Beis Din ordered to justify annuled conversions

JPost followup of JPost

The High Court of Justice on Monday issued a suspended injunction to the Rabbinic Court ordering it to explain within 90 days why it nullified the conversions made by special courts headed by former National Conversion Authority chief Rabbi Haim Druckman and how it the authority to do so.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed jointly by the Center for Justice for Women, other organizations and two women whose conversions were invalidated.

In addition, the High Court extended the temporary injunction so that the appellants - whose Judaism was cast into doubt by the Rabbinic Court - could be removed from its list of people forbidden from marrying until a ruling is made on the matter.

The petitioners asked the High Court to obligate the country's rabbinic courts to recognize every conversion registered by the National Conversion Authority and by the Interior Ministry, and to instruct the rabbinic registry office to marry all converts who appear before them without raising doubts about their conversions or declaring them as forbidden for marriage.

The call to cancel the conversions was made by Dayan (religious court judge) Avraham Attia, a member of the Ashdod District Rabbinical Court, and was upheld in a ruling by Dayan Avraham Sherman of the Supreme Rabbinical Court in February 2008.

The ruling stemmed from a specific case in which the Ashdod court retroactively annulled a woman's conversion that was performed by Druckman 17 years ago.

The decision to annul the conversion was made after it became known that she never adhered to Orthodox Jewish practice after her conversion. As a result, the Jewish status of the woman's four children was annulled.[...]

Rav Shlomo Aviner - Reporting child abuse

Torat HaRav Aviner - #17 May 2009

We unfortunately see a phenomenon of unbridled parental child-beating, and there are also cases of parents or other relatives raping boys or girls. This heinous phenomenon exists in the same percentages amongst the religious as amongst the secular.[Couldn't find any statistics to support his assertion that there is greater incidence amongst religious and a number of psychologists who work with abuse said they never saw any data supporting this claim and so I deleted it] but it gets reported only when matters get too far out of hand, or it comes to light by itself, and by then many more cases crop up.

And why don’t people report it? “It constitutes forbidden gossip… It might destroy the lives of the abuser… it’s unsavory to report it… it will bring calamity on the abuser and his family…” Obviously, all this is wrong. This is the sort of report that one can and must make. After all, the child is small, and who will protect him? It’s one thing if abuse happens outside of a family. One can hope that perhaps the family will stop it and protect the child, but if it occurs within the family, the child has no one to save him. Therefore, whoever knows about it has to report it. Obviously, first one has to talk with the parents, or with the teacher if he is the abuser. If they stop and go for treatment, all the better. If not, however, one is required to report to the welfare department or the police. Some among the Chareidim argue that one is forbidden to report abuse in accordance with the Jewish law that one is forbidden to be a “mosser”, i.e., a person who “betrays a Jew to the non-Jewish courts”, which, by analogy, they apply to the courts of the State of Israel. Yet that is wrong as well, because the child’s life is at stake. The author of the book “Nishmat Avraham”, Rabbi Dr. A. Avraham, relates that he asked the illustrious rabbis of our generation, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg and Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv about this, and all of them said that it is a mitzvah to report the abuse, and the person who does so is no “mosser.”

Quite the contrary, the parents or family members or the teacher who commits the abuse, whether physical or sexual, is to be categorized as a “rodef,” an attacker, and one who reports a “rodef” is not to be classed as a “moser." Those same rabbis rule that even if, as a result, the child will be removed from his family and placed into a secular institution or adopted by secular parents, or – in cases abroad – even if he is placed in an institution of non-Jews – this is a matter of life and death. We must certainly strive to have the child not undergo such placement, but even if there is a chance it will happen, as noted, this is a matter of life and death (Nishmat Adam, Vol. 4, page 207). [...]

