Jewish criminals shouldn't be jailed - Mishpacha Magazine

Mishpacha Magazine (April 4, 2012 p62): ... but does that give Rabbi Stein license to help Jews who have broken laws themselves? 'About 30 years ago, the Tosher Rebbe called me in the middle of the night," Rabbi Stein remembers. "He wanted me to get in touch at once with two top attorneys, Nat Lewin in Washington and AIan Dershowitz in Boston. 'But Rebbe,' I said, 'it's 2 a.m.!' He said, 'I want to teach you one thing, and keep this in mind always: a Yid vus zitz in tfisah ein sho iz ein sho tzi lang [A Jew who sits in jail one hour sits one hour too long] Prison is not a place for a Jew, and it doesn't matter, guilty or innocent.'

"There are many other ways to penalize someone who's deserving of punishment," continues Rabbi Stein, who is passionate about this controversial point. "For example, there are alternative sentencing programs, which are much more cost-effective, where the person is guided by counseling and is actually helped. Prison accomplishes one thing. It makes criminals out of everyone."

He says much of his efforts - for which he's never taken payment - involve finding the right attorney for someone who's in trouble The Beirach Moshe of Satmar once sent him to help a man who was awaiting sentencing for child abuse and other family-related crimes "The fellow wasn't too bright, and he had no idea how to protect himself. He had taken a divorce lawyer instead of a criminal lawyer," say. Rabbi Stein. "Lawyers are like doctors. You don't go to a podiatrist when you need open-heart surgery."

According to Rabbi Stein, the wife and her mother wanted to put the husband away and so they fabricated evidence and coached the daughter to give incriminating testimony. He discovered this after speaking to the involved parties, including teachers who denied ever filing the reports that had been submitted as evidence. “we found so many discrepancies that the DA agreed to reopen the case post-sentencing. But by the time we reopened the case, the child, her mother, and grandmother had fled the country and moved to Eretz Yisrael. We brought the teachers to testify that the documents were forgeries, and the judge said, 'Okay, now where are the plaintiffs?  The defense attorney said they couldn’t take the trauma so they left the country. The judge announced that if they didn’t come back in two weeks, he’d dismiss the case. Of course they didn’t come back, because the case was a fabrication - so the man was released. But he went to jail in the first place because he had the wrong lawyer.”

See the following regarding Rabbi Efraim Stein's efforts turned up by simple Google search
He is featured prominently on a number of anti-Semitic internet sites
Los Angeles Times 1997
Dror - Organization for Jewish Prisoners
Guilty plea to divert federal money
Jail for Rabbi Stein
Jail for Rabbi Stein

============================================
From my Child and Domestic Abuse Vol II
============================================

Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:12): “All those who disturb the community and cause it distress it is permitted to give them over to the secular government to be punished whether by beating, imprisonment or fines…”

Shevet HaLevi(4:124.3): Concerning a well known thief who has stolen from many people and has harmed the public and now he is begging to be released from jail. Is it properly to do that? … From all these sources we see that there is no concern at all to have him remain in jail in order that he not harm others since his life is not in danger there. The Chovas Yair (139) says there is only a concern when jail is actually life threatening… My opinion is that as long as there is no danger to his life by being in jail, there is no obligation to make any efforts to free such people…

Rav Moshe Halberstam(Yeschurun 15 page 651): An additional factor to what we have discussed is a question mentioned in Shevet HaLevi (4:124.3) whether it is appropriate to help free a well known thief who has begged that efforts be made to get him released from prison. Rav Wosner answers that since the thief’s life is not in danger by being in prison there is no obligation to make efforts to free people like this. In my opinion it is not only not an obligation to try and free a person in these circumstances but in fact one who tries to free a thief from prison is actually committing a sin. Who says that he won’t seek revenge for his imprisonment or at least return quickly to committing more crimes. Who can say that things will work out differently and that he will cease his crimes if he is freed?  Therefore it is prohibited to make efforts for him and to listen to his plea to be freed…

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Ve’aleyhi lo Yuval, volume 2:113-114 from R’ M Broyde’s Informing on other’s): R’ Yehuda Goldreicht said: “I asked Rav Auerbach about a particular Jew who stole a large sum of money and he was caught by the police in America. He was sentenced to a number of years in prison in America. Was it proper to assist in the collection of money for him [we were speaking about a large sum of $200,000] in order to fulfill the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim to have him released from prison? When Rav Auerbach heard this he stated “Pidyon shevuyim?! What is the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim here? The mitzvah of redeeming captives is only when the goyim are grabbing Jews, irrationally, for no proper reason, and placing them in prison. According to what I [Rav Auerbach] know, in America they do not irrationally grab Jews in order to squeeze money from them. The Torah says “do not steal” and he stole money—on the contrary, it is good that he serve a prison sentence, so that he learns not to steal!”

