California: Should a child have 4 legal parents?

NYTimes  Bill Delaney’s two little girls spend three nights a week with their fathers, at the home Mr. Delaney shares with his husband in San Francisco. The other nights, they stay with their mothers, a lesbian couple who live nearby. 

The girls have four parents — a result of a kind of nontraditional family arrangement that has become increasingly common. But officially, California, like most other states, recognizes no more than two legal parents.  

That limit could soon be lifted.

A bill moving through the California Legislature would allow judges to recognize more than two legal parents for a given child, opening the door for alternative families to seek legal recognition of their relationships.

Alleged attacker of women in Bnei Brak captured

.kikarhashabat.

האם נעצר התוקף הסדרתי שמאיים על שלוותן של תושבות בני-ברק? בחודשים האחרונים התרחשו מספר רב של תקיפת נערות חרדיות, בעיקר באזור שבו פועלים אולמי השמחות בעיר התורה.

המותקפות סיפרו על צעיר בלבוש חסידי, שתקף אותן בשעות הערב בסימטאות ובחדרי מדרגות. עסקנים שמעו על כך, נחרדו מהעדויות ומיהרו לערב את משטרת מרחב ירקון, ובראשה את אלברט אוחיון

אתמול, הגיעה החקירה לנקודת מפנה משמעותית. בעקבות מידע מודיעיני הגיעה המשטרה לישיבה חסידית מוכרת בבני-ברק ועצרה את אחד הבחורים בזמן ארוחת הערב.

כשהחשוד הבחין בכוחות המשטרה, הוא נמלט לחדר האוכל - שם הסתיים המרדף הקצר במעצרו.

בחקירתו, הודה החשוד במעורבות בכמה מהתקיפות, אולם המשטרה חושדת שהתמונה רחבה עוד יותר.

5 indicted in haredi website 'extortion' affair

JPost  Police announced Thursday it had found sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment against five suspects in the Hadrei Haredim website extortion affair.

Police suspected that over the last two years, the five members of staff working for the haredi news site extorted large sums of money from businessmen, rabbis, organizations and large companies, who paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The five suspects comprise the director-general of the website, his deputy and three other employees.

The suspects allegedly threatened to publish content that would damage people's reputations unless they paid them large sums of money.

Rav Sternbuch - Psak to Report Molester

A clear Psak requiring Reporting is needed to stop Abuse

I just finished a long trans-Atlantic call with an American rav whose grandson was recently abused in a shul in Europe during davening. He was distressed by a number of developments besides the fact that his grandson had been abused. 1) the community rav who had been consulted said that the perpetrator had suffered enough embarrassment already and thus nothing more should be done. The rav stated clearly that the matter should be dropped and if the police were involved it would be mesira. He was clearly ignorant of the rulings of Rav Eliashiv and other gedolim on the matter. 2) Despite this the parents reported the abuse to the police  - but they didn't seem interested in getting involved either.  3) To make the matter more distressing the family has been informed that the alleged abuser has been observed  in the past - touching kids inappropriately in the mikveh - but nothing was done. 4) The parents of the child are now being harassed and threatened by the community as trouble makers and informants.

This American rav is well aware of the halachic and psychological issues and suggested something which is very simple - but should be very effective in changing the dynamics of the situation. Most people would have no problem of reporting if they witnessed a child being raped or severely beaten. In fact they probably would physically intervene to stop the abuse. The events of Penn State have hopefully taught us that good people don't act unless they know that they must act and are informed in advance what constitutes abuse. Similarly most rabbonim today acknowledge the importance of reporting abuse - to the local rabbi or police - but they would not necessarily recognize that inappropriate touching or fondling is abuse

Therefore the American rav suggested that the community needs that important poskim publicly proclaim in a written declaration what actions constitute abuse that we need to report. The  proclamation must state clearly and unambiguously that abuse is wrong - even if it doesn't involve rape. It must list the halachic requirements to prevent harm by reporting. And finally it needs a clear and unambiguous list of specific actions that constitute abuse that need to be reported.

