Videos -Eternal Jewish Family - Preservation Of The Jewish Culture
Video about EJF's dedication to promote the concept of universally accepted conversions in intermarriage as a way of preserving the Jewish family.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
EJF - revised video
Videos -Eternal Jewish Family - Preservation Of The Jewish Culture
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Rav Soloveitchik's lectures III - Commensurability
Rav Meir Triebitz writes:
We have already hinted that the Rav views halacha as the central basis for a philosophy of Judaism. This theme appears over and over again in the Rav’s writings, and in particular in lecture XII where he declares:
Whether an idea is typically Jewish can best be judged by the halacha – not the Aggadah – to understand any work as the authority meant to convey and you must have lived in the same social environment and cultural forces as the author. Mankind is changeable in its cognitive adventures, and to say that I understand Aristotle means in the tradition of Aristotle, which, of course, has been subject to change. In halacha there is a masoret, a tradition as to method, but if I give an interpretation to Maimonides, it does not necessarily mean that Maimonides meant just that. If measured by halachic standards it is correct. That suffices. But as to Aggadah, there is no tradition, nor in philosophy do we have a tradition. In halacha there is a certain kabballah without any missing links, while in Aggada and certainly philosophy there are many such missing links.It appears to me that the Rav’s remarks concerning evolution are an attempt to achieve what I would call ‘halachic commensurability’ and not, merely, ‘scientific commensurability’. While Judaism views man as the “bearer of a divine image” and therefore endowed with the capacity for transcendence, this transcendence, in the Rav’s words, “was always seen against the background of naturalness. The canvas was man’s immanence; transcendence was just projected on it as a display of colors” (Emergence of Ethical Man p. 9). The Rav is clearly speaking from the standpoint of the halachah. In contradistinction, “Christianity succeeded in isolating them and reducing the element of naturalness to a state of corruption” (ibid.). This has to be seen as a consequence of Christianity’s rejection of the halacha.
Bernard Madoff II - Impact on Jews
At least $600 million in Jewish charitable funds have been wiped out by the collapse of Bernard Madoff's Wall Street investment firm, a partial review by The Jerusalem Post revealed Monday.
Yet much is still hidden about what may amount to the most spectacular financial disaster to hit Jewish life since the Great Depression, with unconfirmed losses totaling up to $1.5 billion.
Furthermore, the Post's figures do not include billions of dollars lost to individual and family investors, many of whom were the primary donors to Jewish schools, synagogues and communal charities.[...]
For the worldwide Jewish community, the fact that the man at the heart of what may be Wall Street's worst-ever fraud was an active member of the community could be the worst news yet in a bad recession period.
Not only could Madoff's alleged dishonesty increase anti-Semitic feeling in a time of worldwide economic downturn, said many Jewish leaders, but his close involvement with the Jewish community has exposed vast amounts of Jewish communal assets to his scheme.[...]
"This is a tidal wave, a tsunami," said a veteran advisor to Jewish nonprofits, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "You can live with a downturn in the economy, because there will be an upturn. But now we're talking about foundations that have been wiped out completely, money that's not recoverable."[...]
Monday, December 15, 2008
T.V. & the Israeli "soul"
YNET reports:
A school in central Israel decided to postpone an educational trip scheduled for Tuesday evening because the date clashes with the final episode of the hugely popular reality show "Big Brother."
The show provides viewers with 24/7 access to the lives of a group of participants locked up in a house monitored by multiple TV cameras and completely isolated from the outside world.
In the three months it has been broadcast, "Big Brother" has swept large audiences in Israel, with a substantial proportion being glued to the screen most hours of the day. The show has also been the focus of much controversy lately, due to its blatant content and its allegedly negative influence on teenagers and TV culture in Israel. [...]
A school in central Israel decided to postpone an educational trip scheduled for Tuesday evening because the date clashes with the final episode of the hugely popular reality show "Big Brother."
The show provides viewers with 24/7 access to the lives of a group of participants locked up in a house monitored by multiple TV cameras and completely isolated from the outside world.
In the three months it has been broadcast, "Big Brother" has swept large audiences in Israel, with a substantial proportion being glued to the screen most hours of the day. The show has also been the focus of much controversy lately, due to its blatant content and its allegedly negative influence on teenagers and TV culture in Israel. [...]
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Reality - Israeli-American gap of perception
JPost - R' Jonathan Rosenblum writes:
No subject so divides the Jews of Israel and America as that which once bound them most closely: Israel itself. To appreciate the gap, try telling an American Jew that George W. Bush was the president who best understood Israel's predicament and watch his jaw drop.
American Jewry is lining up behind a return to the hyperactive American peacemaking of the Clinton years. The Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice, according to an article in New York's Jewish Week, recently obtained the signatures of 800 rabbis on a petition to President-elect Barack Obama urging him to make the Israeli-Palestinian peace process an early priority, beginning with the appointment of a high-level envoy to the region. And the new left-wing group, J Street, contacted the Obama transition team to argue that American Jews want a more active peace process and that large Democratic majorities in Congress provide the incoming administration with the power to push an aggressive peacemaking agenda.
J Street is likely right. For many American Jews, Israel has become a drag. If they were to wake up tomorrow and find that Israel had bloodlessly disappeared and its Jews had found safe haven elsewhere, they would be relieved. That includes the 50 percent of American Jews under 35 who told sociologists Steven Cohen and Ari Kelman that they would not view the destruction of Israel as a personal tragedy.