Supreme Court reaffirms psak of Rabbinic Court on Gerim

Haaretz

The High Court of Justice has affirmed the validity of thousands of conversions called into question by the Rabbinical Court of Appeals in 2008, but refused to discuss the rabbinical courts' authority to annul conversions in general. [...]

The women and various organizations that joined their petition thus asked the High Court to rule not only on their particular cases - which had already been resolved, since their Jewishness had since been affirmed by the Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court during a new hearing on their original cases - but on the rabbinical courts' authority to overturn conversions in general. This, however, the justices declined to do. Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, writing for the court, said the justices preferred not to intervene in this issue right now "out of hope that the buds of systemic change that have sprouted since the petition was filed [in 2008] will develop and bear fruit."  [...]

While Sherman's ruling was ostensibly based on Jewish law, it was also part of a broader power struggle between the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox ) community, represented by Sherman, and the religious Zionist community, represented by Druckman. The government originally set up the special courts headed by Druckman to circumvent the rabbinical courts' monopoly on conversions, because the Haredi-controlled rabbinical courts had adopted stringent requirements that were seen as deterring potential converts.

Rav Gestetner - Kuntrus on Get Meusa

Rav Gestetner - Kuntrus on Get Meusa

Procedural Summary of Epstein-Friedman matter

Procedural Summary2

Forcing a get - Unresolved issues & Rabbi Broyde

I want to express appreciation of Rabbi Michael Broyde for writing a defense of Rav Hershel Schacter's position as well as writing a clarification of that defense. I also want to thank Rabbi Gil Student for taking the initiative of asking Rabbi Broyde. Having spent many hours going through the volumes of Otzair Hapoksim dealing with this issue as well as researching the teshuvos directly - it has become clear that Rabbi Broyde is apparently the first one to try and answer the issues regarding contemporary society and the tactics of ORA - and publish the results.

 I have three choices,  1) Explain why Rabbi Broyde's explanation is inadequate or at least not convincing 2 ) Write my own teshuva concerning the use of force . 3) List the issues that have not been properly resolved and ask the poskim of our generation to establish the parameters in writing. The third option is more productive.

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

Concerning pressuring a husband to give a get when wife claims ma'us alei.

1)  What type of pressure is permitted? Harchokas Rabbeinu Tam? Simply labeling him an avaryan? Putting up wall posters? None?

2) Are ORA's demonstrations against the husband, his family or employer and stories in secular press - are they  permitted? Is this considered harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam?

3) Must a husband always be pressured after 12 months to give a get  -  if it is clear that the marriage is over - no matter what the reason is for the breakup - even if she went to secular court?

4) Can a beis din issue a seruv - when the husband refuses to show up - that states the husband must give a get and the public should pressure him to do so?

5) If the husband was pressured to give a get  - by ORA or Harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam  or beating - is the get valid and the wife remarry l'chatchila?

6) Can a husband withhold the get as a tactic to get money or custody in a case of ma'us alei.

7) Does it matter why the wife says ma'us alei concerning what pressure is permitted?

8) Should every woman have the right to a get simply because she thinks she can find someone better

9) Is there a moral obligation to give a get when the woman wants to end the marriage - or is it only because of concerns for mamzerim.

10) What can be done to control the use of the get for extortion - either for the husband or wife?

11) If the husband or wife refuses to go to beis din but go to secular court - should he/she be punished or penalized in some way?

12) In ma'us alei - does wife get kesuba? Does husband have to pay alimony or child support?

Rabbi Druckman's Conversions Upheld

Arutz 7

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Wednesday that conversions supervised by former national Conversion Court head Rabbi Haim Druckman are valid in the eyes of the State.

The ruling was in response to a 2009 decision to a panel of three judges on the Great Rabbinical Court which declared any conversion made by Rabbi Druckman was nullified.