Here is a tentative text regarding what is abuse:

You must report the following to your rav and/or police department. If you see a child being touched  inappropriately in the mikveh, playground, summer camp or school or neighbor's home. Not only must you report inappropriate adult fondling of a child - but also such actions between  children - even if they are the same age. You must report not only what you yourself observe but also when you hear rumors or your children tell you - it needs to be reported in order to verify and stop it. In sum - all awareness of abuse that you know about -  must be reported to someone. However it is not enough to just report that you witnessed or heard about abuse. If the person you report to doesn't follow through - whether it is a parent, teacher, principal, rav or police - you must persist either with that authority or find someone else who will listen and act. It is clear that a child's well being is not to be sacrificed to avoid chilul hashem, financial loss to a yeshiva or synagogue, or the embarrassment to the family of the abuser or even a prison sentence for the perpetrator. There is no prohibition of lashon harah to report these issues, nor is there a prohibition of mesira. A Rav or community leader is obligated to listen to any and all alleged incidents of abuse. Every member of the community is obligated to make sure that children are protected and that perpetrators are stopped.

Superbus fined for asking girl to move to back

YNET  Superbus transportation company will pay NIS 13,000 (some $3,200) in compensations to Ariella Marsden, a 15-year-old high school student who was asked by a bus driver to move to the back of the bus in order to allow two haredi men to sit in the front.

During her testimony, Marsden described the chain of events, saying she boarded the bus on the way back from school with two of her friends and sat in the front. Shortly afterwards, two haredi men boarded the bus and stood in the front, even tough there were vacant seats in the back. According to Marsden, the driver then asked her and her friends to move to the back of the bus, and they complied. However, by that time there were no empty seats and the three were forced to stand for the duration of the ride.

Attorney Orly Erez- Lahovski from the Israel Religious Action Center said "the verdict is another step in the battle against the exclusion of women in the public transportation system, and sends a message to drivers and company owners that discrimination is not only illegal, but will also be costly.

Mesorah - questions that bother a reader

Dear Rabbi,

I like to read your blog and I also use your sefer Das Torah. I would like to ask you a few questions that bother me. They are about our Mesorah.

1) How do we know that the Mesora is True 

 The Rishonim (like Kuzari) bring down the idea of Transmission. And they say that it could not be that millions of people were deceived, and that for sure since they all saw it and heard it, they transmitted it as they saw it and heard it. But what if there was a certain (one or few) person in a certain time (when they were together as a tribe of certain people) that told to their people and convinced them to believe that this is what happened, millions of people were there, and "we got the Torah, and here it is". Like it happened in other religions - one man convincing many people to believe in something, all the more so if people in those times were very receptive to believes of different ideas of religion (for example they were very easily  lured into Avoyda Zora) and obviously (at least for me) since they were not on the same level of rational thinking as in later times (in times of Gaonim, Rishonim or our time). So how we are so convinced that the Mesorah is true?