Others, such the Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice and Americans for Peace Now, are intensely concerned with events in Israel. But it is their cherished image of the Jew as the bearer of universal justice, not concern with the lives of Jews of Israel, that primarily drives their Middle East agenda. So long as Israel does not have peace with its neighbors and is the subject of widespread obloquy, that image is tarnished.
Even among the 3% of Reform Jews and 6% of Conservative Jews for whom Israel is the crucial issue driving their voting choices (according to a May study conducted by the American Jewish Committee), there are many who would not protest intense American pressure on Israel, as long as known "pro-Israel" figures like incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and prominent American Jews such as Dan Kurtzer, Martin Indyk and Rahm Emmanuel, are the ones turning the screws.
And who can blame them, when Israel's prime minister himself says Israel's future depends on the speedy achievement of a peace agreement with the Palestinians? For all Ehud Olmert's venality, nothing so reveals his soul-deep corruption as having deliberately handed any future American president the club to pressure Israel without doffing the mantle of "a true friend."
THOSE AMERICAN Jews who still fret about the safety of their brethren in Israel should at least ask themselves: Why do the majority of Israel's Jews view matters so differently? Why are they poised to elect as their next prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the bete-noire of the Clinton administration in the heady days of Oslo? Is it that Israelis are an anomaly in Jewish history - fanatic warriors craving permanent warfare? Or is it rather that they learned something over the
past 15 years?[...]
Saturday, December 13, 2008
$50 Billion rip off - Bernard Madoff
The zoning lawyer in Miami trusted him because his father had dealt profitably with him for decades. The officers of a little charity in Massachusetts respected him and relied on his advice.
Wealthy men like J. Ezra Merkin, the chairman of GMAC; Fred Wilpon, the principal owner of the New York Mets; and Norman Braman, who owned the Philadelphia Eagles, simply appreciated the steady returns he produced, regardless of market conditions.
But these clients of Bernard L. Madoff had this in common: They chose him to oversee much of their personal wealth.
And now, they fear, they have lost it.
While Mr. Madoff is facing federal criminal charges, accused by federal prosecutors of operating a vast $50 billion Ponzi scheme, many of his clients are facing an abrupt reversal of fortune that is the stuff of nightmares.
“There are people who were very, very well off a few days ago who are now virtually destitute,” said Brad Friedman, a lawyer with the Milberg firm in Manhattan. “They have nothing left but their apartments or homes — which they are going to have to sell to get money to live on.”
From New York to Palm Beach, business associates of Mr. Madoff spent Friday assessing the damage, the extent of which will not be known for some time. Many invested with Mr. Madoff through other funds and may not know that their money is at risk.[...]
Mr. Madoff has resigned from his positions at Yeshiva University, where he was treasurer for the university’s board and deeply involved in the business school.
“Our lawyers and accountants are investigating all aspects of his relationship to Yeshiva University,” said Hedy Shulman, a spokeswoman for the university.
The most recent tax filings for the university show that its endowment fund, a separate charity, was heavily invested in hedge funds and other nontraditional alternatives at the end of its fiscal year in 2006.
The school paper, the Yeshiva Commentator, recently reported that its endowment’s value had dropped to $1.4 billion from $1.8 billion — before the scandal broke.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Kastner - unresolved controversy
Haaretz reports:
More than 50 years after the murder of Israel (Rudolf) Kastner, the de facto head of the Jewish Aid and Rescue Committee in Budapest, the controversy surrounding him is being rekindled.
Kastner, who made a deal with Adolph Eichmann in 1944 to allow between 1,600 and 1,700 Hungarian Jews to leave for Switzerland in exchange for money, gold and diamonds, was convicted in Israel in 1955 for collaboration with the Nazis. The court ruled that Kastner had indeed "sold his soul to the devil."
Two years later he was murdered outside his home in Tel Aviv.
The affair has spawned more than 10 books, a theater play and a television film. Now a storm has been raised again after the documentary "Killing Kastner" by the American director Gaylen Ross was screened at the Haifa International Film Festival two months ago.
Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz about the movie that it was time to beg for Kastner's forgiveness. Ten letters to the newspaper in response helped rekindle the 50-year-old controversy. Even today, five decades later, Baruch Tzahor refuses to forget the injustice that was caused to Kastner, who, as Levy wrote, saved more Jews by negotiations than the partisans, Warsaw ghetto rebels or other heroes. At the age of 83, Tzahor, who lives with his wife in moshav Zofit, is still troubled by the affair that shook the young Israeli state.
"All the accusations against Kastner were lies," he says. "I know because he tried to save me." [...]
More than 50 years after the murder of Israel (Rudolf) Kastner, the de facto head of the Jewish Aid and Rescue Committee in Budapest, the controversy surrounding him is being rekindled.
Kastner, who made a deal with Adolph Eichmann in 1944 to allow between 1,600 and 1,700 Hungarian Jews to leave for Switzerland in exchange for money, gold and diamonds, was convicted in Israel in 1955 for collaboration with the Nazis. The court ruled that Kastner had indeed "sold his soul to the devil."
Two years later he was murdered outside his home in Tel Aviv.
The affair has spawned more than 10 books, a theater play and a television film. Now a storm has been raised again after the documentary "Killing Kastner" by the American director Gaylen Ross was screened at the Haifa International Film Festival two months ago.
Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz about the movie that it was time to beg for Kastner's forgiveness. Ten letters to the newspaper in response helped rekindle the 50-year-old controversy. Even today, five decades later, Baruch Tzahor refuses to forget the injustice that was caused to Kastner, who, as Levy wrote, saved more Jews by negotiations than the partisans, Warsaw ghetto rebels or other heroes. At the age of 83, Tzahor, who lives with his wife in moshav Zofit, is still troubled by the affair that shook the young Israeli state.
