Sho’el U’Me’shiv(1:185):... And here, in [the week of] Parashas Va’era, a letter reached me with testimony signed by three respected men, and one man who recognizes the signatures, and two young men testified, one who is now 15 years old and one who is today 13 years old or more, that in their youth when they learned from him, boys of around 9 years or less, he would defile them with homosexual intercourse, for they would sleep with him in a bed in the room where he lived, and the things came with much elaboration that is disgusting to put into writing. And this is what I responded: in truth, I already went on at length about this in a responsum, that to disqualify a person it is necessary that there be two kosher witnesses, and I brought the words of the Pri Chadash and the Ritva that to disqualify a person it requires two kosher witnesses, and that it is like capital matters. And if so, in this case, where they were minors at the time of the act and they are only believed to testify in their adulthood about what they saw in their childhood for questions of rabbinic law [not biblical], as elaborated in Choshen Mishpat siman 35, and here to disqualify a person they are certainly not believed. However, according to what the Mahari”k and the Terumas Ha-Deshen wrote, and the Rem”a set in the Shulchan Aruch, that in a situation where kosher witnesses are not necessary, even a woman and a minor child are believed. And if so, in this matter, where it is definitely impossible for there to be adult men, and it is impossible for there to be testimony in the matter, for without a doubt this man even if he is wicked and corrupt, but his acts are in secret and he only amuses himself with young children, and he is like one who (mislahleha be-zikim?) and says “I am only playing.” If so, it is obvious that they are believed to testify, and are we also [not - GS] coming to disqualify him from testimony and oaths but only say that perhaps he did this. And they already said in Niddah (61), this bad talk [i.e. lashon ha-ra], even though to accept it is not required, to be concerned however is required. And in Moed Kattan (18) they said that this bad talk—in any event some bit of it is true. And if so, however, woe unto us that in our days such a thing arose, that a man like this would be a teacher of young children of the study house, the breath of whose mouth is pure, and there is a concern that the breath of his unclean mouth will defile them. And therefore, in my opinion it is appropriate to remove the crown of education from his head, and they should worry for their lives until he fully repents with afflictions as appropriate, and then he will return to accept the status of a full community member and it will be for him atonement for his sins. And as long as he does not admit his sins repentance is inapplicable, as the Tevu'os Shor wrote in siman 2. And I went on at length about this in a responsum to Dravitch… And here, regarding what was written above from this bad talk, even though to accept it is not required, to be concerned however is required, I found afterward in the Mahari”k shoresh 188, that he wrote that this is specifically to save them that it is permitted to desist [based on the lashon ha-ra], but not to punish them with any punishment, and to embarrass them is prohibited based on bad talk. However, this is specific to the case there, where there was only bad talk. But here there was a testimony, even if there are no kosher witnesses it is worth more than (mere) bad talk, and it is obvious that one should desist from giving him students.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Abuse - children are valid witnesses I
Sho’el U’Me’shiv(1:185):... And here, in [the week of] Parashas Va’era, a letter reached me with testimony signed by three respected men, and one man who recognizes the signatures, and two young men testified, one who is now 15 years old and one who is today 13 years old or more, that in their youth when they learned from him, boys of around 9 years or less, he would defile them with homosexual intercourse, for they would sleep with him in a bed in the room where he lived, and the things came with much elaboration that is disgusting to put into writing. And this is what I responded: in truth, I already went on at length about this in a responsum, that to disqualify a person it is necessary that there be two kosher witnesses, and I brought the words of the Pri Chadash and the Ritva that to disqualify a person it requires two kosher witnesses, and that it is like capital matters. And if so, in this case, where they were minors at the time of the act and they are only believed to testify in their adulthood about what they saw in their childhood for questions of rabbinic law [not biblical], as elaborated in Choshen Mishpat siman 35, and here to disqualify a person they are certainly not believed. However, according to what the Mahari”k and the Terumas Ha-Deshen wrote, and the Rem”a set in the Shulchan Aruch, that in a situation where kosher witnesses are not necessary, even a woman and a minor child are believed. And if so, in this matter, where it is definitely impossible for there to be adult men, and it is impossible for there to be testimony in the matter, for without a doubt this man even if he is wicked and corrupt, but his acts are in secret and he only amuses himself with young children, and he is like one who (mislahleha be-zikim?) and says “I am only playing.” If so, it is obvious that they are believed to testify, and are we also [not - GS] coming to disqualify him from testimony and oaths but only say that