Tzitz Eliezer(15:13.1): Question: A doctor discovered that his patient has defective vision which can cause him to have auto accidents when driving under certain circumstances – such as under the conditions of his job or at night….The patient doesn’t want to stop driving or to change his job. Is the doctor obligated to keep this confidential or is he obligated to notify the appropriate agency (whether governmental or his employer) concerning this matter? It is likely that this information will cause his patient economic damage or his interaction with society. What if the patient asks him to keep this confidential and he promises to stop from driving under the dangerous circumstances – but the doctor is not convinced that he can be believed to stop driving? Answer: There is no question that the doctor is obligated to notify the appropriate governmental agency or employer so that they can have the patient drive within his limitation. Even if the patient requests the doctor to keep his illness a secret and promises to stop driving… As long as the doctor is not convinced that he will do so – he is obligated to notify the agencies. It is also not only obvious that if the doctor is summoned to testify concerning this that he must go and testify. [Furthermore his oath as a doctor to keep medical information secret does not apply to these cases nor does a private oath to the patient. That is because it would mean that he is taking an oath to nullify a mitzva and thus it is simply invalid. His oath as a doctor shouldn’t apply to information which if it is withheld would constitute a crime. (All this is discussed in greater detail in Tzitz Eliezer 3:81 part 2 and 3.)]. But even if he was not summoned he is still obligated to take the initiative to inform the appropriate agencies because otherwise the patient might be a danger to the lives of others. If the doctor refrains from notifying the agencies than he has transgressed the Torah command of “not standing by the blood of your fellow.” Therefore the doctor should not take into consideration that his act of informing might cause economic or social damage. That is because nothing stands in the way of saving life (pikuach nefesh). I want to add to this what I found in the Pischei Teshuva (O.C. 156): “And I want to comment on the issue that all the mussar books make a big deal about speaking lashon harah, but I want to make a big deal about the opposite. That is the greater and more common sin of refraining from speaking lashon harah when it is needed to save a person from harm …” These words express much clearer and forcefully what I have been saying. The Pischei Teshuva notes that a person’s intent should not be to harm the person he is speaking about but rather for the benefit of the person he is telling and others that he is saving from harm. Because by focusing on helping he fulfills a great inestimable mitzva. I also found a similar case in the Chelkas Yaakov (3:136) concerning a young man who the doctor found had cancer. The young man and his family didn’t know about it at all. The man was engaged to marry a young woman. His question was whether the doctor was obligated to reveal the sickness to his fiancée as well as well as the fact that he only had at most one or two years to live. It was obvious that if she found out this information she would not marry him. The Chelkas Yaakov replied that the doctor was obligated to inform the fiancée because the main halacha issue is that the doctor should not violate the mitzva of “not standing by the blood of your fellow.” He based his psak on the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:14) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 426)…. So surely this is true in our case where the matter might cause actual danger to the lives of others. So there is absolutely no question that if the doctor does not reveal the information to the appropriate agencies now, he will be transgressing by this withholding - of the prohibition of “not standing by the blood of your fellow.” Therefore it is absolutely permitted for the doctor and also is clearly obligatory for him to notify the appropriate government agency or employer concerning the limitation of his patients vision.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Lashon HaRah - saves life /Tzitz Eliezer
Tzitz Eliezer(15:13.1): Question: A doctor discovered that his patient has defective vision which can cause him to have auto accidents when driving under certain circumstances – such as under the conditions of his job or at night….The patient doesn’t want to stop driving or to change his job. Is the doctor obligated to keep this confidential or is he obligated to notify the appropriate agency (whether governmental or his employer) concerning this matter? It is likely that this information will cause his patient economic damage or his interaction with society. What if the patient asks him to keep this confidential and he promises to stop from driving under the dangerous circumstances – but the doctor is not convinced that he can be believed to stop driving? Answer: There is no question that the doctor is obligated to notify the appropriate governmental agency or employer so that they can have the patient drive within his limitation. Even if the patient requests the doctor to keep his illness a secret and promises to stop driving… As long as the doctor is not convinced that he will do so – he is obligated to notify the agencies. It is also not only obvious that if the doctor is summoned to testify concerning this that he must go and testify. [Furthermore his oath as a doctor to keep medical information secret does not apply to these cases nor does a private oath to the patient. That is because it would mean that he is taking an oath to nullify a mitzva and thus it is simply invalid. His oath as a doctor shouldn’t apply to information which if it is withheld would constitute a crime. (All this is discussed in greater detail in Tzitz Eliezer 3:81 part 2 and 3.)]