"All the accusations against Kastner were lies," he says. "I know because he tried to save me." [...]
EJF - The issue is lack of transparency
Roni has left a new comment on your post "EJF - Proselytizing Advertisement":
So why that don't you challenge the publicitities publicity where he actually insinuates an at times states so explicitly?
Exactly! look for those responsa and you will see why there was and is a need to create an organization like EJF for there were/are numerous charlatans (some of them hailed in this blogs as good conversion rabbis) who made hundreds and maybe thousands (collectively) of fake conversions where there was no kabbalat hamitzvot.
Look, even the critics of EJF, or even good rabbis who do not presently associate with the EJf (like HaRav H. Shechter) felt the need and importance for such an organization and part of his alignment with that idea was the chaotic state of conversions where they converted without any serious intention to keep Torah an mitzvot and did not show one iota that they would want change their lifestyle.
==========================
Roni you have raised some solid issues 1) there is a need for improvement in the geirus issue - perhaps even stopping it as the Achiezer stated. Rav Moshe Feinstein stated that he himself is not involved because the success rate is so low. 2) How could all these important rabbis be involved in an organization if it weren't 100% kosher 3) There are some major rabbinical figures who were associated with EJF and have dropped out - such as Rav H. Shechter, Rav Dovid Feinstein and Rav Eisenstein and perhaps Rav Eliashiv himself. 4) The Bedatz issued a condemnation of the EJF after failing to receive any explanation from Rabbi Tropper for his proselytizing activities.
This latter question is the crux of our problem. I contacted EJF with the simple question - you claim to base yourself on the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein - what did he say because it is clearly not in the Igros Moshe. Rabbi Tropper himself responded and we went round and round - and he did not answer the question.
He refused to answer a rather elementary question - what is your justification from Rav Moshe Feinstein or Rav Eliashiv to spend millions of dollars on conventions to convince intermarried couples to convert? He said - what is the issur? The basic rule is who ever changes has the burden of proof. We have a very long history of rejecting proselytization.
In addition he felt it necessary to slander me in a correspondence with someone I referred to him regarding a geirus problem.
He insulted Rav Sternbuch in a letter he sent him regarding the geirus issue - and despite R' Tropper's promise to me that he would send an apology - he never did.
Theoretically my question could have been answered in 25 words or less. Theoretically there should be a kuntres describing the goals, techniques and halachic justification - so that EJF can be openly discussed by poskim. Rabbi Tropper told me there had been a manual in the beginning but it was discontinued because it wasn't clear. Why hasn't a new manual be issued?
Bottom line when someone acts suspiciously and dodges elementary questions, throws big bucks around in problemtaic activities as well as hands out big bucks to big rabbis for attending his program - and feels the necessity of insulting others such as Rav Sternbuch and the Modern Orthodox - that person loses his chezkas kashrus.
If R' Tropper is what you think he is - he could have cleared this issue up in five minutes - a year ago. I myself have repeatedly asked him to do just that. Maybe if he is your good friend you will give him this post - since he claims not to be involved with the internet - and maybe you can convince him to be more transparent and less "omnipotent fearless leader".
DT: "I don't think you have the context quite right. Nobody is saying that these or other involved rabbis are doing thing which they think violate their principles for the sake of money".
So why that don't you challenge the publicitities publicity where he actually insinuates an at times states so explicitly?
DT: No one is going to a rosh yeshiva and saying - if you do will violate halacha I will give you big bucks. The issue is much more subtle. I would suggest you search through this blog for the Achiezer 26 and Achiezer 28 - twenty years separated these two statements".
Exactly! look for those responsa and you will see why there was and is a need to create an organization like EJF for there were/are numerous charlatans (some of them hailed in this blogs as good conversion rabbis) who made hundreds and maybe thousands (collectively) of fake conversions where there was no kabbalat hamitzvot.
Look, even the critics of EJF, or even good rabbis who do not presently associate with the EJf (like HaRav H. Shechter) felt the need and importance for such an organization and part of his alignment with that idea was the chaotic state of conversions where they converted without any serious intention to keep Torah an mitzvot and did not show one iota that they would want change their lifestyle.
==========================
Roni you have raised some solid issues 1) there is a need for improvement in the geirus issue - perhaps even stopping it as the Achiezer stated. Rav Moshe Feinstein stated that he himself is not involved because the success rate is so low. 2) How could all these important rabbis be involved in an organization if it weren't 100% kosher 3) There are some major rabbinical figures who were associated with EJF and have dropped out - such as Rav H. Shechter, Rav Dovid Feinstein and Rav Eisenstein and perhaps Rav Eliashiv himself. 4) The Bedatz issued a condemnation of the EJF after failing to receive any explanation from Rabbi Tropper for his proselytizing activities.
This latter question is the crux of our problem. I contacted EJF with the simple question - you claim to base yourself on the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein - what did he say because it is clearly not in the Igros Moshe. Rabbi Tropper himself responded and we went round and round - and he did not answer the question.
He refused to answer a rather elementary question - what is your justification from Rav Moshe Feinstein or Rav Eliashiv to spend millions of dollars on conventions to convince intermarried couples to convert? He said - what is the issur? The basic rule is who ever changes has the burden of proof. We have a very long history of rejecting proselytization.
In addition he felt it necessary to slander me in a correspondence with someone I referred to him regarding a geirus problem.
He insulted Rav Sternbuch in a letter he sent him regarding the geirus issue - and despite R' Tropper's promise to me that he would send an apology - he never did.