 2) Accepting that the whole Torah was written by Moshe - except last 8 verses

Another question that bothers me is the assertion "that the Torah is written completely by Moshe Rabeinu", and the only argument is about the last eight psukim. One Tana said that Yehoshua wrote them, and Rabbi Yehoshua (I think it was Rabbi Yehoshua?) said -  "Chas v'sholom,  of course Moshe Rabeinu wrote the whole Torah, just last pesukim he wrote with his tears". But why should I believe in what Rabbi Yehoshua said? At least if he would say that it was his Mesora that Moshe wrote the whole Torah, but Rabbi Yehoshua did not say that. He just based his Pshat on the fact that it is written “that Moshe wrote all this Torah”, which in simple meaning does not prove anything - the words “all this Torah” could simply mean all the commandments. Why should I believe in something that came from human mind as his idea? And all the more so, why should I believe in what he said about this concept, when I know that many Rabbis had the intention of protecting the Torah from heretics, which is very good, but since their minds were constantly in the "protecting mode", they automatically thought in this direction - that of course Moshe wrote the whole Torah, what else is possible?! But as it seems to me, there are many places in the Torah where it seems as if the Torah was not written by one person at one time, but it is more like a collection of a few writings that were put together later on. (For example גיד הנשה - “בראשית לב:לג "על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה", or another place - בראשית לו:לא "ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום לפני מלך לבני ישראל" , and there are many other places that are indicating this.) I understand that this idea is very dangerous, but the truth is more important to me. I grew up in a communists country, with a mindset of being anti-religion, and even thought I am Shomer Torah umitzvos now, I still have this attitude that everything has to make sense, and for me “this Rabbi said this and this Rabbi said that" is like the Pope in church said this and this and this, and everybody answers “oh yes father, whatever you say”. This way of thinking absolutely foreign to me and I only accept something if it makes sense. Of course I understand that a human brain cannot comprehend everything - but that's as long as it is something that it is not possible to understand, for example בחירה. But if something looks that it is possible to understand logically, why shouldn't I attempt to do that  - to the best of my ability? And then when we don't understand, we use Emuna. And that being said, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that Moshe did not write the whole Torah, like Rabbi Yehoshua holds, since it is his personal opinion, and not the mesora, (at least it does not say that). And it is not perfectly logical to say that Moshe wrote the whole Torah, because of all of those allusions to it, like I wrote before. So basically my question to you is - what's wrong with my understanding, since I don't find any Orthodox Rabbi that holds like this? (only conservative) Or maybe this logic is correct, but Orthodox Rabbis would never accept this because it is too dangerous?

Please answer me, if you can. I specifically chose you because of your rational approach to things.

Thank you,

Cherem of R' Gershom - time limited decree?

Pischei Teshuva (Even Ha-Ezer 1:19): Until the end of the 5^th millennium (1240) -  these are the words of the Maharik who cites Rashba that he had heard that Rabbeinu Gershom had not made his decree to be in force after the 5^th millennium... Look at Mishkenos Yaakov (#1) who writes that it seems to him that the reason for the rumor  - even though normally a decree is forever until a beis din arises that is greater in wisdom and number  as is well known – is because all rabbinic decrees need to be a protective fence for Torah laws. This is expressed by Ramban (Eschanon) that one should not create any matter or decree except that which is preventative fence for the Torah. The only exception being that a beis din has the power to make temporary decrees for the needs of the time and generation in order to correct temporary aberrations. Those matters which are for the needs of the time are not made permanent decrees. According this understanding, we can suggest that the ones who said there is a time limitation to the Cherem thought that Rabbeinu Gershom did not make this decree as a protective fence for a halacha. That is because there is absolutely no Torah prohibition which would justify this fence for everyone.  Thus those who make this claim feel that the decree must have been made for some transient problem of those times and that is why it was only for a limited time and not permanent and it wasn’t made in connection with a Torah law. However this view is not unanimously held and there are those who disagree with it.  This issue was raised by a few gedolim cited in a teshuva of the Beis Yosef. Besides this there were also a number of gedolim at the beginning of the 6^th millennium such as the Ran, Mordechai Maharam Ruttenburg and Raviah who discussed the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom and yet did not mention this leniency at all of it only being in force until the end of the 5^th millennium (1240). ... According to all this evidence we must conclude that Rabbeinu Gershom made this decree as a fence to protect Torah prohibitions because of various reasons and therefore this decree must have also been made forever as we find with all decrees that the Sages made. And Maharam Alshakar (#95) writes, Concerning the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom this that it is claimed to be in force only until the beginning of the 6^th millennium – but it is already well known that the majority of the Jews in exile never accepted this decree then or now - for example Spain and the West and the entire East. There are places that did accept it even until today and they conduct themselves in accordance with it. Therefore for all those places which accepted it even until today - it is in force as it was during the 5^th millennium.

