Stealing in order to help others - is it permitted?

In a previous Post  I mentioned the view of Rav Elchonon Wasserman that the prohibitions regarding bein adam l'chavero only apply where the act is destructive and meant to harm. He learns this from the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel 5:1) which states that hitting another is only prohibited if done derech nitzoiyon (strife or vanquishing). He says this rule applies not only to hitting but lashon harah and hatred.

A significant problem with making this sweeping generalization comes in the area of theft. Can a person steal something for a joke or with intent to pay - without any desire to harm the victim? More relevant to the issue of education - can a teacher or parent take away a student or child's possession - for the sake of chinuch or to prevent sin? Can you take away a neighbor's computer to prevent him/her from using the internet? Can you take away someone smartphone solely because you think it is for the person's benefit not to have it - even if you don't pay for it?

Rabbi Yehuda Hertzl Henkin (Techumin Volume 8) has a long article on this and concludes that despite being a common practice - there is no justification for taking things from another person against their will. 

Bava Metzia (61b):Why did the Torah (Vayikra 19:11) need to explicitly prohibit stealing [since  we learn the prohibition of causing financial loss from ribis and fraud while the prohibition of stealing in the Ten Commandments refers to kidnapping a person – Rashi]? The answer is as it was taught: One cannot steal just to aggravate [Rashi] another nor can one steal even if he intended to repay double for it [because he wants to give the victim something but he knows he won’t accept and therefore he uses stealing as a pretext to give him money – Rashi].

Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuva 3:85):  Do not steal or suppress or lie (Vayikra 19:11). Our Sages (Bava Metzia 61b) state that “not stealing” means if it it is only to upset the person. In other words a person should not say I will steal his possession in order to upset him and I will take while he is watchin and I will warn him that he needs to be more careful in watching his possession and then I will return it to him. Similarly it is prohibited to steal possessions from another’s house and use them and then return them. Nor should you secretly take your own possessions from a thief after they were stolen so that you don’t look like a thief. 

An apparently refutation of this is in the following gemora - but the Meiri says it is not a problem

Bava Basra(16a): Rava asked the meaning of “The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me...(Job 29:13)....This verse alludes to the fact that Job used to steal the fields of orphans [and the orphans were convinced that they had lost the land – Rashi] and he would improve the fields and then give them back.

Meiri (Bava Basra 16a):  There are sins which are done with good intentions and nevertheless they are not permitted. But this seems to be contradicted by this gemora where Job is praised because he would steal land from the poor and orphans and improve it and then return it. That is because Job was well known as such a tzadik – that even though he didn’t explain this reason – every knew that was his intent in taking the land. The gemora describes this as theft only as a general term of taking property of others – but according to my understanding it did not mean to say it was a sinful taking of the land. ... We can see from these cases that even when a person intends to do good and that should permit the act – nevertheless we are told that good intent is not enough to permit stealing in any form even if it is public knowledge what you are doing. That is because this gemora explicitly said not to steal even if you intend to pay back double. This requires further clarification. Nevertheless even the great Rabbis indicated that it is prohibited. Nevertheless the major difficulty has been removed regarding Job.

[I will be adding sources to this post regarding this serious exception to Rav Wasserman's assertion and possibly other exceptions.]

Making of a Godol: Corporal Punishment & Gedolim

Making of a Godol (Page 143): note 64 When asked about corporal punishment for children, my father declared that unless a parent is absolutely sure that the child deserves to be punished, he must stay his hand, lest the child bear a lifetime grudge against him. As was his wont, he used his own experience as a point of proof. He related that after his teacher had given him permission to leave the classroom for the outhouse, the teacher caught other children who had falsely claimed they had to leave for the outhouse as an excuse for going outside to play. The teacher then spanked them all, including him, whose need for the outhouse was genuine. My father declared that to him "that teacher is loathsome till this day". At that occasion, my father told the story of how R' Baruch-Ber Leibowitz treated his errant child, as recorded in Ch. 3, n. 141: also see there about how R' Yosheh-Laib Bloch and our protagonist punished their children.

Making of a Godol (Pages 744):  (R' Uri Ascher related ° that after his father, R' Shimon Ascher, had concluded six years of study in the Telz Yeshiva in 5691 [1931], he called on the Rogachover before returning home to Switzerland. Knowing that the gaon did not study Aharonim, the visitor asked a question that R' Aqiva Eiger raises. The Rogachover gave R' Shimon an answer unlike that of R' Eiger and administered an unceremonious slap to the 25-year-old's cheek for asking such a weak question!)

Making of a Godol (page 754-755): My father often related an episode that occurred one time at 'Arvith following the session: "R' Baruch-Ber's young child lit a candle in the midst of the brakhoth following the reading of Shma' in order to read from the siddur. After the davenen was over, the rosh yeshiva turned to him and said, 'My dear child, long may you live, you transgressed a rabbinic prohibition [to do work before reciting Havdalah] and you deserve a slap and went ahead and slapped him." (R' Laibel Perlstein/reported that my father told him, "What he gave the child was a slight pat on the cheek. This was his slap." R' Shlomo Ashkenazi reported in our protagonist's name  that before the slap, R' Baruch-Ber told the boy that in order to show his love he had to punish him, "as it is written, [He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him chastises him often].) R' Mordkhai Shain said that my father narrated the tale (and the one recorded in Ch. 1, n. 64) when responding to a question regarding corporal punishment of misbehaving children. My father concluded that corporal punishment is permissible as long as one strikes his child with the same love and composure that R' Baruch-Ber displayed. [On August 8, 1991, my son R' Yoseph related that during my father's 5741 (1981) visit to Israel - when he added to the story that R' Baruch-Ber also kissed the child, presumably to convey to the boy that despite his sin he was still loved - R' Simhah-Zissel Broida, who was paying a call on our protagonist at the time, remarked that the child deserved the kiss for making the room light for everyone] Heinemann Notations records the following story: Before R' Yosheh-Laib Bloch, Rav of Telz, would hit his child, he called all the family together and delivered a talk about the impropriety of what the youth had done. R' Yosheh-Laib would then turn to the child and say, "For that you get three spanks " My father stressed that this procedure ensured that R' Bloch never struck his child out of anger.[...]