Theoretically my question could have been answered in 25 words or less. Theoretically there should be a kuntres describing the goals, techniques and halachic justification - so that EJF can be openly discussed by poskim. Rabbi Tropper told me there had been a manual in the beginning but it was discontinued because it wasn't clear. Why hasn't a new manual be issued?
Bottom line when someone acts suspiciously and dodges elementary questions, throws big bucks around in problemtaic activities as well as hands out big bucks to big rabbis for attending his program - and feels the necessity of insulting others such as Rav Sternbuch and the Modern Orthodox - that person loses his chezkas kashrus.
If R' Tropper is what you think he is - he could have cleared this issue up in five minutes - a year ago. I myself have repeatedly asked him to do just that. Maybe if he is your good friend you will give him this post - since he claims not to be involved with the internet - and maybe you can convince him to be more transparent and less "omnipotent fearless leader".
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Rav Solveitchik & Commensurability II
Taken from Daas Torah page 53
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (The Halakhic Mind): the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer does not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied with any cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian knot of many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have achieved more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting concrete reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a religious world perspective.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Lonely Man of Faith): I have never been seriously troubled by the problem of the Biblical doctrine of creation vis‑à‑vis the scientific story of evolution at both the cosmic and the organic levels, nor have I been perturbed by the confrontation of the mechanistic interpretation of the human mind with the Biblical spiritual concept of man. I have not been perplexed by the impossibility of fitting the mystery of revelation into the framework of historical empiricism. Moreover, I have not even been troubled by the theories of Biblical criticism which contradict the very foundations upon which the sanctity and integrity of Scriptures
====================================
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Unpublished 7th Lecture on Bereishis): Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the religious man encounters is the problem of evolution and creation. However, this is not the real problem. What actually is irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of a divine image and the idea of man as an intelligent animal in science. Evolution and creation can be reconciled merely by saying that six days is not absolutely so, but is indefinite and may be longer. Maimonides spoke of Creation in terms of phases and the Kabbalah in terms of sefiros, the time of which may be indefinite. However, our conflict is man as a unique being and man as a friend of the animal. Science can never explain how being came into being, for it is out of the realm of science, while the Bible is concerned with the problem of ex nihilo. Aristotle could not accept evolution because he believed in the eternity of forms. (Lecture XII).
The Emergence of Ethical Man, pp. 4-5:[from R' Gil Student]
Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the modern homo religiosus encounters and tries vainly to harmonize with his belief is the so-called theory of evolution. In our daily jargon, we call this antinomy "evolution versus creation." The phrase does not exactly reflect the crux of the controversy, for the question does not revolve around divine creation and mechanistic evolution as such. We could find a solution of some kind to this controversy. What in fact is theoretically irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of the divine image with the equalling of man and animal-plant existences. In other words, the ontic autonomy or heteronomy of man is the problem.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (The Halakhic Mind): the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer does not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied with any cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian knot of many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have achieved more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting concrete reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a religious world perspective.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Lonely Man of Faith): I have never been seriously troubled by the problem of the Biblical doctrine of creation vis‑à‑vis the scientific story of evolution at both the cosmic and the organic levels, nor have I been perturbed by the confrontation of the mechanistic interpretation of the human mind with the Biblical spiritual concept of man. I have not been perplexed by the impossibility of fitting the mystery of revelation into the framework of historical empiricism. Moreover, I have not even been troubled by the theories of Biblical criticism which contradict the very foundations upon which the sanctity and integrity of Scriptures
====================================
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Unpublished 7th Lecture on Bereishis): Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the religious man encounters is the problem of evolution and creation. However, this is not the real problem. What actually is irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of a divine image and the idea of man as an intelligent animal in science. Evolution and creation can be reconciled merely by saying that six days is not absolutely so, but is indefinite and may be longer. Maimonides spoke of Creation in terms of phases and the Kabbalah in terms of sefiros, the time of which may be indefinite. However, our conflict is man as a unique being and man as a friend of the animal. Science can never explain how being came into being, for it is out of the realm of science, while the Bible is concerned with the problem of ex nihilo. Aristotle could not accept evolution because he believed in the eternity of forms. (Lecture XII).
The Emergence of Ethical Man, pp. 4-5:[from R' Gil Student]
Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the modern homo religiosus encounters and tries vainly to harmonize with his belief is the so-called theory of evolution. In our daily jargon, we call this antinomy "evolution versus creation." The phrase does not exactly reflect the crux of the controversy, for the question does not revolve around divine creation and mechanistic evolution as such. We could find a solution of some kind to this controversy. What in fact is theoretically irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of the divine image with the equalling of man and animal-plant existences. In other words, the ontic autonomy or heteronomy of man is the problem.