Chassidic dynastic battles & political clout

NYTimes There is an enduring belief among some New York political aficionados that Hasidic Jews vote in a bloc. Capture the support of a chief rabbi and you capture the entire Hasidic sect. 

But the divisions in several Hasidic sects have made once-simple calculations far more complicated, as shown by the preliminary results in the recent Democratic primary for the Congressional seat held by Nydia M. Velázquez, a district that embraces Brooklyn’s Hasidic enclave in Williamsburg. 

The Satmar are the largest Hasidic sect in the United States, with its stronghold in Williamsburg, but with the death of Moses Teitelbaum, the Satmar grand rabbi, in 2006, their ranks have been sundered by a dynastic battle between two of his sons, Aaron and Zalman. And politics has become a favored way for each side to demonstrate its ascendancy.

Gra's failed attempt to restore daily Birkas Kohanim

Rabbi Daniel Travis  During the time of the Rishonim, a group of prominent Ashkenazic rabbis decreed that Birkas Kohanim should be recited only during Yamim Tovim (Responsa Beis Ephraim 6). The exact reasons for this decision are not known, but it is likely that it was connected to the intense hardships that their communities were experiencing at that time, which did not allow for them to feel joy. This ruling is upheld until this day and, outside of Israel, Ashkenazim recite Birkas Kohanim only on Yom Tov (Rema 128,44).

The Vilna Gaon and his students tried very hard to reinstate the daily Birkas Kohanim, but many obstacles blocked their efforts. In one instance the Vilna Gaon was arrested on false charges the day before a public Birkas Kohanim was planned. Rav Chaim of Volozhin, the Gaon’s closest disciple, once tried as well. The night before the planned event, fire razed half the town of Volozhin, including the shul where Birkas Kohanim was planned (as cited in Responsa Mashiv Davar 2,104 and Aruch Hashulchan 128,64). Eventually these attempts were abandoned.

ערוך השולחן אורח חיים הלכות תפילה סימן קכח

סעיף סד

והנה ודאי אין שום טעם נכון למנהגינו לבטל מצות עשה דברכת כהנים כל השנה כולה וכתבו דמנהג גרוע הוא אבל מה נעשה וכאלו בת קול יצא שלא להניח לנו לישא כפים בכל השנה כולה ומקובלני ששני גדולי הדור בדורות שלפנינו כל אחד במקומו רצה להנהיג נשיאת כפים בכל יום וכשהגבילו יום המוגבל לזה נתבלבל הענין ולא עלה להם ואמרו שרואים כי מן השמים נגזרה כן ומצד הדין י"ל ע"פ מ"ש בסעיף מ"ט ע"פ הזוהר דבעינן שמחה דומיא דאהרן ובניו בשמיני למילואים ולזה נאמר כה תברכו אמנם זה שהיה מנהג מקדם דיו"ט שחל בשבת לא היו נושאים כפיהם כבר נתבטל בימינו כי אין במנהג זה טעם וריח כמו שהאריכו מפרשי הש"ע בזה [ט"ז סקל"ז ומג"א סק"ע] ובעל קרי מותר בנשיאת כפים [ב"י] והמחמיר לטבול תבא עליו ברכה אמנם בא"י ובמצרים ובכל אזיא נושאים הכהנים כפיהם בכל יום: 

Shulchan Aruch, Polygamy & Rabbeinu Gershom

See full discussion in Otzer haPoskim volume I from Hebrew Books pages 21 -94

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 1:9): A man is allowed to marry a number of wives as long is he can afford them. Nevetheless the Sages gave good advice that one should not marry more than four wives in order that each one would have sexual relations at least once each month. In communities where the practice is to have only one wife it is not appropriate to marry an additional wife.