Lag B’Omer: An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5Towns Jewish Times     The Rema, Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 493:2) writes that on Lag B’Omer we engage slightly in simcha. Observing Lag B’Omer is a serious matter. The Magen Avraham cites the Kavanos HaArizal that discusses a certain individual who had the habit of reciting “Nachem” every day. He continued to do so on Lag B’Omer as well. For doing so he was punished. We see, therefore, that one should take the words of the Rema quite seriously.

A number of reasons are cited by Torah authorities for commemorating Lag B’Omer:

• It commemorates that the students of Rabbi Akiva ceased dying during this day, although the deaths persisted between Pesach and Shavuos. (Shela, Pesachim 525)

• This day is the yahrzeit of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who revealed the inner secrets of the Torah. (Chayei Adam, Moadim 131:11)

• This is the day that Rabbi Akiva granted ordination to his five students, among them Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. They did not die in the plague that struck Rabbi Akiva’s other students. (Pri Chadash, O.C. 493)

• It also commemorates the manna, which began to fall on this day after the Bnei Yisrael left Egypt. (Responsa Chasam Sofer, Y.D. #233, “Omnam yadati”) [...]

Rabbi Michael Broyde: Is his attribution to Lubavitcher Rebbe genuine?

Guest Post by Dr. Ben Bradley. In the context of the recent controversy about Rabbi Dr Michael Broyde and a letter by an apparently non-existent talmid chacham (the source of which has not been confirmed), which buttressed Rabbi Broyde's halachic arguments, I thought it important to put to following information in the public domain.

I am a family physician and as such I attended a talk for doctors and medical students in London in 2009 by Rabbi Broyde. Amongst other issues he discussed opinions in halacha about the breadth of the permission to break Shabbos for medical purposes and mentioned some very lenient opinions although only in general terms with no specific sources or details. In particular he mentioned a letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in which he gave permission to sit an entrance exam for medical school on Shabbos. I was taken aback as this was well outside any heter I was aware of. I asked one of my rebbeim, a Lubavitcher talmid chacham with a vast familiarity with Chabad sources, about this. He was unaware of such a letter, thought that if it existed it would be unlikely that he didn't know about it, and further thought it highly improbable that the Rebbe would write such a thing for a variety of reasons.

I therefore emailed Rabbi Broyde asking where to find the source. He replied briefly that he didn't think it had been published, so I asked again where I could at least find reference to it. I had no further response from him and thought little further about it until now, since an evidently non-genuine letter has come to light giving halachic support for Dr Broyde's opinions. Now I am almost certain that this letter mentioned at his shiur does not exist and think this should be made public.

If anyone can find valid reference to this opinion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe anywhere at all I will be pleased to retract this posting.

Dr Ben Bradley

Ethiopian Halacha sefer arouses controversy

Maariv

לפני קרוב לשנה יצא הספר "מסיני לאתיופיה". הספר הנחשב לראשון מסוגו הוא מעין קיצור שולחן ערוך של מסורת יהודי אתיופיה: ספר הלכה מתומצת המחולק לפי נושאים. אלא שמאז שהמסה הגיחה לאוויר העולם היא מסעירה את הקהילה האתיופית בארץ ובחו"ל. נגד מחבר הספר, הרב שרון שלום, מתנהל מסע השמצות בטענה שחיבורו מגדף ומחרף את קודשי ישראל ומתיר איסורים הלכתיים כמו איסור נגיעה ולחיצת יד לאישה, ביטול דיני מוקצה בשבת, ביטול חלק מהלכות נידה, כלי זמר ביום הכיפורים וטלטול כסף בשבת.

לפני כמה חודשים שיגרה קבוצה של רבנים אתיופים שהתקרבו לזרם החרדי מכתב חריף לכל המועצות הדתיות, ובו הם מאשימים בכפירה את יוצר החיבור התורני. למכתב הזה צורף סרטון שבו מדבר הרב הראשי לישראל, הרב שלמה עמאר, התוקף את המחבר.

מנגד, רבים בקהילה האתיופית מברכים על הספר ורואים בו פריצת דרך ומקור לגאווה, חיבור מכונן שמעלה על הכתב לראשונה באופן מסודר ונגיש את מסורת אתיופיה והלכותיה. לא מעט רבנים אורתודוקסים ואנשי מחקר מעלים על נס את הספר כאחת היצירות התורניות המשמעותיות ביותר בשנים האחרונות. רק לאחרונה המועמד למשרת הרב הראשי לישראל, הרב דוד סתיו, ביקר את הרבנות הראשית, שלדבריו איימה לשלול את ההסמכה לרבנות של מחבר הספר: "הבן אדם מקבל מכתב מהרבנות הראשית ששוללים ממנו את ההסמכה, הוא בסך הכל הביא מנהגים של יהדות אתיופיה של אלף שנה, אלפיים שנה", הזדעק הרב סתיו באחת מהרצאותיו לאחרונה.

הרב שרון שלום, לשעבר זאודה טספאי, הוא תלמיד חכם במובן הרחב של המילה: בוגר ישיבת ההסדר בגוש עציון, סר"ן במילואים ודוקטורנט לפילוסופיה יהודית באוניברסיטת בר-אילן. הוא רב בארגון רבני צהר, בעל הסמכה לרבנות ומתפקד כרב בית הכנסת האשכנזי "קודשי ישראל" של ניצולי השואה בקריית גת. עד לא מזמן היה הרב שלום מחתן ועורך חופות בישראל, אלא שבעקבות המכתב שנשלח למועצות הדתיות נאסר עליו לחתן בחלק מהמקומות, אף  שהוא מחזיק בתעודת הסמכה מטעם הרבנות המאשרת לו לערוך חופה וקידושין.

Guidance for Chareidim facing draft

   קונטרס לא אירא רע - הדרכה לבחורים ואברכים בנוגע גזירות הגיוס

This is basically propaganda - not realistic advice. Not sure whether it is to encourage the young men to not be cooperative or to try and scare the army that the draft will produce serious resistance. From the news items I have seen, it is viewed as further proof  that chareidim are nuts.