Sexual pleasure & Tzadikim - Vayikra Rab (14:5)

Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor uKetziya O.C. 240) brings this medrash as the reason why a beracha is not said before sexual intercourse - since even tzadikim are focused on pleasure and not on doing a mitzva.

Vayikra(14:5): Another understanding of Vayikra (12:2), If a woman conceives and bears a male child...Dovid alluded to this understanding in Tehilim (51:7), Behold I was formed in sin and in sin my mother conceived me. Rav Acha explained, Even if a person is the most pious of the pious – it is impossible that he doesn’t have an aspect of sin in him. Dovid said to G‑d, “Master of the Universe, did my father Yishai have the intention to bring me into the world – when he had intercourse with my mother. The fact is that he was only thinking about his own sexual enjoyment.The proof for my assertion is that after they both had satisfied their desires he turned his face in one direction and she turned her face in the opposite direction. And it was only You who caused every single drop of semen to enter.” This assertion is alluded to by Dovid in (Tehilim 27:10), For though my father and my mother deserted me, G‑d did gather me in.

R' Broyde's Coerced Get & Protesting - a critique

Some Thoughts on Rabbi Michael J Broyde's Article on a Coerced GET and Protesting When a Man Withholds a Jewish Divorce

by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Rabbi Broyde's article about protesting to help Agunahs is filled with errors, which I display here. It is part and parcel of the new Torah emanating from the modern YU rabbis. Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz, head of BDA Beth Din, sent away a couple seeking a GET with no GET by annuling their marriage on the grounds of a ridiculous claim of MEKACH TAOSE when after I spoke to him I am convinced he had no grounds for that. Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva at YU and major posek for the OU, invented a new Torah to permit physical and unbearable emotional coercion in the case of MOOS OLEI with his vivid imagination, as he airly blows away the Rashbo, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish with a logic that was invented in Gehenum. He quotes nobody who agrees with him, and doesn't display any rabbonim of today who agree with him, but he has helped Agunoth! Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit”o told me that any Beth Din that invents new ways to help Agunoth outside of accepted halacha that he takes away from them the Chezkas Beth Din, the authority of being a Beth Din. Thus, we have a situation where modern Orthodox divorces may not be recognized by others, and the children of these invented “help” for Agunoth may be mamzerim.

Let us begin.

The article begins by assuring us that “the use of social pressure – picketing, boycotting, withholding aliyot, and the like – in such a situation...there is no problem of a coerced get in such a case.”

This is completely wrong, as we will show, because it is obvious from the great Poskim I will quote with nobody disagreeing that it is a coerced GET and invalid GET to picket and humiliate a husband in MOUS OLEI especially when this is done in public. In fact, even to shame him not in public is a problem of a coerced and therefore invalid GET. This is stated clearly by the Chazon Ish.

The article then begins with the PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam, whereby Rabbeinu Tam permitted a passive ostracizing of a husband who refused to give a GET. The article quotes a rabbinical council of great rabbinical judges who permitted ostracizing the husband. Therefore, says Rabbi Broyde, we see that one may ostracize a husband who does not give a GET. But this is false advertising, as we will explain. The case of the rabbinical council involved a couple where the man was unable to have children and the wife demanded a GET so she would not be left in her old age with nobody to care for her. In this case, the Talmud clearly teaches that there must be a GET. On the other hand, Rabbi Broyde is talking about the common problem of wives demanding a GET often after they had children from the husband, called MOUS OLEI (my husband is repulsive to me). This is different, as we will explain.

The Shulchan Aruch EH 77 talks about a woman who demands a GET because her husband repels her. Nowhere is any coercion allowed or mentioned there. Even Rabbeinu Tam is not mentioned there, even though he permits only passive ostracizing. In EH 154 we find the laws of husbands who are commanded by the Torah to divorce their wives. There are two categories of these. One is where the Talmud commands that we force the GET, such as when a person marries a woman forbidden to him. Another category is when the Talmud does not talk about coercion, but merely says the husband must give a GET. The latter case of a sterile husband is what the rabbinical council ruled, when the wife demands a GET. In such a case the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not command coercion. The Ramo suggests that we use the passive coercion of Rabbeinu Tam. But the Ramo does not allow passive ostracizing in chapter 77 for a woman who is repulsed by her husband. Thus, the implication is clear: passive ostracizing is forbidden unless the Talmud clearly demands a GET, such as when the husband is sterile. But with MOUS OLEI, there may not be any coercion, even passive coercion.