EJF promotes conversion for intermarried

Recipients and Publicity commentary on latest developments with EJF "Eternal Jewish Family - R' Tropper's blog":

EJF promotes conference with Kiruv organizations, while its theme is "Converting Intermarried Couples", yet is set to promote the toughest approach to conversion itself, as EJF and Rabbi Tropper are forced to issue an official public apology and explanation to the RCA over another conversion incident. Firstly the apology:

(1) EJF and Rabbi Tropper have issued the following on the official EJF website:

"EJF Updates 05/11/2009

EJF Clarifies Stand on RCA Geyrus

A media report that appeared to challenge the validity of a geyrus performed by a rabbi affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) was not authorized by EJF. The report made it appear as if EJF was critical of the geyrus, when in fact EJF was never privy to the circumstances behind the giyur. While questions were raised about the procedure that led up to the giyur, EJF at no time ruled on the status of the conversion. It likewise never authorized anyone affiliated with the organization to address the giyur in the media. EJF International apologizes for any misunderstanding, particularly in a case where the Rosh Bais Din who performed the conversion is a true Talmid Chacham. In commenting on the giyur, Rabbi Leib Tropper noted, “Our standards that are based on the halachic rulings of past and present gedolei yisroel are well known and not subject to compromise. Both EJF and RCA agree that any differences should be aired between rabbinic leaders of both organizations and not in the media.” [to finish reading click on this link and read comments]

Mussar becomes Life Coaching

YNet reports:

Beginning next school year, students at the Orot Aviv yeshiva in Tel Aviv will be offered personal life coaching sessions to help them "better connect with their Torah studies."

The lessons will be offered by the yeshiva's rabbis, who are currently undergoing training.

Rabbi Mishael Cohen, head of the Orot Aviv Yeshiva, stresses that the personal coaching project is aimed at providing the students with the "necessary tools to study Torah and work on his character

According to the yeshiva, in this era of television and the internet the students are finding it difficult to concentrate and relate to the texts, and are therefore in need of professional assistance. Rabbi Ettinger of the Orot Aviv yeshiva says the lessons will be based on "Jewish books that deal with morality, such as Mesilat Yesharim (Path of the Just)." [...]

Blog readership - worldwide - including Arabs

I was recently checking the blog statistics and I noticed an interesting change concerning the location of readers.

Besides getting readers from the United States and Canada,  I have regulars from Brazil and South America - aside from a certain Brazilan billionaire. There are many readers from London as well as Germany and even Shanghai and India. There are a few from Italy and Romania. However  I also notice that there are Arab readers from Jordan and Oman who seemed fascinated by an old post from Jersey Girl - Should Jews hate Arabs?

Rav Sternbuch, shlita - 600,000 leaders

Abuse: Difficult issues / Case of Colmer

Jewish Week

A married Jew with peyos and a black hat, Stefan Colmer used to spend hours, according to reports, reading the Talmud in the main study hall of the Mirrer Yeshiva on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. While there, he also befriended some boys in and around the yeshiva and, on occasion, invited a few of them to his nearby home.

And, according to a source close to the case, Colmer allegedly sexually abused several of them — in addition to other young boys from the “general neighborhood” near the yeshiva, a law enforcement source believes.

Colmer, 32, who moved to Israel in early 2007, weeks before any of his alleged victims approached the police, was extradited to Brooklyn in January 2008 and is now being held at Rikers Island, awaiting trial on charges that he sodomized two teenage boys, both 13 at the time, on numerous occasions. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted on all charges.

What isn’t in the criminal charges against Colmer is that, according to numerous sources familiar with the facts, several years before allegedly abusing the two victims named in the May 2007 indictment he was treated in the sex-offender program of a prominent Jewish agency — only to leave of his own volition before his treatment was completed.

Yet, until his arrest in June 2007, Colmer had never been reported by anyone to the police — not by his alleged victims, their parents or community members who knew of allegations against him — a fact confirmed by a law enforcement source who notes that, until 2007, Colmer had a “clean record.”

