State religious school bans fathers from school party

YNET

The struggle for the face of state-religious education continues: Fathers of girls at the Noam-Haro'e religious school in Ramat Gan claim they were not allowed to participate in a school event for their six grade daughters' Bat Mitzvah on Sunday. The reason for the ban is modesty – a halachic prohibition on men to watch women sing and dance.[...]

The father, himself a graduate of the state-religious educational system, said classes were mixed in his day. Since then, he said, a radicalization process emerged introducing norms of modesty which he described as distasteful and unprecedented. Gal noted that in some cases separation was imposed as early as pre-school years.

Noam Haro'e is one of Ramat Gan's oldest state-religious schools. However, over the years the neighborhood's religious communities have been replaced by more Orthodox families who direct the school's religious character. According to Gal, "they eliminate the wishes of the silent, sane majority.

Chinuch as tochacha for teenagers & young adults

 The mitzva of chinuch is generally understood to be from about 5 years till bar mitzva. However there is another aspect of chinuch which is giving tochacha. Both are learned from the same verse in Mishlei (22:6).

Kiddushin(30a) says, Raba said to R. Nathan b. Ammi: Whilst your hand is yet upon your son's neck,[you should get him married] which is  between sixteen and twenty-two. Others state, Between eighteen and twenty-four. This is disputed by Tannaim. Mishlei (22:6) Train up a youth in the way he should go: R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ thereon]. One maintains, [Youth means] between sixteen and twenty-two; the other affirms, Between eighteen and twenty-four.

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

Rashi explains, When your hand is still on your son's neck - means when you still have power and influence over your son before he gets older and doesn't listen to your admonition you should get him married. ... Another explanation is that the time while you still have influence over him take care to teach him instructions & chastise him and this time is from the age of 16 until 22. Prior to this time he doesn't have the mental ability to accept your instructions & chastisements so much. On the other hand if you try chastising  him and pressuring him with punishments after the age of 22 there is concern that he might rebel - and this main understanding of this gemora. According to his way - meaning you should teach him in his youth the path that he should follow for the rest of his life. The time for this teaching is a dispute as to whether it is between 16-22 or 18-24.

Meiri (Kiddushin 30a), A person should always focus his attention of supervising his children and to continually give instruction and correction whether they are old or young. Nevertheless the proper time to make successfully reprimand him is from the time the mind starts maturing until it is mature. That is from the age of 16 to 24. Prior to 16 he doesn't have have sufficient maturity and after 24 he doesn't really listen anymore. So this is the best time to continually convey reprimands and instructions  regarding the son.:

Gang-raped, burned & murdered - police cover-up

NYTimes

The crime was shocking enough: an 18-year-old woman gang-raped, half strangled, set on fire and left for dead. But what sent hundreds of Ukrainians into the streets and rushing to her hospital to give blood this month was a police decision to free two suspects rumored to be politically connected. 

The uproar has shaken the upper echelons of Ukraine’s government. On Thursday, three weeks after the attack, the young woman died. Viktor F. Yanukovich, the president, and Nikolai Azarov, the prime minister, were among the first to offer condolences — along with vows that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. [...]

For Ukrainians transfixed by her ordeal, she came to embody long-simmering animosities over government impotence and impunity for the privileged in this former Soviet nation. It was only after the street protests and Mr. Yanukovich’s personal intervention that the police in the small southern town of Nikolayev re-arrested the young men. On Thursday, they and a third jailed suspect were officially charged with murder.

Silence & self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up

This is too much of he says/she says- without providing enough solid evidence - but it does a good job of reviewing the major issues and shows that despite progress - there is still a long way to go.

British Guardian

When Mordechai discovered his mentally disabled child was being molested, he reported the crime to the police. A local man was arrested and charged with repeatedly raping the boy in their synagogue's ritual bath. When news of the arrest got back to their Brooklyn community, the neighbours launched a hate campaign. But the object of their anger wasn't the alleged perpetrator, Meir Dascalowitz, it was the abused boy's father. 

For the last two years, Mordechai says he's been hounded by his community. "The minute this guy got arrested I started a new life, a life of hell, terror, threat, you name it." There were bogus calls to the fire department resulting in unwelcome late night visits, anonymous death threats, banishment from synagogue, even a plot to derail his move to a new apartment. "I lost my friends. I lost my family. Nobody in Williamsburg can talk to me. Nobody means nobody. We are so angry, so broken." 