. But even if he was not summoned he is still obligated to take the initiative to inform the appropriate agencies because otherwise the patient might be a danger to the lives of others. If the doctor refrains from notifying the agencies than he has transgressed the Torah command of “not standing by the blood of your fellow.” Therefore the doctor should not take into consideration that his act of informing might cause economic or social damage. That is because nothing stands in the way of saving life (pikuach nefesh). I want to add to this what I found in the Pischei Teshuva (O.C. 156): “And I want to comment on the issue that all the mussar books make a big deal about speaking lashon harah, but I want to make a big deal about the opposite. That is the greater and more common sin of refraining from speaking lashon harah when it is needed to save a person from harm …” These words express much clearer and forcefully what I have been saying. The Pischei Teshuva notes that a person’s intent should not be to harm the person he is speaking about but rather for the benefit of the person he is telling and others that he is saving from harm. Because by focusing on helping he fulfills a great inestimable mitzva. I also found a similar case in the Chelkas Yaakov (3:136) concerning a young man who the doctor found had cancer. The young man and his family didn’t know about it at all. The man was engaged to marry a young woman. His question was whether the doctor was obligated to reveal the sickness to his fiancée as well as well as the fact that he only had at most one or two years to live. It was obvious that if she found out this information she would not marry him. The Chelkas Yaakov replied that the doctor was obligated to inform the fiancée because the main halacha issue is that the doctor should not violate the mitzva of “not standing by the blood of your fellow.” He based his psak on the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:14) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 426)…. So surely this is true in our case where the matter might cause actual danger to the lives of others. So there is absolutely no question that if the doctor does not reveal the information to the appropriate agencies now, he will be transgressing by this withholding - of the prohibition of “not standing by the blood of your fellow.” Therefore it is absolutely permitted for the doctor and also is clearly obligatory for him to notify the appropriate government agency or employer concerning the limitation of his patients vision.
Abuse - Molesters and jail time
David Mandel (Director of Ohel) in the September 2007 Jewish Observer
That most perpetrators do not go to jail is not a Jewish phenomenon. Former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro was noted for her aggressive pursuit of pedophiles. In six years of sting operations, 1999-2005, she succeeded in the arrests of 111 men with a 100% conviction rate. The overwhelming majority received probation with only eight perpetrators sentenced to jail (New York Times, 10.13.06).
While Ms. Pirro’s press releases repeatedly pointed out that the crimes were felonies punishable by up to four years in state prison for each count, a review of the cases shows that the overwhelming majority of people received sentences that let them avoid extensive jail time.
In most nearby counties, prosecutors have had a higher rate of felony convictions in similar cases, because Ms. Pirro allowed nearly one in five defendants to plead down from felonies to misdemeanors, according to prosecutors’ statistics.
Only eight of the men prosecuted by Ms. Pirro were given outright prison sentences by judges, according to records from the district attorney’s office. The rest, 93 percent, received some form of probation. “In many cases, we asked for jail time and didn’t get it,” Ms. Pirro said.
According to Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the current Westchester district attorney, Janet DiFiore, who has continued the sting program, 54 people indicted in the operation under Ms. Pirro received only probation, generally of five years. Mr. Chalfen said 46 others received so-called shock probation, which called for weekends behind bars.
Two cases went to trial. Both defendants were convicted, but one conviction was overturned on appeal, and the other will be appealed on similar grounds.[...]
Other district attorneys’ offices in counties of comparable size, like Nassau, as well as in larger ones, like Manhattan and Brooklyn, that have prosecuted Internet sex crimes involving the same statute that Ms. Pirro’s office used — attempting to disseminate indecent material to a minor — seem more resistant to bargaining with defendants.