Rav Triebitz: Next meeting is planned in a week or two

Given the succcess of our recent group discussion of Rav Meir Triebitz regarding the issue of empathy, we are planning on having another one. This might lead to re-establishing the Think Tank Group we had several years ago. We plan on dealing with issues of the dynamics of halacha as applied to our community and education. Hopefully it will be in the next week or two in Jerusalem - probably in Har Nof. If you are interested in participating please send me an email - yadmoshe@gmail.com

We will be dealing not only with the past as found in the halachic literature  - but also indentifying what is happening now. Furthermore we will be defining goals for our community and the means that encourage their successful attainment.

Bein adam l'chavero sins - only if done to hurt & vanquish the other

Considering this is the period of Sefira, it is appropriate to talk about bein adam l'chavero sins. One important consideration started with the question that since hitting another is a doreissa sin - why is it permitted to hit children for chinuch which is only a rabbinic mitzva?  The basic  prohibition of hitting is described by the Rambam

Rambam(Hilchos Chovel 5:1): It is prohibited for a man to injure himself or others. Not only is injury prohibited but anyone who hits a good Jew - whether it is a child (koton) or adult (gadol) whether it is a man or woman – derech netzayon (in a manner of strife) - transgresses a negative commandment. As it says concerning flogging a criminal in Devarim (25:3), Do not beat him beyond that which is prescribed as punishment. If the Torah warns us about hitting a criminal beyond which is prescribed as punishment - than surely it is prohibited to hit a righteous person.

Rav Elchanon Wasserman focuses on the phrase derech netzayon (in the manner of stife) in his commentary on Yevamos. He then produces an important generalization.

Kovetz Ha’aros (Yevamos #70): ...It would seem that all that is prohibited between people (bein adam l’chavero) is only prohibited when done in a harmful and destructive manner without justification. For example regarding the prohibition of “Not hating your brother.” This is only prohibited for gratuitous hatred (sinas chinom). In other words when he is not doing anything wrong (davar ervah). However if he is doing something wrong then it is permitted to hate him. It is important to note that the reason for hatred being permitted in this case is not because of the fact that a sinful person is not considered your “brother.” Tosfos (Pesachim 113b) explains that if you hate this sinful person for another reason then you transgress the prohibition. The hatred is only permitted because of the bad (davar ervah) that you see in him. Similarly regarding the prohibition of beating another, the Rambam writes that it is prohibited only if done as fighting (derech netzoyan). This is clear from the fact that it is permitted for a teacher to his student. And this that we noted before in Sanhedrin (84b) – that is only a rabbinic restriction. And similarly concerning the prohibition of causing anguish to a widow or orphan, Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10) writes that if it is done to teach Torah or a trade – there is no prohibition. Similarly concerning the prohibition of lashon harah, it is permitted against people who cause discord and quarrels in order to stop the fight. Similar concerning using words to cause anguish (onas devarim), it is permitted publicly criticize someone publicly if it is for the sake of chastisement. It is even permitted to publicly embarrass someone if it is done for the necessity of chastisement for a person who has not stopped his bad behavior after being rebuked in private. In such a case it is even permissible to curse him. In fact this is what was done by the prophets in the past as the Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:8) notes. We thus shown from all this, that all the prohibition involving interpersonal actions do not apply when the act is beneficial.

 The above is an important conceptualization. My son had a related conversation with the Rosh Yeshiva of Slabodka Yeshiva in Bnei Brak. He said that the Chazon Ish didn't understand the need for the extensive scholarship provided in the Chofetz Chaim's sefer regarding lashon harah. He stated the prohibition of lashon harah is simply not to cause harm to others through speech.

In short, the common way of viewing these mitzvos is that they are severe prohibitions for which there are limited heterim in special circumstances. The mitzvos and heterim are so complicated and nuanced that only a major posek can know when and how the heterim apply. Consequently people commonly are machmir to avoid transgressing the prohibition - and end up causing unnecessary harm to others (See the Piskei Teshuva O.C. 156). In contrast Rav Elchonon Wasserman's conceptualization is that the prohibitions only apply in situations where the intent and goal is to hurt another person. In a situation where the purpose is to help, and this is best way to help - there is no prohibition in the first place. 

This latter point is important. One can not speak lashon harah and  hurt another simply by claiming that it is  will also be beneficial.  The orientation of being focused on helping is critical. Thus Rav Wasserman is not providing a heter to permit actions which are harmful. One can not desire to cause damage and then find some benefit  and therefore claim that it is permitted because of the addition of the benefit. The concern has to be to help the other and not hurt him,
=======================
See note [י]

District Court says woman wearing talis at Kotel is ok

Haaretz   The Jerusalem District Court ruled Thursday that women praying at the Western Wall with prayer shawls and tefillin does not constitute a violation of “local custom” or a provocation, and therefore, no justification exists for detaining and interrogating women who engage in these practices. 

The ruling is a major victory for the Women of the Wall organization in its ongoing battle against police and the Orthodox authorities in charge of prayer rules at the holy site. 

The district court also ruled that contrary to police interpretations of a previous Supreme Court ruling, there is no prohibition preventing women from holding their own prayer services at the Western Wall nor any requirement that they congregate instead at the nearby Robinson’s Arch.[...]

Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz said he will look into the ruling and consult with state's legal representative to examine its consequences.  

"The Western Wall is the last unifying place we have," he said. "It is easy to enflame the Western Wall it divineness. It is much more difficult to the find the middle route that will allow everyone to feel included and wanted at the Western Wall."

"I beg the authorities as well as the silent majority who care deeply for the Wall, to prevent extremists from turning it into a site antagonism between brothers," Rabinowitz added.

'Women needlessly abused for years'

Yair Lapid's Fascinating 20 minutes in the Knesset by RaP

Guest post from RaP: Yair Lapid's Fascinating 20 minutes in the Knesset: The Charedim will have to come up with a MUCH better response!