Father can ruin daughter's life
שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יד סימן קצה
רק הערה קטנה בדבר מה שאמרו חז"ל דביד האב למסור את בתו הקטנה למנוול ומוכה שחין וכמ"ש ז"ל דאי בעי מסר לה למנוול ומוכה שחין, ולכאורה פלא אמאי לא תקנו חז"ל קנס ועונש להעושה כן שאם יבא אב וימסור את בתו למנוול יענשו אותו הב"ד וימתחו אותו על העמוד, אבל לא מצינו כן אלא מצינו ההיפוך שכיון שחששו ז"ל שאפשר שיעשה לה כן וימסרנה למנוול אם יכעוס עליה באופן שתמצא מציאה וכיוצא בו ויחייבו אותו לזונה והיא תקבל המציאה והמעשה ידיה ולכן תקנו לו לאב מציאתה ומעשה ידיה עיין תוס' כתובות (דף מ"ז) זכאי במציאתה משום איבה ופי' בקונט' וכו' ולר"י נראה איבה דמציאתה היינו שלא יקדשנה למנוול ומוכה שחין ובקטנה אפילו אינה סמוכה על שלחנו ואינו מפרנסה ואפ"ה תקנו מציאתה לאביה משום איבה שלא יקדשנה למנוול ומוכה שחין
ובזה ישבתי קושית הב"י והב"ח על הרמב"ם בפ"ג מהל' אישות הי"א האב מקדש את בתו שלא לדעתה כל זמן שהיא קטנה וכו' וקידושיה לאביה וכן הוא זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה וכו' והב"י א"ע סי' ל"ז והב"ח תמהו דמאי שיטא דמציאה לכאן ולא הי' לו להזכיר כאן מדיני מציאה ע"ש ולפמ"ש נראה לישב דהא בהא תליא דכיון דזכתה התורה לאב לקדשה ולקבל כסף קידושיה ואכתי א"כ באב שירצה בכסף קידושין ימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין בשביל להוסיף כסף קידושין לו וע"ז הוסיף דחז"ל תקנו לו שזוכה במציאתה ולא יהיה לה איבה ולא ימסור אותה למנוול ומוכה שחין.
ומבואר דיש חשש איבה בין אביה לבתה אפי' במציאה ומעשה ידיה אם לא יתנו לאביה וחיישינן שלא ימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין כ"ש שאם יגרמו לו איבה לשנאת את בתו בפועל ע"י שיקחו אותה בע"כ ממנו בערכאות וכיוצא בו שאז יקחו מציאתה ומעשה ידיה ממנו ח"ו שיש לחוש שימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין, שזה בכלל גזילה ממנו שגזלה הבת מה ששייך לו ואח"כ עוד יתבענו להחזיקה ולזונה בע"כ של הערכאות וגם יקחו את המעשה ידיה והמציאה שתמצא שבודאי יהי' לו איבה ואם עוד האם שמחזיקה הבת ילמדה לדבר נגד האב בודאי ובודאי שיהי' לו איבה ואיבה, וילך וימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין ויקבל כסף קידושין הרבה ממנו ויוכל עם כסף זה לשלם החוב מה שהוטל עליו השופט בע"כ שלא כהלכה.
והנה מה נאמר ראה ראינו מה קרא בעונ"ה אם המעשה אמת מהאב שקידש את בתו קטנה ולא ידוע לי אם אמת הדבר או לא כי לא שמעתי מהבעל כלום רק מה ששמעתי מבחוץ ועכ"פ הרי האב נאמן לומר קדשתי את בתי והוא הלכה מפורשת בלי חולק, אבל בין כך ובין כך הדבר מכאיב מאד וכנראה שכל גדולי ישראל דואגים על הדבר וחוששין ח"ו על קלקול הדור, אבל האמת שצריך לירד למקור המחלה הזו, כי אין אני רוצה פה לאשם או לנקות את הבעל או את האשה כי לזה יש דין בישראל ושמוע בין אחיכם כתיב, ואם הם רוצים להיות ככל הגוים וללכת במשפטי עכו"ם האחריות עלינו למונעם אם יכולים, אמנם לעצם הענין פשוט שמחמת האיבה שנעשה בין האב לבתו עשה מה שעשה וגם אנחנו כנראה לא יצאנו ידי חובתינו שעד עכשיו לא רבני קאנאדא ולא רבני מפה לא עשינו שום פעולה ולא דאגנו לא על מעשה אשה זו ולא על נשים אחרות או אנשים אשר הולכים בערכאות ולא הוציאו חרם ונדוי על האשה שהלכה לערכאות או על הבעל ועדיין לא חזרה בה, ולא הוציאה המסירה מהבית משפט שלהם לבא לב"ד או לזבל"א ולהבטיח להבעל שלא ילכו ולא יביאו עוד לידי עכו"ם.
וידוע מה שאמרו חז"ל (גיטין נ"ז) במעשה דקמצא ובר קמצא ומדשתקי להו רבנן ש"מ מינח קניחא להו והלך ומסר את כלל ישראל והחריב את בית מקדשינו וגלה את ישראל ופלא שחז"ל לא האשימו כלל אותו מוסר בחורבן הבית אלא אמרו ענותנותו של זכרי' בן אבקילוס חרבה את מקדשינו וכו' וצ"ב ח"ו לשום אשמה גדולה כזו על הצדיק וענו ר' זכרי' וליקחה מהאשם והמסור באמת, אבל כנראה ששתיקת החכמים גרמה לזה וגם כשבאו כבר חכמי ישראל ושאלו את ר' זכרי' שהי' ראש ב"ד כדת מה לעשות עם המסור והוא השיב יאמרו בעלי מומין קרבין א"כ נהרוג אותו והשיב יאמרו המטיל מום בקדשים ולכאורה הצדק אתו ומה הי' לו לפסוק ואטו הי' לו לפסוק שלא כהלכה ואמרתי בס"ד שהחסרון הי' כשבאו לר"ז ואמרו לו יש כאן מסור הי"ל לר"ז מיד לומר מסור מצוה להרגו כדיני מסור ובפרט לכלל ישראל ולא ליכנס יאמרו מטיל מום בקדשים ואטו משום מטיל מום הורגים אותו והלא מסור אבל הקילו בדין מסור ולכן הטילו כל האשמה עליו.