The Nassau County district attorney, Kathleen Rice, said that of the 40 individuals charged by her office since 2001 for trying to sexually entice minors over the Internet, 34 pleaded guilty to the initial felony charge and only one pleaded to a lesser count, harassment. Of the others, one was found guilty, one died and three cases are pending.
“When we have someone arrested on the top count, my general position is, absolutely no pleas,” Ms. Rice said.
Of the 49 people indicted on the felony charge of attempting to disseminate indecent material to a minor in Manhattan between July 1999 and the end of 2005, all but three were convicted on that charge, said Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau. [...]
Thursday, May 21, 2009
No greater happiness than resolving uncertainty
NYTimes
Seventy-six years ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took to the inaugural dais and reminded a nation that its recent troubles “concern, thank God, only material things.” In the midst of the Depression, he urged Americans to remember that “happiness lies not in the mere possession of money” and to recognize “the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success.”
“The only thing we have to fear,” he claimed, “is fear itself.”
As it turned out, Americans had a great deal more to fear than that, and their innocent belief that money buys happiness was entirely correct. Psychologists and economists now know that although the very rich are no happier than the merely rich, for the other 99 percent of us, happiness is greatly enhanced by a few quaint assets, like shelter, sustenance and security. Those who think the material is immaterial have probably never stood in a breadline. [...]Our national gloom is real enough, but it isn’t a matter of insufficient funds. It’s a matter of insufficient certainty. Americans have been perfectly happy with far less wealth than most of us have now, and we could quickly become those Americans again — if only we knew we had to.
Deprogramming terrorists
Haaretz
Professor Arie Kruglanski, co-director of the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, has interviewed Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in jails in the Philippines and Singapore, among them prisoners who had planned attacks on Israeli embassies. "It's not enough to lock them up in order to punish them," he says. "One should, and can, persuade them to rehabilitate."
Kruglanski, a cognitive social psychologist, has been working with several other researchers from the University of Maryland on a new study financed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The research is aimed to help the administration cope with Muslim detainees who have adhered to the global Jihad ideology; Homeland Security has earmarked $12 million for the project.
The researchers interviewed terrorists of the Abu Sayyaf group and the Moro Liberation Front, both based in the Philippines, as well as the Southeast Asian group Jamaa Islamiya, but have not been allowed to meet the Al-Qaida and Afghani detainees held in Guantanamo - the prison the new U.S. administration is seeking to shut down.
"We are trying to understand," says Kruglanski, "what would persuade detained terrorists to desist from returning to violence." He says initial results indicate at least two primary motives that might cause what is called 'de-radicalization.' One group of motives is intellectual-cognitive and the other is emotional. "On the intellectual-cognitive level, we try to present theological arguments that they might accept. We try to convince them Islam is a religion that forbids harming innocent people. This approach is more effective when you speak with terrorist leaders who possess religious authority. However, in order to persuade them, you have to bring in senior religious personalities whose authority they will accept. You can call it a theological battle of the minds."
This method proved itself, especially in Egypt. Over the past decade, the Egyptian authorities succeeded in convincing Muslim militant groups such as Jamaa Islamiya and the Jihadists to abandon the armed struggle. Those authorities managed to do so with the help of distinguished religious leaders from the Al-Azhar University, who held long meetings with senior leaders from those two terror organizations. After the terrorist leaders were convinced - through the help of theological arguments - they published articles, books and manifests, calling upon their followers to cease terror and violence, and concentrate on political activity and religious studies only.
The second method used to rehabilitate terrorists has been appealing to their emotions. "Terrorists tire in jails," says Kruglanski, "and this opens the door to offer them an alternative. For that you need, of course, to treat their families fairly, and teach them [the reformed terrorists] a profession with which they could make a living and be absorbed into society once they are released from jail." [...]
Professor Arie Kruglanski, co-director of the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, has interviewed Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in jails in the Philippines and Singapore, among them prisoners who had planned attacks on Israeli embassies. "It's not enough to lock them up in order to punish them," he says. "One should, and can, persuade them to rehabilitate."