Mordechai's persecution is part of a widespread cover-up of child sexual abuse among Brooklyn's ultra-Orthodox Jews. With echoes of the Catholic priest scandal, for decades rabbis have hushed up child sex crimes and fomented a culture in which victims are further victimised and abusers protected.

Forced Get: Rav Schachter's use of public humiliation

 In order to focus more directly on the serious halachic issues I am copying a sampling of comments from a previous post   Rav Herschel Shacter: Options for Agunot. 

[PLEASE STOP THE NAME CALLING - IT ONLY CAUSES READERS TO DISCOUNT YOUR STATEMENTS]

The issues of concern here are 1) Is there is an widely accepted basis of forcing a husband to give a get through public humiliation - after she has left him and gone to secular court and refuses mediation in a case where she claims she can't stand him (mo'us alei). In particular where there is already a civil divorce and no chance of reconciliation - does a beis din have the right and duty to force him to give a get. This would exclude suggestions which are clearly labeled as potentially l'halacha  but not applicable at present l'maaseh . Explicitly saying that it is perceived as a constructive proposal that needs agreement of gedolim. 2) Is  obtaining a get in this manner  a pyrrhic victory since it is viewed as an innovation and thus many poskim hold that use of humiliation produces at least a doubtful get and thus future children would be sofek mamzerim? 3) Does refusing a summons to a particular beis din - even one that is perceived as hostile or biased -  justify the beis din encouraging a public campaign of humilation and vilification? 4) Is there an acceptable protocol for obtaining a get when the wife doesn't want to remain in the marriage.

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

Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMar 26, 2012 05:27 PM

I have listened to the first section of the lecture by Rabbi Shachter about Agunoth and I think it is completely wrong. He says basically that the various pressures available to coerce a GET, beating, Beth Din commanding the husband to divorce, or passive ostracizing, are things to discuss when a husband supports his wife and they are living together but the wife wants out. However, says Rabbi Shachter, if the wife has left the husband, and surely if she has a civil divorce, we may beat the husband with sticks to force him to divorce. This is completely wrong.

The laws of a woman who spurns her husband and wants a GET are not where RS says it is, in chapter 154 but in chapter 77. There the SA does not mention forcing the husband, as the Rashbo forbids coercing the husband with MOUS OLEI. Forcing is mentioned only in chapter 154 regarding a forbidden marriage where we can use force to coerce a GET. The next category in 154 is when the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not say to force the husband. In that case, the Beth Din can tell the husband he is a sinner and people can call him a ROSHO, but no humiliation or active pressure is permitted. Ramo says that in such a case, where the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not clearly state to force the GET, we may do a passive ostracizing. The Vilna Gaon and others say this only applies with two conditions: One, that the Talmud says there must be a GET, and two, the husband can escape the ostracizing by going to a different town. It is not permitted to ostracize the husband passively in a case where the wife wants a divorce, so the ostracizing is not mentioned in chapter 77 where these laws are taught.
The Ramo permits passive ostracizing only when the Talmud comands a GET and not when the wife wants a GET. THe Shach and Chcazon Ish forbid even passive ostracizing even when the Talmud commands a GET.

Thus, Rabbi Schachter is completely wrong, and he has no support for his opinion, and whoever follows his opinion such as ORA with its public humiliation of the husband will produce children considered by normative halacha to be mamzerim.

Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn Mar 29, 2012 05:52 PM

Someone challenged me here: "1) The opinions you are putting forward are not universally accepted. There are a great many Acharonim and Poskim that allow a forced get עישוי כדין." Okay. A great many Acharonim and Poskim. Tell me one.

The halacha is clear: Some men, such as he who marries a forbidden women, is coerced severely and physically. Someone the Talmud demands that he divorce his wife but does not call for coercion, is not beaten, and any coercion is a problem and machlokes, but these are rare cases. We are talking here about MOUS OLEI, and I want you to tell me one major Acharon who permits coercing a husband to divorce his wife with public humiliation when his wife leaves him.

I have been careful in this blog and elsewhere to support my comments with sources. Where are your sources? Even R Schachter has no sources, other than the need to help Agunoth and the airy opinion that all of the sources I quote are only talking about when the wife didn't leave the husband, a ridiculous statement that no normative posek would make.

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

Rabbi Michael Tzadok

Some clarification:

Are you asking specifically in the Friedman-Ephraim case or in general?