ולכן נלפענ"ד דגם ידינו אינם נקיים אם נוסיף להטיל איבה בין אב לבתו ולא נעקר ונשרוש את הרע להחרים על כל ההולכים במסירות לערכאות הן איש והן אשה שדינם נפסק בש"ע ח"מ שם ולא להניח כן שיקחו הילדים מאבותיהן ע"י כח השופט וערכאות שנותנין הילדים להנשים וכיוצא בו ועוד יותר בלי להתחשב עם תורתינו הקדושה כלל, שחייבים לחנך הבנים וזה שייך להבעל ומצוה שלו הוא וחיוב על האב ואין להם להאבות רק להחזיקם בממונם וגם לא לראותם כרצונם ואינם סומכים על שלחנם כלל ואפילו לראותם בלבד רק מתי שיתרצה השופט או הגרושה שהביאתו לבית המשפט והאיבה גדולה ולא די לו להבעל שקנסוהו השופט ואשתו המרשעת שהביאתו לבית המשפט שבאופן שהולכת לערכאות ולוקחת הבנים מבעלה אינו מחויב ע"פ התורה לשלם אפי' פרוטה ואדרבה הרי גזלה הכל מבעלה הבנים והמשפחה והרכוש שלו בבית המשפט ועכשיו גם אנחנו נוסף עליו חרמות וקנסות על אשר בצערו עשה מה שהתירה לו התורה וחששה לו
שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יד סימן קצה
בקיצור עכ"פ לא מצינו שיקנסו את הבעל אם קדש את בתו למנוול ומוכה שחין אלא תקנו חז"ל דרכים שלא יבא לידי זה, ולכן לפענ"ד הגם שודאי צריך לגנות הדבר וכן לא יעשה לנקום בבתו מחמת איבה אבל החוב קדוש מוטל עלינו ועל כל מי שיש בידו להסיר הרע הזה מלילך לערכאות וליקח הבנים וילדים אשר חנן ה' את האב וליתנם בידי אכזרים אשר על זה נאמרב בניך נתונים לעם אחר ואין לאל ידיך ואפילו לראותם בלבד רק להחזיקם וליתן הרבה כסף כמו שיפסוק השופט העכו"ם הרשע לפי רשעתו השם ירחם.
[..].
ובזה ישבתי קושית הב"י והב"ח על הרמב"ם בפ"ג מהל' אישות הי"א האב מקדש את בתו שלא לדעתה כל זמן שהיא קטנה וכו' וקידושיה לאביה וכן הוא זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה וכו' והב"י א"ע סי' ל"ז והב"ח תמהו דמאי שיטא דמציאה לכאן ולא הי' לו להזכיר כאן מדיני מציאה ע"ש ולפמ"ש נראה לישב דהא בהא תליא דכיון דזכתה התורה לאב לקדשה ולקבל כסף קידושיה ואכתי א"כ באב שירצה בכסף קידושין ימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין בשביל להוסיף כסף קידושין לו וע"ז הוסיף דחז"ל תקנו לו שזוכה במציאתה ולא יהיה לה איבה ולא ימסור אותה למנוול ומוכה שחין.
ומבואר דיש חשש איבה בין אביה לבתה אפי' במציאה ומעשה ידיה אם לא יתנו לאביה וחיישינן שלא ימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין כ"ש שאם יגרמו לו איבה לשנאת את בתו בפועל ע"י שיקחו אותה בע"כ ממנו בערכאות וכיוצא בו שאז יקחו מציאתה ומעשה ידיה ממנו ח"ו שיש לחוש שימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין, שזה בכלל גזילה ממנו שגזלה הבת מה ששייך לו ואח"כ עוד יתבענו להחזיקה ולזונה בע"כ של הערכאות וגם יקחו את המעשה ידיה והמציאה שתמצא שבודאי יהי' לו איבה ואם עוד האם שמחזיקה הבת ילמדה לדבר נגד האב בודאי ובודאי שיהי' לו איבה ואיבה, וילך וימסרנה למנוול ומוכה שחין ויקבל כסף קידושין הרבה ממנו ויוכל עם כסף זה לשלם החוב מה שהוטל עליו השופט בע"כ שלא כהלכה.
והנה מה נאמר ראה ראינו מה קרא בעונ"ה אם המעשה אמת מהאב שקידש את בתו קטנה ולא ידוע לי אם אמת הדבר או לא כי לא שמעתי מהבעל כלום רק מה ששמעתי מבחוץ ועכ"פ הרי האב נאמן לומר קדשתי את בתי והוא הלכה מפורשת בלי חולק, אבל בין כך ובין כך הדבר מכאיב מאד וכנראה שכל גדולי ישראל דואגים על הדבר וחוששין ח"ו על קלקול הדור, אבל האמת שצריך לירד למקור המחלה הזו, כי אין אני רוצה פה לאשם או לנקות את הבעל או את האשה כי לזה יש דין בישראל ושמוע בין אחיכם כתיב, ואם הם רוצים להיות ככל הגוים וללכת במשפטי עכו"ם האחריות עלינו למונעם אם יכולים, אמנם לעצם הענין פשוט שמחמת האיבה שנעשה בין האב לבתו עשה מה שעשה וגם אנחנו כנראה לא יצאנו ידי חובתינו שעד עכשיו לא רבני קאנאדא ולא רבני מפה לא עשינו שום פעולה ולא דאגנו לא על מעשה אשה זו ולא על נשים אחרות או אנשים אשר הולכים בערכאות ולא הוציאו חרם ונדוי על האשה שהלכה לערכאות או על הבעל ועדיין לא חזרה בה, ולא הוציאה המסירה מהבית משפט שלהם לבא לב"ד או לזבל"א ולהבטיח להבעל שלא ילכו ולא יביאו עוד לידי עכו"ם.