Kruglanski, a cognitive social psychologist, has been working with several other researchers from the University of Maryland on a new study financed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The research is aimed to help the administration cope with Muslim detainees who have adhered to the global Jihad ideology; Homeland Security has earmarked $12 million for the project.
The researchers interviewed terrorists of the Abu Sayyaf group and the Moro Liberation Front, both based in the Philippines, as well as the Southeast Asian group Jamaa Islamiya, but have not been allowed to meet the Al-Qaida and Afghani detainees held in Guantanamo - the prison the new U.S. administration is seeking to shut down.
"We are trying to understand," says Kruglanski, "what would persuade detained terrorists to desist from returning to violence." He says initial results indicate at least two primary motives that might cause what is called 'de-radicalization.' One group of motives is intellectual-cognitive and the other is emotional. "On the intellectual-cognitive level, we try to present theological arguments that they might accept. We try to convince them Islam is a religion that forbids harming innocent people. This approach is more effective when you speak with terrorist leaders who possess religious authority. However, in order to persuade them, you have to bring in senior religious personalities whose authority they will accept. You can call it a theological battle of the minds."
This method proved itself, especially in Egypt. Over the past decade, the Egyptian authorities succeeded in convincing Muslim militant groups such as Jamaa Islamiya and the Jihadists to abandon the armed struggle. Those authorities managed to do so with the help of distinguished religious leaders from the Al-Azhar University, who held long meetings with senior leaders from those two terror organizations. After the terrorist leaders were convinced - through the help of theological arguments - they published articles, books and manifests, calling upon their followers to cease terror and violence, and concentrate on political activity and religious studies only.
The second method used to rehabilitate terrorists has been appealing to their emotions. "Terrorists tire in jails," says Kruglanski, "and this opens the door to offer them an alternative. For that you need, of course, to treat their families fairly, and teach them [the reformed terrorists] a profession with which they could make a living and be absorbed into society once they are released from jail." [...]
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Lashon harah & fear of reporting abuse
Chofetz Chaim(Lashon HaRah - Introduction): What is the reason that the prohibition of lashon harah is so widely ignored - by many people? This apparently is the result of a number of reasons – that are different for the masses and the Torah scholars. The masses simply don’t know that the prohibition of lashon harah applies even if the statement is true. There are many talmidei chachomim – even those who have studied the laws thoroughly and are fully aware that it applies even for true statement – who are misled by their yetzer harah in other aspects. First, the yetzer harah immediately convinces him that the person that he is speaking lashon harah about is a phony and it is a mitzva to publicize when a person is phony or evil. Sometimes the yetzer harah tells him that the person being talked about causes disputes, and therefore it is permitted to say lashon harah about him. Sometimes it seduces him by telling him that there is a leniency since it was said before three people. Sometimes the yetzer harah says that there is a leniency if it said in the presence of the person being talked about – and since he would be willing to say it in the presence of the that person - it is permitted. The yetzer harah reveals to the talmid chachom the relevant sources that seem to support his action [see Principles 2,3 and 8). Sometimes the talmid chachom is seduced by the rationale that this matter isn’t included in the prohibition of lashon harah. For example, what many people commonly do because of our many sins - that they publicize that someone isn’t really a sage. [This is discussed in Principle 5]. In sum, the yetzer harah works in one of two ways. Either it seduces by saying that what is being said is not really lashon harah or that the Torah did not prohibit speaking lashon harah about this particular person. And if the yetzer harah sees that it can’t win by minimizing the prohibition - then it goes in the opposite direction. It convinces the person to take a very strict approach and thus all speech is prohibited as lashon harah. Therefore the person concludes that it is simply impossible to participate in society while observing the prohibition of lashon harah . This is like the advice of the cunning Serpent (Bereishis 3:1); You should eat the fruit of the tree – even though G‑d said that it is forbidden.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Abuse by school officials
CBS News
A new federal study, released exclusively to CBS News, reveals hundreds of cases of abuse of students at the hands of school officials -- and even deaths
The report, done by the Government Accountability Office, finds incidents of abuse of restraints and seclusion, among other forms of mistreatment, in public and private schools alike, all across the country, says CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.