Further, because Colmer was never reported to the police and thus came to the agency, Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, without a mandate from the court, when he dropped out of its offender program around 2002, according to friends, Ohel was not required to report him to the authorities for non-compliance. For the same reason, his activities were not monitored and his name did not appear on any public registries designed to alert the public to those who might pose a danger to children.

The Colmer case and the way it was apparently handled illuminates a controversial debate raging in the Orthodox community in the wake of the cases of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko, Avrohom Mondrowitz and others: whether suspected cases of child sexual abuse should be dealt with “internally” — even if only initially — by rabbis or professionals within the Orthodox community, or whether they should be handed directly over to law enforcement for investigation.

No one interviewed for this story suggested that Ohel did anything illegal by apparently not reporting Colmer to the authorities after he dropped out of treatment. Indeed, laws about confidentiality that govern the doctor-patient relationship limit what a psychologist can divulge about his patient. Nonetheless, there are those who believe that in a case like Colmer’s, reporting would not have constituted a breach of doctor-patient privilege.

Treating someone who has not been mandated by the courts is “a complex and dangerous situation,” said Dr. Michael Salamon, a New York-based psychologist who has had experience in this area. “As I learned it, and teach it to others [you are permitted] to report if there is any reasonable cause to suspect that this person is a danger to himself or others. If I were a supervisor in a case [where someone who was not mandated for treatment dropped out] I would insist on calling the state hotline [of Child Protective Services] for guidance.”

Given this, Colmer’s case raises several thorny questions: Should Ohel have agreed to treat Colmer, knowing that he had never been reported to the police? Is there a will on the part of the community and its institutions to reform reporting policies and practices to plug what appears to be a gaping hole in the reporting system, one that leaves children unprotected from men like Colmer? And, most pressing of all, who, in the end, should bear responsibility for what happened to the two innocent 13-year-old alleged victims of Colmer, whose lives will likely never be the same? [...]

Meir Briskman - refuses to divorce wife

This item is from a year ago - unfortunately he hasn't been caught yet because he clearly has misguided figures who are providing him with support.

YNET reports: Rabbinical Court shuns divorce refuser.

Panel of judges, rabbis issue ads condemning Jerusalem resident for refusing to grant his wife divorce for five years, asking public to refrain from allowing him to join any congregation, associating with him, or granting him lodging. In an unprecedented move, the High Rabbinical Court on Sunday called on the observant public to shun a resident of Jerusalem who has been refusing to grant his wife a divorce for five years.

The man, Israel Meir Briskman, fled the country despite a hold-departure order filed against him, and is presumed to be residing in the United States. In ads published in Israel and abroad, a panel of rabbinical court judges calls out to the public to refrain from allowing Briskman to join a congregation or from associating with him for business or pleasure.

The judges also ask that the public refuse him any lodging, with or without pay, including patient visitation rights."The High Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem calls on the Israeli communities and the judges and rabbis of Israel wherever they may be to implement these rules of alienation and refuse the 'divorce refuser' Israel Meir Briskman any financial, physical, or legal aid until he carries out his sentence and grants his wife an unconditional, immediate divorce," the judges stated in the ad.

Briskman has been known to employ any and all tactics in order to evade the pending divorce. After the court granted his wife custody of their children, he announced that he would not allow for the divorce until he receives custody of his son. Later he made claims to property his wife's father was said to have promised the couple.

Briskman's sentence prevents him from receiving "permission by one hundred rabbis" to wed another woman, as the sentence to grant his wife a divorce has been forced upon him by the court. The court also sentenced Briskman to a prison term of up to one year, or until he grants the divorce.

If you know the whereabouts or other information regarding Yisrael Meir Briskman, please contact the Directorate of the Israeli Rabbinical Courts immediately:Tel: +972 – 2 – 6582823 Tel/Voicemail: +972 – 2- 6582833Fax: +972 – 2-6515499 Email: Panatz@rbc.gov.il

Psychologist sues over false charges

NY Daily News

An Upper East Side psychologist is suing the city for $5 million, saying a false claim that he had a hidden camera in his office bathroom nearly destroyed his career.