וידוע מה שאמרו חז"ל (גיטין נ"ז) במעשה דקמצא ובר קמצא ומדשתקי להו רבנן ש"מ מינח קניחא להו והלך ומסר את כלל ישראל והחריב את בית מקדשינו וגלה את ישראל ופלא שחז"ל לא האשימו כלל אותו מוסר בחורבן הבית אלא אמרו ענותנותו של זכרי' בן אבקילוס חרבה את מקדשינו וכו' וצ"ב ח"ו לשום אשמה גדולה כזו על הצדיק וענו ר' זכרי' וליקחה מהאשם והמסור באמת, אבל כנראה ששתיקת החכמים גרמה לזה וגם כשבאו כבר חכמי ישראל ושאלו את ר' זכרי' שהי' ראש ב"ד כדת מה לעשות עם המסור והוא השיב יאמרו בעלי מומין קרבין א"כ נהרוג אותו והשיב יאמרו המטיל מום בקדשים ולכאורה הצדק אתו ומה הי' לו לפסוק ואטו הי' לו לפסוק שלא כהלכה ואמרתי בס"ד שהחסרון הי' כשבאו לר"ז ואמרו לו יש כאן מסור הי"ל לר"ז מיד לומר מסור מצוה להרגו כדיני מסור ובפרט לכלל ישראל ולא ליכנס יאמרו מטיל מום בקדשים ואטו משום מטיל מום הורגים אותו והלא מסור אבל הקילו בדין מסור ולכן הטילו כל האשמה עליו.
ולכן נלפענ"ד דגם ידינו אינם נקיים אם נוסיף להטיל איבה בין אב לבתו ולא נעקר ונשרוש את הרע להחרים על כל ההולכים במסירות לערכאות הן איש והן אשה שדינם נפסק בש"ע ח"מ שם ולא להניח כן שיקחו הילדים מאבותיהן ע"י כח השופט וערכאות שנותנין הילדים להנשים וכיוצא בו ועוד יותר בלי להתחשב עם תורתינו הקדושה כלל, שחייבים לחנך הבנים וזה שייך להבעל ומצוה שלו הוא וחיוב על האב ואין להם להאבות רק להחזיקם בממונם וגם לא לראותם כרצונם ואינם סומכים על שלחנם כלל ואפילו לראותם בלבד רק מתי שיתרצה השופט או הגרושה שהביאתו לבית המשפט והאיבה גדולה ולא די לו להבעל שקנסוהו השופט ואשתו המרשעת שהביאתו לבית המשפט שבאופן שהולכת לערכאות ולוקחת הבנים מבעלה אינו מחויב ע"פ התורה לשלם אפי' פרוטה ואדרבה הרי גזלה הכל מבעלה הבנים והמשפחה והרכוש שלו בבית המשפט ועכשיו גם אנחנו נוסף עליו חרמות וקנסות על אשר בצערו עשה מה שהתירה לו התורה וחששה לו
שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יד סימן קצה
בקיצור עכ"פ לא מצינו שיקנסו את הבעל אם קדש את בתו למנוול ומוכה שחין אלא תקנו חז"ל דרכים שלא יבא לידי זה, ולכן לפענ"ד הגם שודאי צריך לגנות הדבר וכן לא יעשה לנקום בבתו מחמת איבה אבל החוב קדוש מוטל עלינו ועל כל מי שיש בידו להסיר הרע הזה מלילך לערכאות וליקח הבנים וילדים אשר חנן ה' את האב וליתנם בידי אכזרים אשר על זה נאמרב בניך נתונים לעם אחר ואין לאל ידיך ואפילו לראותם בלבד רק להחזיקם וליתן הרבה כסף כמו שיפסוק השופט העכו"ם הרשע לפי רשעתו השם ירחם.
[..].
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Rav Soloveitchik's lectures I - Commensurability
Rav Meir Triebitz writes:
The Rav’s position on commensurability can be gleaned from two statements of his, one from these lectures and one from the aforementioned essay u-Bikashtem Misham. The Rav opens his second lecture by stating:
The essence of revelation for the Rav is therefore not ontological but ethical. Ontology demands commensurability with scientific facts. Not only is ethics not in need of such commensurability, ethics is often more safely anchored in previous ontologies which science has long discarded. We discussed above that Kant’s revolution in Western thought was to restore a ‘Copernican’ like view of the world. While not claiming a Ptolemaic description of scientific reality, the Rav’s whole philosophy of ethics rests upon an anti-Copernican conception. The halachic process, he writes, “cannot free itself from its subjugation to the initial a priori assumptions. It begins with those and concludes with them.” (u-Bikashtem Misham p. 206) This is in contradistinction to science which can free itself of previous assumptions and create new paradigms. On the other hand, “Halachic thought which is rooted in revelation cannot command absolute authority over its axioms.” (ibid.)
The halacha must combine both revelation and reason in a dialectic process in order to remain bound to both tradition and continuity. The dialectic of revelation and reason, which is rejected by the scientific method, is the basis of the incommensurability of the two systems of thought. [...]
“The Torah is not interested in disclosing any scientific data to man. Revelation was only the revealing of the will of God… Therefore if the Bible employed the Ptolemaic description of the cosmos, it was only to present to the people of its time and not to present the true scientific view…” (Lecture II).