perhaps he did this. And they already said in Niddah (61), this bad talk [i.e. lashon ha-ra], even though to accept it is not required, to be concerned however is required. And in Moed Kattan (18) they said that this bad talk—in any event some bit of it is true. And if so, however, woe unto us that in our days such a thing arose, that a man like this would be a teacher of young children of the study house, the breath of whose mouth is pure, and there is a concern that the breath of his unclean mouth will defile them. And therefore, in my opinion it is appropriate to remove the crown of education from his head, and they should worry for their lives until he fully repents with afflictions as appropriate, and then he will return to accept the status of a full community member and it will be for him atonement for his sins. And as long as he does not admit his sins repentance is inapplicable, as the Tevu'os Shor wrote in siman 2. And I went on at length about this in a responsum to Dravitch… And here, regarding what was written above from this bad talk, even though to accept it is not required, to be concerned however is required, I found afterward in the Mahari”k shoresh 188, that he wrote that this is specifically to save them that it is permitted to desist [based on the lashon ha-ra], but not to punish them with any punishment, and to embarrass them is prohibited based on bad talk. However, this is specific to the case there, where there was only bad talk. But here there was a testimony, even if there are no kosher witnesses it is worth more than (mere) bad talk, and it is obvious that one should desist from giving him students.
Questioning the validty of a convert or Jew
This post was originally about Reform rabbis who were intermarried. The comment was made that there are also intermarried Orthodox Rabbis. This resulted in the following question: While it is true that if someone converts for the sake of marriage but they promise to keep mitzvos - the conversion is valid. However if someone questions the sincerity of a conversion for marriage - are they to be cursed? Have they committed an aveira? Rav Sherman said that Rabbi Druckman's converts were questionable. Did he have the right or ability to make such a statement? In our case - in which the future wives of Orthodox rabbis converted and the mikve ladies refused to supervise the tevila - it was reported that Rav O. Yosef and Rav Shmueli both cursed the mikve ladies. What prohibitions were these women accused of violating?
In sum, to what degree do people have the right or ability to question the validity of converts or even Jews? What manifestations of this doubt are legitimate. For example do you have the right to refuse to eat the food the converts prepare? Do you have to count them for a minyan?
You might remember a while back there was a Lakewood avreich whose Judaism was questioned - and it turned out he wasn't Jewish. Apparently those who raised the question committed no sin. I recently heard of a case where a woman was married as a Jew - not a convert and she lived for a number of years in the community had several kids and then her Jewish status was questioned by members of the community including a rabbi. Latest I heard the beis din asked to certify her as Jewish - has not found sufficient evidence that she is a Jew. None of the rabbis that I talked with have said that it was prohibited to question her status as a Jew.
Because these are current concerns - I am making this a separate post
Pikuach nefesh - is depression?/R' Moshe Feinstein
In my comments to a previous post, I made the assertion that Rav Moshe Feinstein is cited incorrectly by Rav Zilberstein. While it is true that both say that depression can endanger life - it seems that they do not agree as to how. The following seems to suggest that Rav Moshe labels pikuach nefesh as something which leads to suicide or clearly diminishes ones life while Rav Zilberstein seems to feel that any major psychological pressure itself decreases life.
Igros Moshe(O.H. 5:18): Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 306:9): “It is prohibited to ask a non‑Jew to travel outside of the techum on Shabbos to notify the relatives of the deceased to come and to eulogize him. However concerning a terminally ill person who asks that his relatives be notified it is definitely permitted.” The Levushei Serad says that it is permitted to pay a non‑Jew to travel so that the sick person won’t become severely agitated (tiruf daas) since this is included in the category of pikuach nefesh which permits violation of Shabbos. However I have not found any basis to permit this for the sake of a terminally ill person to prevent him from getting severely agitated (tiruf daas) – except for a rabbinic prohibition. I am astounded that the Levushei Serad said that it is permitted because of pikuach nefesh. His explanation that tiruf daas (severe agitation) is a sickness which endangers the person. That is only so for a healthy person who might come to commit suicide because of his agitation. However for a terminally ill person (shechiv m’rah) there is no basis to be concerned for this and therefore this is not considered pikuach nefesh. However more thought is needed as to what the actual halacha is in this case.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Turkey and abused wives
CNN
In a landmark case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday that Turkish authorities failed to protect a woman from her abusive ex-husband, effectively allowing his pattern of domestic violence to lead to the killing of her mother at gunpoint.