Regarding the Friedman-Ephraim case:

1) There is seems to be no valid halakhic reason to compel a Get עישוי גט by any method as the case has not come before a B"D.

2) Public embarrassment however is warranted on the sole fact that Friedman refuses to appear before a B"D. I have above quoted the Sh"A on that matter, see there.

Regarding עישוי גט for a wife saying is is repulsed by her husband מאוס עלי you have two categories:

1) No extenuating circumstances There are Poskim who rule that in such a case there are ways to coerce a get עישוי גט כדין(admittedly none of which rely upon public embarrassment). They are:

a)Rabbi Moshe Feinstein Iggrot Moshe EhE 3:44, 4:106

b)Rabbi Ovadiah Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 2:8 and 6:17

2)When there are extenuation circumstances. If there is abuse, emotional, physical or sexual, or for a variety of other reasons. In such cases the B"D may ossur the wife to the husband and thus act accordingly:

a) Rav Ovadia Yosef Yabia Omer Ehe 3:18 and 3:20

b) Rav Ovadia Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 5:67 6:15(and numerous other places)

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

Yitzy Hillel Mar 29, 2012 11:29 PM

L'kavod Harav

After a week of research on the inyan of meos aliu, I have concluded that Rabbi Shachters actions can be defended: In his shiur plight of agunah minutes 48-101 he states that humiliation today is mutar and not even the harchakos of R'tam. In his other shiur that he talks about dead marriages and using any means in those cases, he was very vague about which cases and he must have been referring to cases of coffin osu that were mefaresh in shas otherwise that statements makes absolutely no sense.)

Your teshuva stresses the Rashba, Shach and Chozen Ish as the main sources for your oppinion. I found the following on this issue.

-Rav Sternbuch (5: 344) holds that in our generation we must ignore them and hold of the harchokes of R'tam in certain cases. He chooses the Rivash's Girsa in the Rashba (against the version of the Rashba in the Beis Yosef) which takes out the word humiliation and therefore advises that one can humiliate the guy on some level. He also argues with you and says the Chazon Ish holds that a get obtained through humiliation bedieved would be a valid GET

-Rabbi Yosef in Yabea Omer 8:25 paskens in a case of mius aley that we should apply the harchakos of R'tam. The Titz Eliezer signs off on those harchakos on the bottem of the teshuva. From this teshuva we also see that they are not choshesh for the Maharshdam's shitta which Rav Sternbuch and Rav Elyashiv are choshesh for because they mention the GET issue in their harchakas.

-Based on the above, I feel it is misleading to say that the Harchakos are off limits today, as some of the Gedole Haposkim in our generation have used them.

-I found the sefer Get Meusa (on the otzar hachachma database ) by Dayan Goldberg of Tel Aviv. In this sefer he comes out that obtaining a get through humiliation is not kefia he has a long footnote with sources which I will try to send to you in the coming days.

This sefer therefore agrees with Rabbi Shachter that humiliation is not even the Harchakas of R'tam. Therefore, following the husband from town to town would be ok. Also since this isn't kefia, your lumdus about the get isn't his rotzon wouldn't apply.

-lastly Rav Sternbuch writes that many of the great rishonim (Rambam, Rif, Rashi..)hold that in these cases we can even beat the husband for refusing the get when the woman wants out. Although the Shulchan Aruch doesn't pasken like them, this is something to keep in mind.

You asked to find any source showing that humiliation is ok...I ask you are there sources that clearly show humiliating is kefia and the get would be posel bedieved? The only source that I have found that mefaresh pasuls the get is the Maharshdam, which Rav Yosef and the Tzitz Eliezer weren't choshesh for in Yabea Omer 8:25.

However, I agree that from the fact the Eretz Yisrael Rabbonim don't talk about humiliating and rallies as being an option they perhaps would hold that what Rabbi Shachter is promoting is worse than R'Tam.

Although I attempted to defend Rabbi Shachter, I feel that you are right about getting approval from others before doing drastic changes in policy in halacha especially when the potential nafka mina is mamzerus.

For all those readers who will attack me for my above defense as being pro feminist and YU, I like Rabbi Eidensohn are interested in emes and sources and not name calling and hate. So if you disagree with what I said please explain how my defense is wrong and back up your claims with sources. I will be truly grateful. I think the blog will benefit if we could all stop the hate and venom and stick to trying to discuss issues of Jewish Identity in a respectful and pleasant manner,

kul tuv,

Yitzy Hillel

IDF Givati's "proud" tradition of hazing

YNET

Chareidim happy to see Livni defeated

YNet

Many haredim sees Tzipi Livni as the driving force behind the wave of incitement against them. To them, last night's results were payment in kind.

