל' ד' וזה לשונו ר' נחמן בר יעקב בשם רב נישאת על פי עדים שנים אפילו אתון אמרין לה לית אתנו ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק בעי הגע עצמך שהוא אדם מסוים כגון אימי אמר ר' יוסי בר בון ולית קמן בר נש דמיי לר' אמי אתא עובדא קומי דרבנן דתמן אמרין ליה לית אתנו עכ"ל הרי גם שהי' מפורסם כר' אמי היינו שלא היו מכירין על פניו רק בחריפות ובדבריו דברי תורה שאמר וסיפורי מעשיות בין הבריות ואפילו הכי קאמר שאין לחוש לזה וזה ברור:
ויתר דברי הירושלמי שם צ"ע במה שלחש לבעל שיוציא מספק וקמי שמיא גליא הלא אינו מותר בה רק כשנשאת להעד ואומרת ברי לי ואם כן מאי ספיקא גבה וצ"ע לפרש:
כללו של דבר שהאשה זו מותרת לישב תחת בעלה והמוציא קול עליה ראוי להכותו כמבואר בירושלמי והוא מוציא דיבה והבנים כשרים גמורים:
[15] שולחן ערוך (אבן העזר יז:נו): האשה שהלך בעלה למדינה אחרת ובאו ואמרו לה: מת בעליך, ונשאת ואח"כ בא בעלה, לא שנא נשאת על פי עד אחד או על פי שני עדים, ( אפילו לא נבעלה) (הרא"ש והריב"ש והריטב"א ונ"י סימן תק"ח), תצא מזה ומזה. וצריכה גט משניהם, ואין לה כתובה משניהם, ( אפי' החזירה הראשון) (הגהות אלפסי),
[16] שולחן ערוך אבן העזר (יז:נז):  אמרו לה: מת בעליך, ונשאת, ואח"כ אמרו לה: קיים היה ומת, ולד שהוליד קודם שמת, ממזר מן התורה, ושהוליד אח"כ, אינו ממזר. וי"א שהוא ממזר מדרבנן.
[17] שולחן ערוך אבן העזר (יז:נח): ... אבל אנסוה להנשא, או שהורו לה בית דין בטעות ונשאת על פיהם, הוי כאנוסה, ומותרת לבעלה הראשון (תשובת הרשב"א אלף קפ"ט הובאה בבית יוסף).
[18] ערוך השולחן (אבן העזר סימן יז:רנו): האשה שהלך בעלה למדינה אחרת ובאו ואמרו לה מת בעלך ונשאת ואח"כ בא בעלה קנסוה חכמים בכמה דברים כמו שיתבאר דעיקר מה שהאמינו חכמים לעד אחד מפני שאוקמוה אחזקה שתדייק שפיר עד שתדע על בירור שמת וכיון שלא דייקה קנסוה חכמים ומ"מ אף הנשאת ע"פ שני עדים ובא בעלה ג"כ קנסוה בכל הקנסות שיתבאר ואף על גב דמה הוה לה למיעבד דבשלמא בעד אחד היה לה לדייק אחר דברי העד כמ"ש אבל בשני עדים דע"פ שנים עדים יקום דבר בכל התורה כולה ולמה לנו לקונסה מ"מ מפני גודל הקלקול שנעשה להנשא באיסור אשת איש ולהרבות ממזרים בישראל כדאי היא שתוקנס למען כל הנשים ישמעו ויראו דהרי מ"מ פושעת היא קצת דהרי ראינו שעידי שקר הם וכל אשה הקשורה בבעלה יש לה לחקור הדק היטב אם אמת הדבר שמת אם לאו [נ"ל] ואפילו לא נבעלה עדיין מהשני כיון שנכנסה לחופה עמו קנסוה וה"ה אם נתייחדה עמו אחר הקדושין [חמ"ח סקק"י] אבל אם נתקדשה ועדיין לא נתייחדה עמו לא קנסוה כאשר יתבאר במילתא בטעמא בס"ד:

Friday, May 13, 2016

Obama administration says everyone has the right not to feel rejected!


“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” King said. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

Wow! - a federal govenerment guarantee that one one will ever reject me or make me feel unwelcome. If you don't make me feel welcome I will get Obama to cut all Federal funds to anything you are connected to! 

So my problem is I feel that this gender legislation makes me feel unwelcome - what office of the government can I contact to make me feel more comfortable?

Or perhaps what this means is that the Federal governement will provide psychotherapy for all those who feel unwelcome and all those who make others feel unwelcome.

Given the current amount of therapists - I think the government will need to initiate an emergency measure to produce an adequate number of therapists to handle the demand created by this policy.

Does anyone know how many transgender individuals are being protected by this program?