Judges unanimously ruled that the Turkish state violated three articles prohibiting torture and discrimination, and ensuring the right to life of the victim.
Legal experts said the ruling sets a precedent throughout Turkey and Europe for governments to protect women from domestic abuse. [...]
According to a Turkish government study released in February, four out of 10 Turkish women are beaten by their husbands. The European Union-funded poll concluded that "one out of 10 women has reported to have been beaten during her pregnancy."[...]
Tuskan cited polls that indicate up to 40 percent of Turkish women believe they deserve to be beaten by their husbands.[...]
Pikauch nefesh - reading tshuvos accurately
I just came across a discusion of a teshuva in the Igros Moshe by Rav Zilberstein - and he seems to cite it inaccurately First I'll quote his discussion of the issue - and then the relevant excerpt from the Igros Moshe. This is a caution that even such a great talmid chachom occacionly makes errors. It doesn't necessary invalidate the halachic conclusion but it does show that his conclusion can not be learned from the statement of Rav Moshe that he cites. He says that it deals with a married couple that would need to divorce. Rav Moshe in fact is dealing with two people who want to marry and he says that it is significant whether they are married or only contemplating marriage. Secondly the issue involves whether there is a heter for birth control - when there are lenient and stringent view among the rabbis for this situation. Because of danger to the woman Rav Moshe allows the use of the lenient in their case. Thus it would seem that even if it were a condition of pikuach nefesh - if there weren't lenient views - Rav Moshe would not permit birth control. But in his conclusion he prohibits the use of birth control because with total bed rest pregnancy is not dangerous for her condition. The fact that total bedrest for nine months is a very stressful thing does not enter into the evaluation. Thus Rav Zilberstein's statement that pikuach nefesh overrules the entire Torah - is not the view expressed in the Igros Moshe where he doesn't even use the word pikuach nefesh and he gives leniencies only on a very circumscribed basis.
Rav Zilberstein( Assia Nissan 5747): In the Igros Moshe (1:67) concerning a young couple who are so much in love that if their marriage would be ended the woman would be in danger because of her severe upset which is equivalent to a condition of pikuach nefesh. It is also know that a woman who doesn’t have children for 10 years that according to the law of the Torah it is permitted for the husband to divorce her so that he can marry another woman and fulfill the obligation to have children. Nevetheless if there is a real concern that because of being divorced the woman will go into severe depression and danger – then this is pikuach nefesh which overrules the entire Torah.
Igros Moshe(E.H. 1:67):This concerns a 40 year old man who has never had children and he wants to marry a young woman whom he finds attractive and she is Torah observant. This is something which is difficult for him to find. However unfortunately she has kidney disease and therefore according to the doctors it would be dangerous for her to become pregnant at the present time. However at a later time when her condition has improved it would not be dangerous to become pregnant. The question is whether they can get married and have permission to use birth control methods to prevent pregnancy?… However nevertheless if you see that they are so much in love until it would possibly be a danger to one of them if they didn’t get married. In particular the concern is for the sick and weak young lady - who besides that she would not be able to marry him but also there is concern because of her condition that she would be prohibited to marry everyone and thus be in an very unfortunate situation – there is a basis to permit them to marry with birth control. But this is only on the condition that they are modest and reliable with many warnings not to publicize that they received permission [to follow the lenient opinions]. But on the other hand I have heard that if there is total bedrest during the entire pregnancy – there is no danger to a woman who is sick with kidney disease. Therefore in fact there is no permission to use birth control. Rather they should be advised that if she becomes pregnant that she should have total bedrest.
Obama's reversal on gay soldiers
Time magazine
[...] The endorsement of "Don't ask, don't tell" by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush's national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on "Don't ask, don't tell" may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.[...]
[...] The endorsement of "Don't ask, don't tell" by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush's national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on "Don't ask, don't tell" may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.[...]