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waFyYgKn_e4

Yair Lapid recently made a fascinating and powerful 20 minute appearance before the Knesset in the presence of the Charedi representatives. It is worth watching, especially if you have some understanding of the language. Lapid is an experienced and charismatic personality and communicator with a very big agenda!

While it is obvious he is a secular Israeli, but he is NOT his father Tommy who was virulent and an embittered Holocaust survivor. Yair his son has more obvious empathy and he is a skilled communicator who uses logic with a friendly manner who makes sense and only by countering with even greater SECHEL can such debates be won.

Screaming and shouting, even in the Knesset where it is a common practice, will NOT accomplish anything.

The Charedim will have to come up with better responses not just acting out-of-control in paroxysms of anger because, plainly and calmly, Lapid does make some very valid points, that need to be answered in a rational and logical and calm manner, even though by standards of the Knesset it seems acceptable to scream and shout at the loudest pitch to drown out opponents.

Lapid seems genuine when he says he does NOT "hate" the Charedim, that they do not have a controlling monopoly on the state, that in a democracy you get to be in the opposition as well, but that they sat in the government for the last 30 years and contributed to the deficit that must now be fixed, and that parents have to be the first ones to take care of their children because it is not the responsibility of the state or other people that must take care of the children, even though he says no child will hungry in Israel. 

He says quite simply that the proposals are not just his and have been approved by the top bankers and finance people in the government.

Lapid tells them not to tell him what to do on Shabbat -- for posting on Facebook -- because he is "not Shommer Shabbat" as he does not tell them what to do on Shabbat -- and in the background the Speaker of the Knesset can be heard humorously admonishing MK Gafni of UTJ that he is sure that Gafni does not even go on the Internet meaning how can he talk about "Facebook", a very good question.

Lapid is responding as a typical Chiloni. Therefore at this time when so much Kiruv is on the go, surely Kiruv people would now give a better response to such situations and NOT act like bizarre people in the Knesset? Maybe it is time to put Uri Zohar or some Kiruv professionals from Ohr Somayach or Chabad personalities like Manis Friedman in the Knesset, someone who is FRIENDLY and has experience how to smile in front of cameras and win over an audience!!! Aish HaTorah and Ner Yisroel already have Dov Lipman, and that should also be countered with people who can sell a counter-message! But surely the same Gedolim who support Kiruv can choose a select group of people able to sell Yiddishkeit because everything is now done in front of the cameras and no one will like the Charedim any more if all they see when they look at them yell at Lapid who is making sense (mostly) while they are having infantile TANTRUMS. Just as the people who formed and rallied around Yesh Atid were brilliant enough to chose a master communicator and someone who acts friendly (remember Lapid has been trained to do this career-wise for a long time as popular TV host.) 

If Charedim will just go on with spoiler tactics and not come up with better strategies to sell their point of view and win the debate (always a tall order, now even harder), then expect Lapid and Yesh Atid not just to stay in the government for a VERY long time, but to become the main party of Israel that sweeps the next elections and beyond.

See an article about that below:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167373#.UXfzflI9WKI

"Lapid: Israel 'Sick of Taking Orders' from Hareidi MKs 

Lapid tells hareidi Jews he does not hate them, ‘the state is just sick of taking your orders,’ in stormy Knesset session.

(Israel National News) By Maayana Miskin 4/22/2013

The Knesset’s summer session got off to a stormy start Monday with an afternoon session that saw Finance Minister Yair Lapid clash with representatives from the hareidi-religious Yahadut Hatorah (Gimmel) party.

MK Meir Porush of Yahadut Hatorah criticized Lapid, accusing him of hating the hareidi community. Porush also took Lapid to task for his fiscal policy, saying, “I heard that he’s going to impose harsh economic decrees on the state of Israel. This man lives life based on what he’ll look like tomorrow.”

Lapid lashed back in his own speech to Knesset later in the session. “The previous government that created this deficit – were you not in it?” he asked the hareidi representatives. “Were you on Mars?”

“You sat in every government for the past 30 years, and this deficit has your names on it. I need to deal with the deficit that you created, you were not cheap coalition partners,” he said.

“You talk about hatred of hareidim,” he continued. “Nobody hates you, and you keep arguing that they hate you… The only thing that happened is that you aren’t in the coalition, and that’s called democracy… The state is sick of taking orders from you, and now you aren’t on the Finance Committee.”

“You need to understand that we don’t hate you,” he added. “But you aren’t registered as the rightful owners of the government.”..."

Doctors are bringing people back from the dead

BBC   Carol had had a cardiac arrest - her heart had stopped beating. Luckily, an elderly neighbour knew the rudiments of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and quickly began to work on her chest. 

Paramedics soon took over, and at a point between 30 and 45 minutes after her collapse - no-one noted the exact time - Carol's heart started beating again.

"While 45 minutes is absolutely remarkable and a lot of people would have written her off, we now know there are people who have been brought back, three, four, five hours after they've died and have led remarkably good quality lives," says Dr Sam Parnia, the director of resuscitation research at Stony Brook University in New York. 

Most people regard cardiac arrest as synonymous with death, he says. But it is not a final threshold. 

Doctors have long believed that if someone is without a heartbeat for longer than about 20 minutes, the brain usually suffers irreparable damage. But this can be avoided, Parnia says, with good quality CPR and careful post-resuscitation care. 

He says it is vital that chest compressions occur at the right rate and force and that patients are not over-ventilated. CPR would be considerably prolonged, with machines doing the work.

Doctors also have new ways to care for patients after their hearts have been restarted. ==============================
Wired

Sam Parnia practices resuscitation medine. In other words, he helps bring people back from the dead — and some return with stories. Their tales could help save lives, and even challenge traditional scientific ideas about the nature of consciousness.[...]

It sounds supernatural, and if their memories are accurate and their brains really have stopped, it’s neurologically inexplicable, at least with what’s now known. Parnia, leader of the Human Consciousness Pro [...]

 Wired: In the book you say that death is not a moment in time, but a process. What do you mean by that?