The greatest authorities, the Shach and the Chazon Ish, forbid even passive ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam, even in the case of the sterile husband, claiming that in latter generations such an ostracizing was too strong a coercion and constituted an invalid GET. Maharabil states that nobody ever heard of rabbis permitting this. Therefore, for MOUS OLEI, when even the Shulchan Aruch does not permit even passive coercion, surely it is forbididen to do the passive PIRUD or ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam. But in the case of the sterile husband, the Ramo permits it, and the Gro and others agree, therefore, the rabbinical council mentioned above permitted it for the case of a sterile husband. This has nothing to do with Rabbi Broyde's article which is about the common “agunah” who left her husband often after having children and demands as GET. Such a husband may not be given the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam, at least, by the proof that I cited from the Shulchan Aruch and supported by Shach and Chazon Ish and Maharabil.

We now come to Rabbi Broyde's brazen misquoting of the Gro. He leaves out the key phrase, and thus makes it sound as if the Gro supports ostracizing all husbands, such as in MOUS OLEI. But the GRO as we mention before, is commenting on the Ramo in EH 154 that does not deal with MOUS OLEI but only with husbands who are commanded by the Talmud to divorce. The Gro explains why PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam is permitted with someone commanded clearly in the Talmud to divorce: “(154:67) because he can be saved from this by going to another city. And whenever we don't do something to him physically it is not called ISUI or coercion. And all of this we do to him because he transgressed on the words of the sages.” Thus, the final phase says that this PIRUD is only permitted when the Talmud clearly commands a divorce. But in MOUS OLEI we don't assume that the husband is wrong and he must divorce his wife and lose his children. Therefore, it is forbidden to ostracize him.

But let us ask Rabbi Broyde, even according to your abridged version of the GRO, the ostracizing is only permitted because the husband can find another city where nobody will ostracize him. But today what city is free from the protestors sent by Rabbi Schachter and ORA to torment a husband? Therefore, what ORA is doing is forbidden by the GRO, and as we explained, it was never permitted by the Ramo in the case of MOUS OLEI to begin with.

But let us return to the ruling of the sages of the above rabbinical council ruling. What kind of ostracizing did they decree on the sterile husband? ONLY PASSIVE THINGS such as not honoring him and ignoring him. But who permitted ORA to publicly demonstrate and humiliate a husband? And especially in a case of MOUS OLEI? This is the brazen invention of Rabbi Broyde.

Now we come to another brazen invention, this time a bald lie about HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l. In Igres Moshe EH III:44 Reb Moshe discusses a broken marriage where the wife will not return to the husband, but the husband won't give a GET. May Beth Din coerce the husband to give a GET? Rabbi Broyde quotes Reb Moshe that this is permitted, because “Compulsion in a case where divorce is truly desired does not create an invalid GET.” But Reb Moshe there says just the opposite. Although he does mention the idea and says it has some merit, he refuses to use it saying, “we must not rely on this.” 

So Rabbi Broyde slithers along while we are gasp in admiration for his proof, and then, some lines later, he slips in “While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors...” Hurry, he is wriggling out of his lie. 

Here is his full statement there: ““While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors, it is clear that in cases where no real coercion is used – but only harchakot d'Rabbeinu Tam – Rabbi Feinstein's reasoning is fully applicable.” First, note the weasel words. He doesn't say that “Rabbi Feinstein would permit it.” Even he is afraid to invent such a statement in the name of Reb Moshe. But what he does is to apply his own logic that surely that which Reb Moshe rejected would not be rejected for the mild coercion of Rabbeinu Tam's ostracizing.

But wait. He wriggled in the wrong direction. Because Rabbi Broyde was obviously not aware of another teshuva of Reb Moshe whereby he consigns Rabbeinu Tam's pirud to the status of a very serious coercion, more so than coercing with money which most poskim consider very strong coercion even invalidating the GET. (EH I:137) If so, Reb Moshe surely would not agree with Rabbi Broyde to permit the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam because it is a minor coercion.

Incredibly, Rabbi Broyde concludes “the use of social pressure to encourage the giving of a get in a situation in which the couple has already separated, a secular divorce has been granted and the marriage is over for both of them – and even more so where a bet din has issued a seruv against the husband – never creates a situation of Get Meuso.” He permits active public humiliation of the husband, even though public humiliation is considered murder in the Talmud.