Pikuach nefesh from being labeled as abused
The following story illustrates the complexity of abuse. If you want to used the heter of rodef to call the police because the abuser is endangering the victims life - you also need to understand that it is an issue of pikuach nefesh in being labeled as a victim of abuse and having your family labeled as containing an abuse victim. That stigma is also pikuach nefesh.
Brisker Rav (Rav Zilberstein Assia Nissan 5747): There was a case of a sick person who requested that the doctor allow him to fast on Yom Kippur. This was because his condition had significantly improved and his life was no longer in danger. The Brisker Rav told the doctor that pikuach nefesh doesn’t mean that right now there is a danger that might cause death. Rather even if fasting influences him so that when he has a recurrence of the illness - that he will die before his time – that is also considered pikuach nefesh. Therefore the sick person is obligated to eat rather than fast on Yom Kippur. The doctor replied that the aggravation that is caused to the sick person by his awareness that he is categorized as being in a fragile condition is liable to endanger his life. The Brisker Rav accepted the doctor’s words and replied, “If so we have to think very carefully how to act.”
Monday, June 8, 2009
Abuse - "teshuva" & cover-ups
Guest post:
I will share with you how I think about cover-ups. Every single society has had sexual abuse of children since the dawn of Civilization, and covering up sexual abuse has been the norm and not the exception for most of history. When rabbonim distort halakhic categories (teshuva, Chillul HaShem), I take this to be evidence that they are having a hard time coping, themselves, with the horrors that there are adults in our midst who have a ta'avah to do these things to children. Sexual abuse provokes this more than physical abuse by the way, probably because of the great shame that sexual deviancy stirs up in all of us.
So, it is significant to identify when Batei Dinim or posekim deviate from their usually correct stance in halakhic matters--they become more "lenient" in accepting someone's statement as a sign of "teshuva" and more strict in protecting against loshon hora or chillul HaShem than the would, for example, in a case involving theft, damage to property, or fraud.
Maybe just identifying cases where proper halahkic procedures are not followed - and trying to adopt a sympathetic understanding of why accomplished and knowledgeable poskim might find these situations to be very difficult - would be an approach you could take on this in your book.
I know that the concept of teshuva implies the person won't do this again, but I am pointing out that it is implausible to assert that the perpetrator has done teshuva when there has been
1. no apology to the victim
2. no payment for damages or attempt to pay for damages.
3. a "confession" which was not in the presence of the victim or victim's family but rather in front of the rabbonim, which allows the perpetrator to minimize or change the facts
In nezikin, a person cannot stam do teshuva with mere words. I know of a case where the rabbonim protected someone because he did teshuva. However, that perpetrator never even admitted wrongdoing in several of the cases--he continued to deny it! You will not be surprised to hear that he continued to molest sodomize boys despite the Rosh Kollel claiming he would keep an eye on him.
So, yes, we can all be appalled at this bad judgment. However, on technical halakhic grounds I am challenging the notion that such a person can be said to have done "teshuva" when there is no confession, no restitution, no attempt at restitution--not even a din Torah where the victim is heard! I should think that these are power halaklhic arguments against the "teshuva" concept.
Since the rabbonim who are claiming that "teshuva" is a reason for them not to worry about further episodes are in general much more knowledgeable about the halakha than I do, I assume that they know very well that there is no halakhic basis to claim that "teshuva" has been done, that it is fact just a ploy to help with a cover-up.
I will share with you how I think about cover-ups. Every single society has had sexual abuse of children since the dawn of Civilization, and covering up sexual abuse has been the norm and not the exception for most of history. When rabbonim distort halakhic categories (teshuva, Chillul HaShem), I take this to be evidence that they are having a hard time coping, themselves, with the horrors that there are adults in our midst who have a ta'avah to do these things to children. Sexual abuse provokes this more than physical abuse by the way, probably because of the great shame that sexual deviancy stirs up in all of us.
So, it is significant to identify when Batei Dinim or posekim deviate from their usually correct stance in halakhic matters--they become more "lenient" in accepting someone's statement as a sign of "teshuva" and more strict in protecting against loshon hora or chillul HaShem than the would, for example, in a case involving theft, damage to property, or fraud.
Maybe just identifying cases where proper halahkic procedures are not followed - and trying to adopt a sympathetic understanding of why accomplished and knowledgeable poskim might find these situations to be very difficult - would be an approach you could take on this in your book.