A congressional panel has scheduled a hearing about the findings for Tuesday, and child advocates are calling for better laws to protect students. [...] The GAO probe finds hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death in schools over the past 20 years, Cordes says -- everything from carpet burns from being dragged to a seclusion room, to bruises from being pinned to the ground. Many of the victims were, like Cedric, children with disabilities.
"Seclusion and restraint should only be used in an emergency situation," says Deborah Ziegler of the Council for Exceptional Children.
And the tactics are used more often than parents might think, Cordes points out. In the 2007-2008 school year alone, the Texas public school system reported 18,741 cases of children being restrained.
Laws vary from state-to-state, Cordes, says, and about half the states have no laws at all. [...]
A new federal study, released exclusively to CBS News, reveals hundreds of cases of abuse of students at the hands of school officials -- and even deaths
The report, done by the Government Accountability Office, finds incidents of abuse of restraints and seclusion, among other forms of mistreatment, in public and private schools alike, all across the country, says CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.
A congressional panel has scheduled a hearing about the findings for Tuesday, and child advocates are calling for better laws to protect students. [...] The GAO probe finds hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death in schools over the past 20 years, Cordes says -- everything from carpet burns from being dragged to a seclusion room, to bruises from being pinned to the ground. Many of the victims were, like Cedric, children with disabilities.
"Seclusion and restraint should only be used in an emergency situation," says Deborah Ziegler of the Council for Exceptional Children.
And the tactics are used more often than parents might think, Cordes points out. In the 2007-2008 school year alone, the Texas public school system reported 18,741 cases of children being restrained.
Laws vary from state-to-state, Cordes, says, and about half the states have no laws at all. [...]
Internet trained converts
JPost
Rabbinic Conversion Court judges are more likely to reject prospective converts who were partially trained via the Internet, a senior source in the Conversion Authority said Sunday.
According to the source, about 70% of prospective converts who are interviewed by the conversion court are accepted. However, among prospective converts who were trained in part via the Internet, only about half are accepted, said the source.
An interview by a panel of three rabbinical judges is the final stage of the conversion process before the convert is circumcised, immersed in a ritual bath and accepted as a full member of the Jewish people.
In preparation for their meeting with the judges, prospective converts must gain extensive theoretical and practical knowledge about Orthodox Judaism through book learning and participation.
Use of the Internet has been found to be beneficial for some prospective converts, said Prof. Binyamin Ish-Shalom, chairman of the Joint Institute for Jewish Studies, the largest institute for the training of converts.
"We use it primarily with university students who have good learning skills and can make better headway studying independently," said Ish-Shalom.
"Young, bright people do not need to spend as much time in the classroom. So there is no reason for them to be physically present throughout all of the learning process," added Ish-Shalom, who said the Internet was not a substitute for in-person meetings with educators but was used as a supplement.
"Internet is a tool that helps us logistically and educationally," said Ish-Shalom.
However, rabbinical judges strongly oppose the use of Internet training for converts.
"Conversion is not just about collecting a bunch of information," said a conversion court source. "It is about forming significant relationships with rabbis, educators, religious families and members of Orthodox communities. [...]