The essence of revelation for the Rav is therefore not ontological but ethical. Ontology demands commensurability with scientific facts. Not only is ethics not in need of such commensurability, ethics is often more safely anchored in previous ontologies which science has long discarded. We discussed above that Kant’s revolution in Western thought was to restore a ‘Copernican’ like view of the world. While not claiming a Ptolemaic description of scientific reality, the Rav’s whole philosophy of ethics rests upon an anti-Copernican conception. The halachic process, he writes, “cannot free itself from its subjugation to the initial a priori assumptions. It begins with those and concludes with them.” (u-Bikashtem Misham p. 206) This is in contradistinction to science which can free itself of previous assumptions and create new paradigms. On the other hand, “Halachic thought which is rooted in revelation cannot command absolute authority over its axioms.” (ibid.)
The halacha must combine both revelation and reason in a dialectic process in order to remain bound to both tradition and continuity. The dialectic of revelation and reason, which is rejected by the scientific method, is the basis of the incommensurability of the two systems of thought. [...]
Rav Soloveitchik's Lectures on Bereishis
I would like to share with you a problem that has bothered me for a while. Most of you are aware that Rav Soloveitchik gave public lectures on many topics through the years. In the 1940's he gave lectures on Bereishis which involved his views on science and evolution as well as halacha, kabbala and philosophy. One of the students who took notes of some of these lectures, requested that they be edited and given a proper introduction and critical notes be provided to expand and place the lecture in context.
This has been done concerning the lectures on Bereishis by a good friend - Rav Meir Treibitz - who is not only a master of the Torah literature but is also intimately acquainted with kabbalah and philosophy - as well as having a Ph.D. in physics etc etc. He also wrote an introduction to my sefer Daas Torah.
The sponsor of the original process - due to his many difficulties has not been able to pay for the work nor is he prepared to publish it as originally intended. The person who produced the notes - has no money to pay for anything - but insists on his ownership of the notes he took. A major Orthodox organization as well as various members of the family have expressed great appreciation for the tremendous work which has been done - and they look forward to more such efforts. But they seem preoccupied and after 6 months despite promises - nothing is happening.
In sum, the brilliant exposition of Rav Solveitchik's notes on Bereishis is finished. But there is no obvious path for the work to be published. Lawyers who have been consulted have said the issue could stay in courts for many years - assuming that one can afford the legal expenses.
I will publish excerpts on this blog. Anyone who has a solution for this painful problem - should please contact me.
Sex offenders III - Treatment in Chareidi society
Time magazine reports:
Among Israel's ultra-orthodox Jews, the Haredim, social workers are often called "child-snatchers" and the police "Cossacks," harking back to the 19th century pogroms against Jews in Russia. These cloistered communities, in which women are expected to raise and financially support their large families while their husbands spend their days stooped over the Torah, make up 10% of Israel's population and a third of Jerusalem's, and consider themselves defenders of a core morality in Jewish society. But that moral authority has come under scrutiny since evidence began to emerge in March of incest, rape and child abuse in four different ultra-orthodox enclaves around the country.
Over the last few weeks the Cossacks have arrived wearing the uniform of the Israeli national police force. In a series of raids following tip-offs from victims' relatives, neighbors and hospital workers, the police have arrested ultra-orthodox wives, husbands and yeshiva students.
Community elders were at first appalled. Now they are grateful for the intervention. "The Haredim are shocked by these cases," says Noach Korman, a Haredi attorney in the rabbinical court that adjudicates family and religious law, and the director of a shelter for battered wives. "At first they said, 'These people are crazy, they don't belong to us.' But now I hear Haredi voices saying: 'We should examine ourselves and not close our eyes to why these things are happening.' "Says Naomi Ragen, an orthodox woman who is an author and advocate for gender equality: "These shocking things had to come out. There was no more room left under the carpet."
Sex predators operate with ease among the ultra-orthodox communities because female victims often keep quiet, knowing that to speak out will damage their prospects of finding a husband. "The families all want their girls to have a AAA marriage to a religious scholar from a good family, and nobody's going to marry a girl who gets raped," says Ragen. In Bnei Brak, a predominately Haredi city near Tel Aviv, social worker Doron Agasi says one young Haredi man told him that he had molested more than a hundred girls. Agasi, director of the Shlom Banaich Fellowship, the only organization in Israel that treats pedophiles and their victims, convinced the young man to confess to the police. But, says Agasi, the authorities refused to bring charges because none of the parents of the alleged victims had filed complaints. Agasi says the rapist is now roaming free.
Convincing the Haredi to work with police and social workers has been a struggle, says Miki Miller, a social worker in the newly built Haredi town of Kiryat Sefer near Jerusalem. "The Haredi believe that a closed society is a pure society," she says. But a closed society can hide a multitude of sins. A senior police officer in Jerusalem acknowledges that the instincts of the Haredi community to cover up such crimes undermines the authorities' ability to investigate and prosecute offenders: "We're aware of this phenomenon of sex abuse among Haredis, but an extremely low number of these cases are ever reported."
The first port of call for Haredi families faced with violence or sex crimes is often their rabbi. But religious leaders themselves have not been immune from accusations of abuse. On April 6, a Jerusalem court indicted a Haredi mother of eight for child abuse in light of evidence that she broke her two toddlers' bones with hammers, forced the children to eat feces, and locked them inside a suitcase for hours. The alleged abuses came to light only after her three-year-old son was taken to hospital in a coma with brain damage. The woman claimed she was driving "devils" from her children following instructions from her religious counselor Elior Chen, who has since fled to Canada. Israeli police are seeking his extradition.[...]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)