Note that he never mentions that Rabbeinu Tam permits only passive ostracizing, and that the Chazon Ish EH 108 forbids even passive ostracizing and considers active humiliation such as that practiced by ORA to make an invalid GET. Nor does he even mention the Rashbo VII:414 that it is forbidden to coerce a husband with MOUS OLEI at all, and that even the sterile husband may not be humiliated, certainly not the husband of MOUS OLEI. Also Rabbi Yosef Caro in Bais Yosef, 154, Radvaz שו"ת רדב"ז חלק ד סימן קיח quote the Rashbo. The Shach at the end of GEVURAS ANOSHIM forbids even passively ostracizing the husband to obtain a GET at all. 

Just brazeneness matched only by his ignorance. But without the ignorance, even the brazeness would have a hard time.

Rabbi Benjamin Yudin: Birds & Bees

Kol Isha: IDF forbids earplugs

JPost

Several religious soldiers requested last week to wear earplugs or listen to MP3 players during a Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony in which women were singing, as well as for upcoming ceremonies for Remembrance Day and Independence Day.

The army refused the request but said that the soldiers could take a book of Psalms into the ceremony to read from if they wished.

Get Me'usa Crises: Halachic Summary

Guest Post

The גט מעושה crises and-1

Friedman-Epstein: What halachic justification?!

Despite all the fanfare and international publicity about the "aguna" Tamar Friedman, the halacha basis  for the conduct of her rabbinic supporters as well as the aguna defense organization Ora's tactics against Aharon Friedman is  embarrassingly anemic and simply unsupported by any elementary reading of the sources. Briefly the case involved Tamar's decision that she didn't want to remain married to Aharon. She has never made any claims of abuse or misbehavior just she thought she might find someone better. She left their home taking their daughter without his consent. There was the Baltimore beis din which they both agreed to abide by its decision. Its work was not brought to a psak. Secular court was involved and a secular divorce. There was some involvement of the Washington beis din - but that was incomplete and it never heard both sides. Finally there was a hazmana from the beis din of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis which Aaron did not respond to. That beis din issued a seruv signed by Rav Kaminetsky, Rav Belsky, Rabbi Ralbag and also Rav Schachter. The seruv states that whatever can be done to bring about a get should be done. ORA - with Rav Schachter's support and encouragement has gotten involved and has had public demonstrations and repeated distribution of posters demanding a get which targeted Aharon and his family. They also had a strong publicity blitz in all the major secular newspapers as well as a conference at Stern College and a major campaign directed at Aharon's boss Congressman Camp - all with the stated goal of forcing Aharon to give Tamar a get. So far there has not been a beis din that heard both sides and issued a psak that Aharon must give a get.

My concern has been to try and find a halachic basis for use of public humilation in a very weak case of ma'os alei - where Tamar has apparently never said anything stronger against her husband than that she realized that she didn't want to spend the rest of her life married to him. When I spoke with the head of ORA I asked him about this and he said that Tamar had a right to privacy and didn't have to explain why she wanted to leave. Aharon has apparently never said he wanted to end the marriage. Thus the case consists of Tamar's assertion of ma'os alei because she doesn't want to remain married. She is also a moredes who left their home. She turned to the secular courts - a huge problem - and as a result a custody arrangement was set up and a civil divorce was obtained.

A basic summary of the halacha is found here:

Be'er HaGolah (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 77:6): In the case where the wife claims ma’os alei and therefore refused to have sexual relations with her husband] The view of the Shulchan Aruch [which modified the language of the Rambam that "the husband can be forced to give a get" to "if the husband wants to divorce her"] is that of the Ramban and Rashba that one cannot force the husband to give a get [in the case of ma’us alei]. The husband can only be forced to give a get in those cases where Chazal said force can be used. [Which is either from a prohibited relations such as a cohen to a divorcee or a major defect such as severe disease or disgusting skin condition]This is stated in the Magid Mishna (Hilchos Ishus 14:8]. The Tur says the same thing in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and his father the Rosh. The source of this view is Kesubos (63b), What is the case of moredes (a rebellious wife) ? Amemar said it is a woman who says she wants to stay married and she want to torment her husband. However a woman who says ma’us alei (he disgusts me) we don’t force her to be with her husband. Mar Zutra said she should be forced and there was an incident in which Mar Zutra forced the wife to be with the husband and they had a child R’ Chinina Mesura. But that is not the normal consequence – they had special assistance from Heaven and we can’t learn from that case.