"They say it takes 20 years to build a reputation and 20 minutes to destroy it," said Dr. Robert Reiner, an often-quoted expert on virtual reality therapy for phobias, who has appeared on "The Tyra Banks Show," MTV and NBC.

"This has been a nightmare," he said, after filing a notice of claim in Manhattan Supreme Court

Reiner was arrested on March 26, after a patient on his third visit spotted a camera in the bathroom light bulb in Reiner's E. 90th St. office and called cops.

The Manhattan district attorney's office found a camera hidden in a light bulb, but it did not work and was not hooked up to a monitoring device, court records show.

Reiner, 56, who runs a practice of nearly two dozen counselors, was cleared of all charges on May 1. But, he said, the attention from his arrest has had a "tremendous effect" on his business and family.

His chief of staff has quit. His latest book release was delayed. His patients are canceling. His kids are mocked at school.

And his boss at New York University Medical Center, where he has worked for more than 25 years, wrote him a letter, demanding an explanation.

Reiner said he used the bulb/camera to monitor his five children near the trampoline and pool at their Westchester County home. He said he brought it to work because he needed the code number on the camera to order a new one.

A contractor working in the office at night as part of an office expansion project told investigators he could not find a bulb when the light blew out in the bathroom, so he screwed in the broken one he found on Reiner's desk.

Reiner's lawyer, Neil Wollerstein, said his client's office was full of patients when officers stormed in with guns out to confiscate the practice's computers, including patients' confidential records. [...]

Libel suits & Unintended Consequences

Going through the various thoughtful and erudite comments regarding freedom of speech certain practical conclusions can be drawn.

1) One has total freedom of speech if no one cares what you say

2) Anonymous statements and blogs are much freer and safer than those blogs or media in which the author is known. This is because there is a major barrier to first identifying the person you might want to sue.

3) Comments that are clearly seen by the average person as motivated totally to hurt another are much more readily restricted than those that are possibly motivated by good or neutral intentions.

4) Comments made about rich and powerful people are more risky than about someone who has no money and is not influential.

5) Free speech is much more likely to be allowed if the attempts to suppress it leads to a more negative view of the focus of the comments than the comments itself.

7) Free speech is more likely if the publicity around the attempt to suppress it brings to light negative information that is more harmful to the person's reputation than the original claims.

8) Newspapers and other public media are much safer places to express views which are critical of others. While the blogs are very accessible and cost nothing to express views - they are completely vulnerable to extortion of those who have the time and money to sue or at least threaten to sue.

In view of the above, it would seem that if the issues recently suppressed were picked up by newspapers or anonymous blogs, the likelihood of free speech being suppressed would be much less. The fear of antagonizing a newspaper - because of the negative publicity that would be generated and uncovered - would minimize the likelihood of attack and also would minimize the likelihood of successfully suppressing the view. In addition the newspaper has the resources that would make any attack a financially costly and uncertain enterprise

It is ironic that the recipients of the greatest benefit from this situation are Rabbi Tropper and Thomas Kaplan. It is also interesting that the issues being criticized were introduced by the R' Tropper's ardent defender - Roni. The person who precipitated the present situation will must likely find that it has become a tar baby. A classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

NY Assembly passes gay marriage bill

NY Times

ALBANY — The State Assembly approved legislation on Tuesday night that would make New York the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage — a pivotal vote that shifts the debate to the State Senate, where gay rights advocates and conservative groups alike are redoubling their efforts.

In a sign of how opinion in Albany has shifted on the issue, several members of the Assembly who voted against the measure in 2007 voted in favor of it on Tuesday. The final vote was 89 to 52, including the backing of five Republicans.