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 1:10): Rabbeinu Gershom made a cherem against those who married an additional wife. In contrast he didn’t make a ban against those who married their brother’s widow (yevama) who was childless nor an arusa. Rema: If he didn’t want to marry her but to exempt her (Maharik 101). He also didn’t apply it in a case where a mitzva was not being done for example his first wife had no children after 10 years... However others disagree and they assert that the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom applies even when it intereferes with doing a mitzvs and even in the case of yebom. Therefore in a case of a married yevam he would be required to do chalitza rather than marrying his brother’s widow (yevama). In a case that she can not be divorced such as she is insane or she refuses to accept the Get from him – then there is reason to be lenient for him to marry someone else. And surely if the first one is only betrothed but doesn’t want to get married or breakup with him. This decree of Rabbeinu Gershom was not universally accepted in all places. Rema:  It doesn’t apply only in those places where it is known not to have been adopted but otherwise it is to assumed that a particular place did accept it. Look at Y.D. 228 concerning a person who travels from a place where it is accepted to one where it was not accepted. Furthermore the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom was only decreed until the end of the 5^th milenia. Rema: Nevertheless in all the Ashkenaz lands it was decreed and this practice still applies today and therefore one should not marry two women. And we force with cherem and nidoi anyone who transgressed and married two women – that he should divorce one of them. And some say that today we don’t force someone who has transgressed the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom since we already have passed the  5^th milenia but that view is not accepted. There are some who say if his wife becomes an apostate that she is given a get through another party and that is the practice in a number of places. In a place where it is not the practice, there is no need to be strict and it is permitted to marry another woman without divorcing the first.

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 1:11): It is a good idea to make decrees and bans and shunnings against someone who marries an additional wife.

Rav Nachman Bulman zt"l: Erev Iyun on 10th Yahrtzeit

Who will comfort us now? by Toby Katz

Rav Sternbuch: Can a talmid chachom serve his son?

Rav Sternbuch (4:209): In Kiddushin (31b) it mentions that R’ Yaakov’s father and mother both poured him a drink. The gemora concludes that he should take the drink from his mother but not from his father since his father is a talmid chachom he will be insulted if his son accepts the drink from him. In other words, since his father is a talmid chachom who wants to serve his son and the son agrees to accept his service – it will make his father feel insulted. These words are astounding! We have a case where the father wants to do something for his son so why would he be insulted if his son accepted his offer? Was his father just trying to test his son to see whether he would accept? Consequently this halachic conclusion must only be in the case where the mother is there and wants to help and but the son would rather accept it from his father. In such a case it would appear that since his father is a talmid chachom it would be degrading for him because the father is being treated as equivalent to his mother. That is why he should take the drink from his father but rather he should take it from his mother. It would follow from this analysis that if only the father was offering a drink then it would be permitted to take the drink. With this explanation, all the questions of the Maharsha on the gemora later regarding where the father is not concerned about his honor that it is not a concern and that the son is permitted to take it. However there is a problem with this answer since Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 240:25) doesn’t make this distinction and simply says that if the father is a talmid chachom that it is prohibited for the son to accept the drink. That is because if he allows his father to serve him it seems that he is insulting the father’s Torah. Thus it seems according to the Shulchan Aruch that even if the father is forgiving of his honor and really wants to serve his son, even so if the son accepts the drink the father would be insulted. This is in according with the text of the gemora here. This matter in my opinion requires great study and it is an astounding innovation. (Look at the Birchei Yosef in the name of the Pri Chodosh that he should not accept even if the father is very insistent). Perhaps this is true only if this is done on a regular basis then we should be concerned that once in a while he might be insulted. It would follow that it is always prohibited to accept service from a talmid chachom because of the possibility that he would be insulted when someone accepts his offer. In other words even if the talmid chachom really wants to be of serve it would be prohibited to accept the offer just as it is here concerning a father who wants to provide service. Nevertheless the Shulchan Aruch rules that it is prohibited unless you want to conclude that it is only prohibited if it is done on a regular basis. This matter requires further thought. That is of course referring to any Torah scholar who wants to serve others but a student who wants to serve – it a is mitzva to accept as in mentioned in Chazal.

Cherem R Gershom & Remarriage - Rav Sternbuch 3:416

 Rav Sternbuch 3 416