Sin of not saying lashon harah /Rav Yosef, shlita
Rav Ovadiah Yosef(Yechava Daas 4:60): Question: A person trying to get a driver’s license has a medical condition that makes his driving dangerous. But the condition is not revealed by the normal medical tests. Is it permitted for the doctor himself or someone who definitely knows about his illness - to notify the licensing bureau to prevent him from getting a license? Is it permitted to reveal this information so that he won’t cause accidents and tragedies with his driving or perhaps the doctor is prevented because of the prohibition of rechilus and lashon harah? Answer: There is a Torah prohibition of not speaking lashon harah (bad things even though they are true)…. However it seems that the prohibition is only when the intent in saying it is to besmirch the person and to degrade him. However if he does it because of a specific benefit or to prevent damage it is permitted. Proof for this is found in the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:14): Whoever has the ability to save someone and yet doesn’t - transgresses Vayikra (19:16): Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow man. … Or he heard that non‑Jews or informers were plotting to cause someone harm and yet didn’t warn the intended victim. Or he knows that a non‑Jew or influential person is upset with a fellow Jew and he has the ability to placate them and to eliminate their complaints and doesn’t placate them. And all similar situations which a person doesn’t save his fellowman when he had the ability to do so – has transgressed the prohibition of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow man.” This is also the view of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 426:1). Therefore in our case where he has a hidden medical condition such as epilepsy and he conceals this from the license bureau in order to obtain a license and it is possible that he will suffer an attack while he is driving and this might cause a dangerous accident – G‑d forbid! – it is certain that the person who knows about this condition has an obligation and mitzva to notify the license bureau about this illness to prevent damage and danger to society. Even though the doctor has an obligation of confidentiality, but in these circumstances it is a mitzva for him to notify the license bureau. There is not the slightest concern that this is prohibited. In fact this is the way to understand the verse regarding lashon harah. “Do not speak lashon harah but don’t stand idly by concerning the blood of your fellow.” Even though there is a prohibition of lashon harah, nevertheless the second clause of the verse tells you that it is conditional on this not causing harm. Therefore you are obligated to inform others regarding certain matters in order to them to guard against loss and danger. This is expressed in Nidah (61a) that even though it is prohibited to listen to lashon harah but you should protect yourself from the potential danger you hear about. The Rambam (Mitzva 297) says that protecting another’s money is also included in “don’t stand idly by concerning the blood of your fellow.” … Therefore even if there is only a financial loss, one should inform your fellow man in order that he can protect himself from those who want to harm him. And surely when there is a possible danger to an individual or a group. [See Rashba (Shabbos 44a)]. We find a similar view expressed by the Pischei Teshuva (O.C. 156): “The Magen Avraham and all the mussar book go into great detail about how serious the sin of lashon harah. However I want to describe the opposite issue. There is a greater sin than lashon harah and it is more common. It is refrain from revealing information from others in situations that they need to know to protect their property or themselves from harm – all because of the concern not to say lashon harah… These matters are given over to the heart. If the motivation of the speaker of lashon harah is to cause another harm – then that is prohibited. But if his intent is for the good to warn another person and save him – then it is a great mitzva and he will receive beracha for telling it.” We find this view also expressed by the Chofetz Chaim (Hilchos Issurei Rechilus #9):”If you know about a business deal that will definitely cause someone a loss – you have an obligation to inform that person. Similarly if you know about a person with a serious disease who is interested in getting engaged to a particular woman – it is important to reveal this information to her parents. Of course it is important not to say more than what he actually knows and that his motivation is purely for the benefit of those concerned so that they will not be harmed. He should not have the intent to besmirch another because of jealously or hatred he has in his heart.”… Therefore in our case regarding the man with an undetectable medical condtion trying to get a driver’s license such as epilepsy – there is an obligation to notify the license bureau concerning what he knows in order to prevent damage to life and property. [See previous posts]
Obama gambles our future
Newsweek
[...] The Obama budgets flirt with deferred distress, though we can't know what form it might take or when it might occur. Present gain comes with the risk of future pain. As the present economic crisis shows, imprudent policies ultimately backfire, even if the reversal's timing and nature are unpredictable.
The wonder is that these issues have been so ignored. Imagine hypothetically that a President McCain had submitted a budget plan identical to Obama's. There would almost certainly have been a loud outcry: "McCain's Mortgaging Our Future." Obama should be held to no less exacting a standard.
Wife abuse vs spousal abuse/RaP
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,
I noticed that in your latest "mission statement" you state:
"...At the present time I am writing a source book dealing with the issue of child and wife abuse."
What about husbands, are they never abused? I would like to offer a suggestion and some reasons for it and I hope that you can act on it. Firstly, I would like to point out to you a blatant error on your part based on simple pure Torah hashkofa. And that is, that when HKB"H created Chava FROM Adam, the Torah says that she is to be an "ezer kenegdo" and as you know the chazal teach as reported by Rashi "ezer kenegdo" means that if the man/husband is zocheh she/the wife is an "ezer" and if not she will be "kenegdo". Thus, from this yesod we learn that there is a symbiotic interplay between a man/husband's zechusim and the woman/wife he gets, and that the woman is perfectly capable of being the cause of the downfall of a man/husband....