Sam Parnia: There’s a point used to define death: Your heart stops beating, your brain shuts down. The moment of cardiac arrest. Until fifty years ago, when CPR was developed, when you reached this point, you couldn’t come back. That led to the perception that death is completely irreversible. [...]

R Michael Broyde: More serious allegations uncovered

TJCTV  A new investigation by The Jewish Channel suggests a deception related to Rabbi Michael Broyde’s academic work that academic ethics experts say would represent a much greater breach of academic ethics than the revelations from a previous investigation published by The Jewish Channel on April 12.

The Jewish Channel has previously revealed that Rabbi Michael Broyde — a prominent rabbi who was reportedly on the shortlist to be chief rabbi of England and is a law professor at U.S. News & World Report’s 23rd-ranked law school at Emory University — created a fake professional identity, Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser, that Broyde used over the course of nearly 20 years. The Goldwasser character joined a rival rabbinic group and gained access to its members-only communications, to argue with other members of that group under the fake identity, to submit letters to scholarly journals that in some cases touted his own work, and engage in other scholarly deceptions.

But a second identity uncovered by The Jewish Channel might have gone farther down the road of academic misconduct than did the Goldwasser character. The second identity, claiming to be an 80-something Ivy League graduate and Talmud scholar in 2010, alleged he’d had conversations with now long-dead sages in the late 1940s or early 1950s. The alleged conversations were used to produce a manufactured history of statements from long-dead scholars that buttressed an argument that Broyde had made in a highly-touted article published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Broyde, in a later publication, subsequently quoted this second identity’s alleged findings as further proof of his original argument. [...]

Toronto imam reported alleged terror plot to police

LA Times   An imam in the Toronto area came forward more than a year ago with concerns about one of the two suspects now charged with an alleged terrorism plot, an attorney who handled the tip said Tuesday. Toronto attorney Naseer Syed said the imam, who wants to remain anonymous, first came to him with his concerns about Raed Jaser, 35, who was arrested Monday by Canadian police.  

“The community has always struggled with, at what point does some behavior or activity or words cross a certain threshold?” Syed said in a telephone interview with the Los Angeles Times. “He noticed some of the activities and became concerned enough that he consulted with me and felt it should be reported to authorities. … He asked me to make the first call,” the attorney said.

Syed said he immediately contacted Canadian authorities with the tip. It is unclear what part the information played in the lengthy investigation that led up to the arrests of Jaser and Montreal-area resident Chiheb Esseghaier, 30, who were charged with conspiring to commit murder in connection with a terrorist group. Canadian police told reporters their investigation began last August.

Israeli Rabbinate: Supports Direct Metzitza

 As we reported last week - Daas Torah - Direct Metzitza - official rabbinate position   the official position of the Israel Rabbinate is that metzitza is a valid procedure. As they clearly state the parents have the option of either direct oral contact or using a tube. This was clearly described on the Rabbinate Web site in great detail. The fact that the guidelines are dated from a year ago clearly indicates that despite - some mistaken assertions to the contrary - the Rabbinate has not changed its position. All they have done is offered clarifications which some  have misunderstood to indicate that they changed their guidelines.

Arutz 7   In an official letter published by the Director of the Britot (Circumcisions) Department of the Chief Rabbinate, Rabbi Moshe Morciano clarified that the position of the Rabbinate supports traditional circumcision procedure which includes "metzitza bepeh" (oral suction). This is done to ensure the health of the baby.  The procedure is conditional upon the good health of the mohel himself, and the agreement of the family should be obtained by the Mohel (Circumciser).

Science: Wringing water out of cloth on Space Station

Boston Marathon Bombers: Is Terrorism a distortion of Islam?

The following video was brought to my attention by a reader. It charges that the Western World is collectively avoiding facing the true nature of Islam because of the desire to be tolerant and non-judgmental regarding religion and life style issues i.e., politically correct. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts in the modern world are carried about by Muslims - we are told that we should view this as a perversion of Islam which is claimed to be inherently a peaceful religion and tolerant of other religions and lifestyles. There is no question that the overwhelming number of Muslims and their leaders are peaceful people and do not support terrorism. Therefore I welcome reasoned debate and refutation of the thesis presented in this and similar videos that are on the Internet. I am well aware that some of my readers are Muslims - and I am not presenting this to be offensive. The arguments and backlash against Islam already exist - at least from the time of the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11. I would like to hear the other side. This is obviously not just a theoretical issue or an exercise in compartive religions. It strongly impacts Jews and in particluar Israel

Haifa's Chief Rabbi: Police say to indict him for fraud & bribery

YNET   The National Fraud Unit recommended that Haifa's Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Shlomo Shlush be prosecuted for offences related to bribery, fraud, breach of trust, misuse of a public position and transgression of the Law Forbidding Kosher Fraud.[...]

The rabbi insists that he was the one who was subjected to extortion.[...]

In 2010, the attorney general ordered the government to investigate the rabbi, prompting numerous investigations of both Shlush himself and his aides. Though investigators found that the rabbi was receiving bribes and threatening businesses with loss of their Kosher certificate for reasons unrelated to religious law, no indictments were filed.

Mother is main disciplinarian & should not show mercy when hitting kids

Shaloh (Shaar Osiyos Derech Eretz #17):Women are commanded to reprimand their children as the father is and in fact even more than the father. The reason for this is because woman are available and are more commonly in the home than the father. If the father is a talmid chachom then he is very much preoccupied with his studies. He simply is not able to keep a watchful eye at all times of what his children are doing. And if he is preoccupied with business and traveling from place to place – then obviously he is not going to be home.  It is stated in Berachos (17a), Greater is that which G‑d promised to the women more than what He promised to the men.... Rav asked Rav Chiya – what is the source of their merit? Rav Chiya answered, They takes their children to the synagogue and they accompany their husbands to yeshiva and wait for them there. Therefore despite the fact that the nature of women is more gentle than that of man they are required to act as men and be as insensitive as men and chastise their children for misbehaving and to hit their with solid blows. They should not listen to the cries of their reprimanded children but rather continue reprimanding them until they turn from their bad ways and go in the good path. This is alluded to by (Eicha 4:10), The hands of the merciful women boiled their own children.That is referring to those woman who show too much mercy to their children and refuse to hit them. By this inappropriate show of mercy they are killing them. It is as if they are slaughtering them and boiling them like they were the flesh of animals and birds.