A review of the recent teshuva literature, inclduing the rulings of  Rav Eliashiv, Minchos Yitzchok, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Tzitz Eliezar, Ben Ish Chai and Rav Sternbuch as well as the various public shiurim that Rav Schachter has given on the topic of aguna, - have indicated that there is not a single source that allows the type of public humiliation ORA is using in order to force a husband to give a get. There are sources which allowed indirect pressure such as preventing the obtaining a civil divorce unless a get is given. But not a single use of direct pressure because of the universal concern in the Achronim for a get me'usa (an invalid forced get). Sources such as Rabbeinu Yona, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Rav Chaim Pelaggi were also studied - but they also do not provide a ready and acceptable basis for what is going on with ORA.

[update reply to James in Comments section]

James you obviously have inside information - the beis din issued a seruv for not appearing in which they poskened that a get had to be given. They did not explain their reasons nor did Friedman participate - so they only heard one side. Is that correct? Simple question is how can a beis din posken without hearing both sides? And if it isn't a psak but only a seruv for not showing up so how can they issue a ruling that it is a mitzva to give a get? Besides that level of confusion Rav Shachter has written clearly that he is totally relying on Rav Kaminetsky for his understanding of the case. So apparently it is irrelevant to him whether there is a psak or just a seruv. The only issue is the daas Torah of Rav Kaminestky. He then authorized ORA to attack Aharon and his family. Correct? The Beis din did not say anything about ORA nor do they appear on ORA's list of rabbis. Thus you are insisting that everyone involved agrees that ORA is doing the right thing. I am simply asking for some evidence that ORA actions are approved by Rabbis Belsky and Kaminetsky and what the basis of the psak of the beis din was. It is not clear that saying that it is a mitzva to give or obtain a get justifies what ORA is doing.

So we are still discussing this because of the apparent bizarreness of this case on the level of halacha. It doesn't require a gadol to understand the halachic issues or the halachic rulings going back to the gemora. I simply want to know what halachic understanding justifies the chain of events leading to ORA's demonstrations and pressure. It shouldn't take a talmid chachom more than 5 minutes to rattle off the necessary information. The fact that that ORA through Rav Shachter based on this beis din - has been producing a disturbing spectacle in the secular media - justifies me asking an explanation. If ORA wasn't involved then this would have remained a private issue. But it clearly isn't and I'd like to understand. this is Torah and I need to learn.

Charedi employment is on the rise

YNET

A recent study conducted by the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry predicted that Israel will see a 6% drop in its workforce within 20 years, especially due to the growing ultra-Orthodox and Arab population shares. But activists in the religious sector dismiss the forecast, noting the growing rates of employed haredim.

"I don't see the pessimistic predictions coming true," said attorney Yoav Laloum, chairman of the Noar KaHalacha, an organization that advocates against discrimination in the haredi sector.

Baltimore Patrol members on trial

Baltimore Sun

Having family who lives in the area and having recently spent a lot of time there - I fully understand the problems and dangers the Werdesheim's were facing in patrolling that area.

The incident occurred in November 2010, with charges brought against Eliyahu Werdesheim in December and, later, against his brother, Avi. There are some parallels - vigilantism, race, and self-defense - but also major differences - most notably the fatal outcome in the Florida case but also the handling by law enforcement.

With the trial scheduled to begin, here's a refresher on some of the facts in each case.

-The Werdesheim brothers were members of a group called Shomrim, Orthodox Jewish volunteers who patrol their Northwest Baltimore neighborhood. The group has meetings and bylaws, as well as radios and matching jackets, and for years was praised by city officials and police for their efforts. In Florida, shooter George Zimmerman, described as white-Hispanic had helped set up a neighborhood watch program with the assistance of the Sanford Police Department and had been appointed the "captain" of the program, according to reports. Both have been accused of being overzealous - Zimmerman had called 911 dozens of times before the shooting incident, while some black Baltimore residents and even police officers said Shomrim members sometimes took their role too far.

-Eliyahu Werdesheim worked for a security company and claimed to be an former Israeli special forces solider; Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer, having attended a four-month course at the local sheriff's department and enrolled in a local college and took law enforcement courses.