I know that the concept of teshuva implies the person won't do this again, but I am pointing out that it is implausible to assert that the perpetrator has done teshuva when there has been
1. no apology to the victim
2. no payment for damages or attempt to pay for damages.
3. a "confession" which was not in the presence of the victim or victim's family but rather in front of the rabbonim, which allows the perpetrator to minimize or change the facts
In nezikin, a person cannot stam do teshuva with mere words. I know of a case where the rabbonim protected someone because he did teshuva. However, that perpetrator never even admitted wrongdoing in several of the cases--he continued to deny it! You will not be surprised to hear that he continued to molest sodomize boys despite the Rosh Kollel claiming he would keep an eye on him.
So, yes, we can all be appalled at this bad judgment. However, on technical halakhic grounds I am challenging the notion that such a person can be said to have done "teshuva" when there is no confession, no restitution, no attempt at restitution--not even a din Torah where the victim is heard! I should think that these are power halaklhic arguments against the "teshuva" concept.
Since the rabbonim who are claiming that "teshuva" is a reason for them not to worry about further episodes are in general much more knowledgeable about the halakha than I do, I assume that they know very well that there is no halakhic basis to claim that "teshuva" has been done, that it is fact just a ploy to help with a cover-up.
Hillary Clinton's double talk
JPost
When Hillary Clinton was New York's junior US senator from 2001 to 2009, she was a vocal supporter of Israel. She was especially strong on Jerusalem, stating in a September 2007 position paper that she believed "Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, must never be questioned." Her spokesman even said "this paper is a reflection of her consistent policy... that hasn't changed." In June 2004, Clinton voted for the Senate resolution endorsing president George W. Bush's letter to prime minister Ariel Sharon that envisaged Israel retaining "major Israeli population centers" in Judea and Samaria and "defensible borders" in any final peace agreement.
Clinton also repeatedly warned of the monumental dangers of Palestinian incitement to hatred and murder of Jews in their schools, media and mosques as having "dire consequences for peace for generations to come." Clinton even said, "It is clear that the Palestinian Authority, as we see on PA TV, is complicit" in terrorist attacks and that we should condition US aid to the PA on a "cessation of Palestinian propaganda and hateful rhetoric." It has taken only a matter of months to confirm that Secretary of State Clinton bears little resemblance to Senator Clinton on Israel issues.
NOW, SHE enthusiastically supports an unconditional increase in US aid to the PA and Gaza, of $900 million annually, a significant increase. She also demands a total freeze on all Jewish building in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. Interviewed on Al-Jazeera TV on May 19, Clinton said, "We want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth - any kind of settlement activity. We made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu." She reiterated this even more strongly on May 27 in Egypt: "not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions... And we intend to press that point."
She also states publicly that the Obama administration will condition at least some of its efforts to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power on Israel's willingness to bow to pressure to make concessions to the same PA she once described as "complicit" in terrorism and incitement. Speaking in April before the House Appropriations Committee, Clinton said that "for Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran it can't stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinian and the peace efforts, that they go hand-in-hand.
Also, already in March, Clinton demanded Israel allow illegally built Palestinian Arab homes in eastern Jerusalem and prohibit legal building of Israeli/Jewish homes in eastern Jerusalem. Such Jewish construction, she said, was "unhelpful." Suddenly, parts of an "undivided Jerusalem" are places where Jews may not move or build, even though Jews were a majority in eastern Jerusalem from the mid-1800s until 1948, when Jordan forced Jewish residents to flee, and are now a majority once again.[...]
Sunday, June 7, 2009
EJF - proselytizing intermarried couples /RaP
RaP: For quite a long time now, the Agudist politically correct American YATED NEEMAN has avoided any mention of EJF and Tropper and has not published any infomercials obviously designed by paid EJF publicists.
"Eternal Jewish Family Addresses Conversion Crisis" "The Jewish Press Friday, June 5, 2009 Page 61
RaP: Only EJF is addressing this crisis? Every last Orthodox rabbi in Israel, Europe and America is grappling with it! The articles reads as a paternalistic and infantilizing event for those who were paid to show up. Who they were and the numbers are not given in the article.
[Continued at this link]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)