The Limits of Empathy: Critique of Stephen Pinker - It doesn't make you a better person

NY Times   By David Brooks. We are surrounded by people trying to make the world a better place. Peace activists bring enemies together so they can get to know one another and feel each other’s pain. School leaders try to attract a diverse set of students so each can understand what it’s like to walk in the others’ shoes. Religious and community groups try to cultivate empathy. 

As Steven Pinker writes in his mind-altering new book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” we are living in the middle of an “empathy craze.” There are shelfloads of books about it: “The Age of Empathy,” “The Empathy Gap,” “The Empathic Civilization,” “Teaching Empathy.” There’s even a brain theory that we have mirror neurons in our heads that enable us to feel what’s in other people’s heads and that these neurons lead to sympathetic care and moral action. 

There’s a lot of truth to all this. We do have mirror neurons in our heads. People who are empathetic are more sensitive to the perspectives and sufferings of others. They are more likely to make compassionate moral judgments. 

The problem comes when we try to turn feeling into action. Empathy makes you more aware of other people’s suffering, but it’s not clear it actually motivates you to take moral action or prevents you from taking immoral action. 

In the early days of the Holocaust, Nazi prison guards sometimes wept as they mowed down Jewish women and children, but they still did it. Subjects in the famous Milgram experiments felt anguish as they appeared to administer electric shocks to other research subjects, but they pressed on because some guy in a lab coat told them to. 

Empathy orients you toward moral action, but it doesn’t seem to help much when that action comes at a personal cost. You may feel a pang for the homeless guy on the other side of the street, but the odds are that you are not going to cross the street to give him a dollar.[...]

Women of the Wall: Irrelevant for Israelis - Heroes in America

Times of Israel   Every second Jewish American who talks to me about Israel talks about Women of the Wall,” says Chen Bram, an anthropologist and organizational psychologist who is currently a Schusterman Visiting Israeli Professor at the University of Florida. “They all know this story.” For many American Jews, Women of the Wall, the tallitot- and tefillin-wearing women who read the Torah at the Kotel, have long been heroes of Jewish religious pluralism. Most Israelis, however, are only recently aware of the group — though they may be more knowledgeable about other religious pluralism issues in Israel.

Bram is surprised by how much Americans know about Women of the Wall. He says chairwoman Anat Hoffman is accorded rock star status by liberal American Jews. Conversely, Rabbi David Golinkin, President of the Conservative Movement’s Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, says Hoffman and her colleagues are considered irrelevant by most Israelis. [...]

It is not merely a matter of media coverage, but a reflection of a major disconnect between the two largest Jewish communities in the world. This divide is slowly being bridged, however, as the notion of a “global Jewish Peoplehood” is entering the public discourse, and religious pluralism and civil rights are rising higher on the Israeli political agenda.

“The whole battle for the Western Wall is an Americanized and American-imported battle for religious moderation and tolerance,” explains Shmuel Rosner, senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute and L.A. Jewish Journal columnist. “Women wearing a tallit is not something Israelis are used to. They don’t necessarily have negative feelings about it, but it’s just strange and feels like it doesn’t belong here.”[...]

Meir Dascalowitz pleads guilty to sexual abuse in mikve

NY Daily News   A Brooklyn father who's been ostracized from his Hasidic community because he reported his son's sexual abuse claimed victory Thursday after the man who violated the teenage boy pleaded guilty.

"Justice was done," said the father, Mordechai Jungreis. "I'm happy to show the community that the game is over — if you do the crime, you need to do the time."

Meir Dascalowitz, 29, will get five years in prison after pleading guilty to having sex with the boy, who is now 17. He'll also have to register as a sex offender upon his release.

The admitted perv was arrested in May 2010 for the abuse, which took place in a ritual bath, and his case slogged slowly through psych exams and other delays. [...]

Rav Yisroel Salanter poskened: "It is prohibited to desecrate Shabbos to save my life."

Tonight I went to be menachem avel Rav Nosson Kaminetsky who is sitting shiva for his sister Reb Shurin. He told over many stories. One of them was about Rav Yisroel Salanter-which he also has in Making of a Godol. Below is the story as it appears in Making of a Godol.

[page 1144] In the Salanter Interview my father introduced the following tale with the words: "This is a story that one should know." He related, "R' Fishel Behr told me that R' Yisrael, in his last months of life, had stayed for a while in R' Fishel's parents' home in Memel before going on to K6nigsberg [where he died]. R' Yisrael told him and his brother Naphtali, both teenagers then, that he feared suddenly becoming unable to care for himself." In BIS Talk, when my father also shared this story, he added that R' Yisrael had had this fear ever since he had suffered the paralytic episode discussed above. (Cf. Katz I , which states, "One morning [in the spring of 5642 (1882)] he arose, packed his belongings and left Paris, telling his astonished acquaintances, 'It is not good to die in Paris, & as if his heart had told him that his days were numbered." This does not contradict my father's report that his fear of becoming incapacitated started with his neurological episode. His concern must have intensified in "his last months of life" because he felt his days were ending.) "R' Yisrael then said to the Behr boys," my father continued, "'Children, if something happens to me, one is not permitted to desecrate the Sabbath to save my life. Why not? The gemara says that Shepherds are not to be brought up (from a pit they have fallen into, although) they may not be thrown in (either)] because they make their livelihood by grazing their sheep on other people's property [subsisting on stolen goods] . My livelihood is likewise acquired by stealing: I have no money - people support me, thinking I am a tzaddiq; if they knew the truth that I am not, they would not provide the support. Therefore, I live off stolen goods and I may not be saved from mortal danger.'