Secondly, another key lesson is from the events of the chet of Adam HaRishon, that it was Chava who brought about his downfall, after she was seduced (and raped) by the nachash, and in turn she and all womankind was cursed by HKB"H to be subservient to her husband as the posuk says "v'el isheich teshukoseich vehu yimshol bach".
The Torah says that the correct order is for the man/husband to rule his family and for the wife/woman to follow (of course, we know that the Torah then elevates women as in all the examples of the Imahos) but Torah Judaism does not subscribe to modern women's liberation and its various pro-women egalitarian agendas simply because it is not needed in a true Torah society and you should not, even inadvertently, be feeding into that current of advocating only for women/wives when it is a two way street and both men/husbands and women/wives need to be reminded EQUALLY how to respect each other and not abuse each other and to be respectful spouses.
Thirdly, you seem to be falling into the politically correct trap of only speaking out as an advocate for females/wives, when men/husbands need advocates as much as their female counterparts, just that men differ from women biologically as you know, so the focus is different. While women lack men's physical strength they are nevertheless fully capable of inflicting damaging and irreparable harm and pain on men in other emotional, mental and social ways.
Finally, as a psychologist you should be fully aware of the various non-verbal and sub-conscious ways that ALL women operate in all spheres and that when it comes to couples counseling the given principle, no matter what the present issues may seem to be between a couple, is that it is ALWAYS assumed to be 50-50 and in any problem between any couple the key is to accurately identify/diagnose and successfully cure (if possible) the source of the friction that the couple is creating between them as it never comes from the man/husband alone or vice versa. The couple is one unit and they are each other's spouses
Examples of husband and male abuse by women/wives in Orthodox and Haredi society can come in various ways, such as:1) Following outside society's immorality and slipping into infidelity and cheating on their husbands and hence producing mamzerim and the husbands who are fooled into thinking that a child is theirs when its not.
2) Siding with an outside person to "triangulate" against the husband, by aligning with interfering parents, nosy and busybody therapists, rebbetzins, rosh yeshivas or mashpi'im and friends who may be advising the woman to confront her husband and seek a divorce or alimony as weapons.
3) Ganging up with the children against the father and undermining his role as the "rosh hamishpocha" with devastating results for the father's ability to discipline his children and leading to his loss of self-esteem as a father and provider and maybe causing the father to lash out against his children when he is really trying to get at his wife but is afraid of her. This continues even after divorce where child custody is made difficult by the mother's (the ex-wife) actions alone and in demanding hefty divorce settlements in "gold-digger" style!
4) Cases of physical abuse also abound where women/wives react physically with either temper
tantrums, screaming, breaking objects and even hitting the children and the husband, all of which does happen and is recorded
5) Extreme cases where women attack their husbands violently, such as the "Lorena Bobbit case" (not Jewish I admit, but it is a threat) where she castrated her husband while he slept, or the recent case of a Jewish Bucharin woman in NYC jailed for life because she had hired a hit man to kill her husband over a child custody dispute and he did. There are many cases where it is the mothers who are abusing the children as well as abusing their husbands all in one stream of action.
Therefore I hope I have made my point and I strongly suggest that you remove the word "wife abuse" and replace it with "spouse abuse" or "spousal abuse" that shows your neutrality in the matter and that in your research and source book you will also include the subject of how husbands can be and are abused by their wives, often in collusion with an outside person against the husband resulting in husband abuse that leads to troubled relationships, broken marriages, divorces, transgression of Halacha and even criminal acts and proceedings where the wife/woman is the guilty party and the husband/man is the innocent victim.
======================================
DT:
Thanks for your comments. Originally I was planning on doing spousal abuse as well as bullying of children etc. The issue came down to the fact that there is a lot of solid material in halachic sources for physical and sexual abuse - but very little dealing with the issue of psychological abuse which is more typical for husbands. There are cases of husband's being beaten - but it is not the typical case.
Monday, May 18, 2009
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.[...]
Sunday, May 17, 2009
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). [...]
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 GeyrusA 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]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)