Supporters of the bill aggressively sought new votes, particularly from Assembly members whose districts lie within Senate districts where a senator’s vote is believed to be in play. As a matter of strategy, same-sex marriage advocates said that they hoped to use those votes as a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically.

“The margin of victory and the balance of where the people come from who voted for this is broadening,” said Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Democratic assemblyman from the Upper West Side who led the effort in the Assembly to gain support for the bill. “The state is demanding that we provide equality, and that’s the message here.”As the Assembly prepared to vote on Tuesday, advocates on both sides of the issue were gearing up for campaigns to sway undecided senators.[...]

Prohibitions - need to desire & yet avoid them

Shaloh (Asarah Mamaros 3-4:28): ... Chullin (109b): Yalsa said to her husband R’ Nachman: “We have a rule that whatever the Torah prohibits there is something similar to it which is permitted. Blood is prohibited while liver is permitted. A woman is prohibited as a nidah but is permitted when she is pure, of a domesticated animal is prohibited but is permitted from non‑domesticated beasts, pig is prohibited by the similar tasting shebuta is permitted, the girutha bird is prohibited but the similar tasting tongue of fish is permitted, a married woman is prohibited but a divorce is permitted even though her former husband is alive, one’s sister in law is prohibited but she is permitted when the brother dies, a non‑Jewish woman is prohibited but a yofas to’ar is permitted. I want to know what it is like to eat meat cooked in milk?” R’ Nachman told the cook to prepare fried udder for her. This seems problematic. Why was such a distinguished woman such as Yalsa discussing such an apparently trivial topic with her husband? It is doubly puzzling why our Sages saw fit to record this in the Talmud? My father explained that this is based on the principle that all that is prohibited is because G‑d wants it prohibited – not because it isn't pleasurable. Therefore the sole reason for not enjoying these pleasures is because G‑d prohibited them. This is similar to Toras Cohanim(Kedoshim): A person should not say that it is impossible to eat pig but he should say that it is possible but what can he do since G‑d has prohibited him from eating it. Yalsa wanted to know what she was missing by observing the prohibition of meat and milk. By knowing what pleasure she was prohibited she could have a genuine desire for the prohibited pleasure that she would refrain from solely because of G‑d's command. That is why the taste of the shebuta fish is like that of pork so that a person can no what pork tastes like and know that it is good and desire it but at the same time refrain from eating it solely because G‑d told him not to eat it. The Torah has forbidden us to eat meat and milk. She wanted to know what meat and milk tasted like so she could desire and then not eat it because G‑d said not to. Therefore her husband told her to eat fried udder which has the taste of meat and milk.

Rambam(Shemona Perakim 6): We find that to have a strong desire to sin is much better and perfect than not having any desire and not suffering from avoiding the sin. … In fact our Sages say that,“the greater the person is the greater is his yetzer harah.” Not only that but they say that the reward for self‑control is proportional to effort required for that self‑control, “According to the suffering is the reward.” Furthermore they caution a person from saying, “I naturally don’t have a desire for this sin even if the Torah hadn’t prohibited this.” That is expressed by R’ Shimon ben Gamliel:” A person should not say that it is impossible for me to eat meat and milk together or that it is impossible for me to wear shatnez or that it is impossible for me to have sexual relations with this woman who is prohibited by the Torah. But in fact it is possible but G‑d has decreed that it is prohibited.”… However those things that the philosophers say are bad and that it is much better that a person not have desire for them – that refers to things which are widely perceived by people to be bad - such as murder, robbery, stealing, fraud, harming an innocent person, harming someone who has helped you, ridiculing parents and other similar matters. These well known things are what our Sages said: “That even if they had not been prohibited by the Torah it would have been assumed that they were prohibited.”… These well known wrongs are called by some scholars as “rational mitzvos”. One who desires to violate a “rational mitzva” is obviously an imperfect being. That is because a perfected person has absolutely no desire to do this type of evil and is not upset by avoiding them. However those things which our Sages were saying that it is best to overcome a desire for them - are the religious mitzvos. Because if the Torah had not been given they would not be viewed as bad at all. For this type our Sage say that it is it is only the Torah which prevents a person from doing them.