[page 1151] "Because of this sister," my father continued, "R' Fishel's father, R' Elya BehrL was familiar in the home of the Kovner Ray, and the next time [R' Elya] came to Kovno he repeated to R' Yitzhaq-Elhanan what R' Yisrael Salanter had ruled. [R' Spector] did not laugh. He listened to what his mekhuton had to say and gave it thought; then he said, 'Tell R' Yisrael that the Kovner Rav rules that one may . I am ruling for you that you may desecrate the Sabbath for him.'"

Rav Sternbuch(Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 3:357):

ובשולי הדברים אזכיר מעשה נורא מה ששמעתי על הגאון וצדיק רבי ישראל סלנטר זצ"ל, שבחליו האחרון היה תקופה קצרה אצל דודי זקני המופלא ה"ה הרב ברוך זלדויץ זצ"ל, והביע חשש לגבי עצמו, שמצינו שרועה בהמה דקה כיון שאינו נזהר באיסור גזל, הדין הוא שאין מעלין אותו להצילו, וכ"ש בשבת אסור לחלל שבת עבורו, ולדעת רבי ישראל זצ"ל אינו מדובר רק בבעלי בתים סוחרים שאין נזהרין באיסור גזל, שהופקר אצלם לרמות יהודים ועכו"ם שאסור, ודינם כרועה בהמה דקה, אלא גם רבנים או עסקנים שמקבלים כסף, ועושים מלאכת ה' רמייה ולא חוששין ,נעשה הפקר אצלם איסור גזל ואסור להצילם, ובבכי טען שנפשו בשאלתו וחושש באמת שדינו כרועה בהמה דקה שאין מצילין ויגרום חילול שבת, ודרש מדוד"ז זצ"ל הבטחה, שאם יצטרכו לחלל שבת עבורו, לא יחלל אלא אחר שאלת גדול בהוראה, וישמע דעתו שהחשש רציני, ודוד"ז זצ"ל הנ"ל הוכרח להסכים, אבל בזמן קצר הוחמר חליו, וייעצו לו לנסוע מיד לקניגסברג, ונסע שמה ונפטר, הרי ברוב ענותנותו ויראת חטאו חשש בסוף ימיו שאסור לחלל שבת עבורו, אף שבבית ישראל רבבות החזיקו אותו למורם ורבם, ומה נענה אנן היום בעו"ה !

 

Shevus Yaakov: Teacher beats student from anger at his inattention - must he pay damages?

 Shevus Yaakov (3:140): Question: A teacher became angry at his student and he strongly beat him because of the student was not paying attention to his learning. Is the teacher required to pay for the 4 types of damages he inflicted or is he exempt? Answer: It would seem obvious that the teacher is exempt from having to pay any compensation. We see in the gemora Makkos that a father who kills his son unintentionally or a teacher who kills a student unintentionally or a messenger of beis din - are not punished with exile. This gemora explicity states that the exemption is because they are exempt because the unintended killing took place while they were involved in a mitzva. There is no basis of saying that one can't generalize from the exemption from exile to an exemption of the 4 types of damages - because it is a statute of the Torah.  Don't argue that you can't reason  that if they are exempt from capital punishment and exile then surely they are exempt from the 4 types of payment because we find in a number of places in the gemora that even though a person is exempt from exile he is obligated to pay. That is because this case is different since the gemora which provides an exemption is only when they were involved in doing a mitza as we see in Makkos (8a-b).Therefore that is the reason we should exempt the teacher from payment since he was involved in a mitzva as we see when a person is running erev Shabbos and causes damage since he was involved in a mitzva. So surely in the case of the teacher. Furthermore the gemora compares the three cases with each other and the messenger of the court is exempt even if he damages someone as we see in Choshen Mishpat in the Beis Yosef at the end of simon 8 and is brought in the Rema in Shulchan Aruch without any dissent...A teacher who is discipline a student because of this studies is exempt from all payments of damage. This is stated explicitly in the Termas HaDeshen (#218) that it is not only a person allowed to hit his son or his student but everyone person is allowed to hit anyone under his control if there is justification for hitting him to stop him from sinning. Furthermore he says there is no need to bring the sinner to beis din before hitting him. He learns this out from Bava Kama (28) he a freed slave can be beaten by his former master because he doesn't want to leave the woman he was given as a slave who is not prohibited to him. So if it is permitted to beat another person for this reason then surely it is permitted because the student is wasting time from Torah study. So even though the halacha is that a teacher can only hit a student with a small strap which doesn't cause serious harm - nevertheless bedieved the teacher should not be punished because he didn't comply with that condition. 

Don't think that I am not fully aware of what the Ranach (1:111) wrote concerning an agent of beis din who hit someone out of anger and he was required to pay. The case of a teacher is different since the gemora in Taanis (4a) says that a talmid chachom becomes angry because of the Torah. In particular it causes him greater anguish when he learns with a student who doesn't pay attention to his studies. Therefore the teacher should be exempt from all payment. However in order that the teacher should not become accustomed to beating his student because it is not nice for a talmid chachom to become enraged or to lack patience - for the sake of improving the situation (migder milsa) and to make sure he doesn't violate the halacha of not hitting with more than a small strap - I rule that he must pay for the docotr to cure the student...
 =============================
update 4/18/13 Aruch HaShulchan (C.M. 424:17): There are those who say that a teacher who beats his students is exempt from paying for the damage done by the beating if it was done for the sake of teaching. A proof for this is that our Sages say that a person is exempt from exile when he kills unintentionally [Makkos 8a] while doing a mitza... such as a father who hits his son and a teacher who disciplines his student and an agent of beis din. According to this the case where the father is obligated to pay for beating his son or daughter is only when it is done without any intent for educating them - however if it is done for the welfare of the child then the father is exempt from payment. However there are those who disagree because a person is not allowed to give blows that cause bruises. This that the Torah exempts from exile in Makkos 8a is a statute of the Torah and it appears that the person died because of Heavenly Decree.  Since it is a dispute in the poskim the actual ruling depends on the details of each case according to the understanding of beis din.