A source within United Torah Judaism told Ynet that "it isn't gloating or hitting someone when they're down, it is sending a message with a lesson to every rookie politician who adopts a dialogue of hate against the haredi public – it isn't worth your while. It may make a great media slogan, but the public does not accept it, and yesterday, Kadima voters proved they don't either. 

Pakistani wife abuse:Throwing acid in her face

Fox News

Younus' story highlights the horrible mistreatment many women face in Pakistan's conservative, male-dominated culture and is a reminder that the country's rich and powerful often appear to operate with impunity. Younus' ex-husband, Bilal Khar, was eventually acquitted, but many believe he used his connections to escape the law's grip -- a common occurrence in Pakistan.

More than 8,500 acid attacks, forced marriages and other forms of violence against women were reported in Pakistan in 2011, according to The Aurat Foundation, a women's rights organization. Because the group relied mostly on media reports, the figure is likely an undercount.

Chasidic Jew ostracized for reporting son's abuse

CBS News

Chance to hear Rav Schacter , Tamar Epstein & Ora live

Tyranny of beauty or why don't girls use make-up?

Jewish Press by Yitta Halberstam

The second thing that jolted me when I opened the door (and which I know will incur many a mother’s wrath, but which I feel I must speak about) was the conspicuous and glaring lack of make-up on a significant percentage of the girls’ faces. I was stunned. The girls knew why they were there; there was no attempt at pretense on anyone’s part. The mandate of the event was to give them the opportunity to present themselves in the best possible light. Why weren’t they?

Let me tell you about this particular population of girls: They were between the ages of 21 and 24, and mostly seeking “learning boys.” (The organizers’ plan for the future is to hold additional events for other age groups and different categories of boys: learners/earners, professionals, working boys only, etc.) They were eidel, frum, sincere, intelligent, and committed to the learning ideal. But even the most temimasdika ben Torah is looking for a wife whom he finds attractive. Yes, spiritual beauty makes a woman’s eyes glow and casts a luminous sheen over her face; there is no beauty like a pure soul. Make-up, however, goes a long way in both correcting facial flaws and accentuating one’s assets, and if my cursory inspection was indeed accurate (and I apologize if the girls used such natural make-up that I simply couldn’t tell), barely any of these girls seemed to have made a huge effort to deck themselves out.

Since most of the young women at chasunas seem quite presentable, I couldn’t shake off my sense of disbelief as I looked around now. What were they thinking? How had their mothers allowed them to leave their homes with limp hair and unadorned faces? With just a little blush, eyeliner and lip-gloss, they could have gone from average to pretty. There are very few women who can’t use a little extra help. Even the most celebrated magazine models can look downright plain when stripped of all cosmetics, al achas kamah v’kamah girls who are not born with perfect features. So what was going on? Were they in denial about the qualities young men are seeking in future wives? Yes, it is somewhat disillusioning that men dedicated to full-time Torah learning possess what these girls might perceive are superficial values, but brass tacks: they want a spouse to whom they are attracted. The young men themselves might be too shy or ashamed to admit it, but their mothers won’t hesitate to ask what for some is the deal maker/deal breaker question, namely: “Is she pretty?”

Rav Menashe Klein:Kuntres about Coerced Get

Hebrew Books

Rav Herschel Schacter: Options for Agunot

YU Torah - mp3

printed source material
===============
[updated to link to the following shiur]
See also his "Plight of the Agunah"

Yitzy Hillel: In this shiur, he comes out clearer in his shittas than the other shiur posted on this blog previously. minutes 48-101 is where he talks about the case of Meos Alui in modern times.

Reporting Abuse: Rav M. Klein's rejected view

This is a good example of a posek requiring strict Torah restrictions for reporting a molester to the police. This view is widely criticized by such poskim as Sho'el UMashiv, Rema, Shach, R' Eliashiv, R' Moshe Halberstam, Tzitz Eliezer, R' Ovadiah Yosef, and Minchas Yitzchok. [this was posted 3 years ago  - just updated the formating]
Rav Menashe Klein - 16 58 Abuse