Chareidi housing disaster

YNET reports

Following a High Court ruling, the Defense Ministry decided two weeks ago to hand over to the residents of the West Bank village of Bilin 185 acres which they claimed had been expropriated from them, a move leading to a possible new route separation fence route.

The direct result of the ministry's decision is that a project including 1,100 housing units for the ultra-Orthodox public in Modiin Illit's Matityahu neighborhood is slated to be canceled.

"This may worsen the housing shortage in the haredi sector, which has yet to receive a constitutional response," says Dr. Rina Degani, research director and managing director at Geocartography, which recently examined the situation of the haredi housing market.

According to the findings of a Geocartography survey, the growth rate in the haredi sector creates a fixed demand for some 6,500 housing deals a year – about 6.5% of all deals in the residential real estate field carried out in the past two years.

Modiin illit has some 40,000 residents due to the comfortable housing prices and the communal fabric, which meets the target audience's demands.

According to a study carried out by Geocartography's economic division, the demand for apartments in the haredi sector requires the construction of at least 4,000 new flats every year, in addition to some 2,500 second-hand apartments. [...]

Mekubal's points to ponder

mekubal wrote:

For those who readily wish Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn to press on despite danger of a lawsuit. You are giving him very dangerous advice. While I believe that he would be offered some sort of protection on account of Israeli privacy laws, on the other hand he can be in serious danger and here is why.

I realize that I asserted in a previous comment that I believed( and to a certain extant still do) that he has been trolled. However, given the way things have unraveled and that through phone conversations as admitted that he owns this blog, and that his only true defense would be to lie and say that he doesn't, something I don't believe he would do as an Orthodox Jew, we come down to the greater problem of his potential liability.

Having not fully navigated the Israeli system I will leave that out for now, in part because my knowledge there is lacking, and secondly because that is not the only place that he is liable to damages.

I will start with the US. Under US and European law libel is, "the printed communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image". Pursuant to that the Supreme Court Rulings of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, have served to limit and define the limits of free speech in printed media.

Furthermore Supreme Court decision Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., as well as Congressional Act 47 U.S.C. § 230(the Cyberlibel law) did two primary things of which the owner of this blog has to concern himself. First it made owners of moderated blogs liable for the postings of their commentators as well as their own postings. Secondly it allowed for libel suits where ever said material was or had been viewable. In other words within the US you would be open to the possibility of being sued 50 separate times.

Then we can move on to Europe most especially nations such as England, France, and Spain which have Universal Jurisdiction laws, allowing plaintiffs who are not present within their borders to file complaints against those who are not present within their borders. All three also allow someone to be tried in abstentia for such civil cases. To put that into plain English a lawsuit can be filed there, and if R' Eidensohn is not able to make a defense in those nations he may be found guilty without ever being able to offer a defense.

Furthermore both in the US and England the person in question does not need to be specifically mentioned but only indirectly, but knowingly referenced.

If these things cannot be undeniably proven you have once again opened yourself to the possibility of lawsuit on an international scale if the referenced person truly wishes to pursue such action. As a moderated blog, even allowing comments like that to go up, you open yourself to the possibility of lawsuit, as you have to approve them. To elevate them to a main post with no substantial proof shows your endorsement and can be considered "real malice" as "real malice" is defined in US and European law as disregard for the truthfulness of the statement.

If you want to be successfully sued for libel than by all means follow the advice of Jersey Girl. Otherwise perhaps it is time to take more care in what commentators post

and what you as the blog owner allow them to post.

Perhaps these latest problems, though I will admit that there was an aspect of bullying to them, especially in the requirement to remove any and all mention, despite that though, perhaps it was Hashem's way of saying it is time to clean it up.