פתחי תשובה חושן משפט סימן תכד:ד

(החובל בבניו כו' - עיין בתשובת שבות יעקב ח"ג סימן ק"מ אודות מלמד שכעס על תלמידו והכה אותו בשביל לימודו עד שחבל בו, אם חייב בד' דברים או פטור. והשיב, נראה פשוט דפטור מכולם כדאיתא במסכת מכות [ח' ע"א] מה חטיבת עצים רשות יצא האב המכה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמידו ושליח ב"ד, ואין לומר דהיינו דפטור מגלות מגזה"כ אבל חייב בד' דברים, זה אינו, דהא מבואר שם בגמרא דאילו פטורים משום דמצוה קעביד, א"כ מה"ט יש לפטור מכולם כדאמרינן גבי רץ בערב שבת בין השמשות [ב"ק ל"ב ע"א]. ועוד, דהא הני תלתא מדמה הש"ס להדדי, ובשליח ב"ד פטור אפילו אם הזיקו כמבואר בב"י סוף סימן ח' ובהגהת שו"ע שם בלי חולק כו', וכן מבואר בתרומת הדשן סי' רי"ח [הובא לעיל סימן תכ"א סעיף י"ג בהגה] דלאו דוקא בנו ותלמידו אלא אפילו לכל אדם שכפוף תחת ידו ראוי להכותו להפרישו מן העבירה כו', וכ"ש בשביל ביטול תורה, אף על גב דקיי"ל דיש להכותו בערקתא דמסאני ולא באכזריות [כדאיתא בשו"ע יו"ד סימן רמ"ה סעיף י'], מ"מ דיעבד אין לקנסו בשביל כך. ואף דבתשובת הראנ"ח ח"א סי' קי"א כתב דבשליח ב"ד שהכה מפני כעס וחימה חייב [הביאו הכנה"ג לעיל סימן ח' [הגב"י סק"ג]], מ"מ בת"ח דאורייתא מרתחא ליה, בפרט שהוא צער גדול כשלומד עם התלמיד ואינו משים לב על לימודו, יש לפוטרו מכל, אבל מ"מ כדי שלא יהא רגיל לעשות כן ולמיגדר מילתא פסקתי שישלם שכר הרופא, עכ"ד ע"ש. ולדבריו צ"ל דאלו הדינים שבסעיף זה בחובל בבניו מיירי שלא הכהו ליסרו, אולם בתשובת קרית חנה סי' כ"ב לא כתב כן [הבאתיו בקצרה בפ"ת ליו"ד סימן רמ"ה שם [סק"ד]], אלא דהכא מיירי אפילו במכהו ליסרו, ומה דאמרו יצא האב המכה את בנו כו' הוא רק דפטור מגלות, משא"כ לענין ד' דברים דאיתרבו שוגג כמזיד כו', והאריך בזה ע"ש וצ"ע:

Circumcision may bolster immune system against harmful bacteria

LA Times   Circumcision is known to reduce a man's risk of HIV infection by at least half, but scientists don't know why. A new study offers support for the theory that removing the foreskin deprives troublesome bacteria of a place to live, leaving the immune system in much better shape to keep the human immunodeficiency virus at bay.

Anyone who has ever lifted a rock and watched as the earth beneath it was quickly vacated by legions of bugs and tiny worms would be familiar with the principle, said study leader Dr. Cindy Liu: After the foreskin is cut away, the masses of genital bacteria that once existed beneath it end up disappearing.

"It's the same as if you clear-cut a forest," said Liu, a pathologist at the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Flagstaff, Ariz. "The community of animals that once lived in that forest is going to change."

Of particular note is that circumcision undercuts anaerobic bacteria, the microbes that thrive in oxygen-deprived environments, she said. By reducing the number of anaerobic bacteria, the body's immune cells may be better able to destroy the virus — and less likely to fall prey to its Trojan horse-style of attack, the authors suggest.

U of Penn sent me the Metzitza Report in response to a simple request!

Just received the report. I had only sent request this morning. The report simply indicates that while it is possible that a mohel can transmit herpes - however because of the limited number of cases in the studies available - more work needs to establish anything more definitive. This really doesn't support the Aguda's view that metzitza is not a problem. It is consistent with what the U of Penn had said the report is about in their comments to the Forward. The report also came with a pamphlet from the NYC Heath department warning of metzitza. I don't see any chidush in the report. It clearly is not part of some secret conspiracy to support the Aguda's agenda.  Does anyone doubt that it is theoretically possible to transmit herpes through metzitza? In sum I am simply affirming what the U of Penn has stated about this report.

 ======================================
 Good afternoon Dr. Eidensohn,

Please find the attached report that you requested.

Thanks !!

S.C. Dunbar

Administrative Assistant

Center for Evidence-based Practice (CEP) and

Clinical Effectiveness and Quality Improvement (CEQI)

University of Pennsylvania Health System

3535 Market Street, Mezzanine Level, Suite 50

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Telephone: (215) 662-2463

Fax: (215)349-5829

stephanie.dunbar@uphs.upenn.edu

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Daniel Eidensohn [mailto:yadmoshe@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:36 AM

To: Dunbar, Stephanie

Subject: report request

could you please send me a copy of the following report listed on your

web site?

2013 01 21 | Risk of neonatal herpes simplex virus type 1 infection

associated with jewish ritual circumcision

Daniel Eidensohn Ph.D.

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

Direct Metzitza: Official Israeli Rabbinut guidelines permit it

Contrary to assertions that some have made  - the Israeli Rabbinate
says it is not necessary to stop the practise of direct mouth metzitza. These guidelines are currently posted on the web site of the Rabbinate. Israeli newspapers and BHOL on April 8, 2013 reported that the Chief Rabbinate had just issued a clarification of these guidelines. The  Rabbinate said that use of the glass tube is permitted l'chatchila and it is preferrable medically. "That the tube reduces significantly reduces the likelihood of infection." If the parents request that the tube not be used then the mohel should explain the dangers associated with that. The parents have the right to insist on the use of a glass tube. Basically - as the year old guidelines currently posted on the Rabbinate website state - the parents have the right to choose whether they want a glass tube utilized.



  See previous comments about metzitza

מציצה ישירה בפה במילה – עמדה רפואית-הלכתית

Metzitzah Be’Peh in traditional Jewish ritual circumcision