Rape - like force feeding honey on Yom Kippur

Abarbanel (Bereishis 33:18-35): The Torah says, “Dina, the daughter of Leah who was born to Yaakov” – went out. It doesn’t tell this to criticize her that she went out – contrary to what Rashi claims. That is because Leah was well known for her modesty and it because of this modesty that Yaakov did not recognize her when he first had sexual relations with her (Bereishis 29:23:25). And this that Leah went to Yaakov and told him that he would be spending the night with her (Bereishis 30:16) – means only that she went to the door of her house and she said it purely for the sake of Heaven [and not because of lust]. In fact this verse comes to praise Dina and it was saying this to declare that she typically didn’t go out of the house since she was the daughter of Leah and she had been taught to stay in the house. In contrast Rachel was a shepherdess while Leah typically did not leave the house. This attribute of remaining in the house also came to her from her father who was known as one “who dwelled in the tents.” So if her father was modest then surely this would be true of the daughter. All this teaches that she did not go out of the house for bad intentions – G‑d forbid! – but merely “to see the daughters of the land.” The Torah doesn’t say it was to see the men of the city or even the children of the city – but the daughters of the city. In other words she wanted to see the girls of the city and their clothes and jewelry. This was because there was no other girl besides her in the family. So she wanted to learn from the local girls as is the manner of young unmarried women. This resolves the fourth question we raised. Furthermore there is no doubt that Dina did not go out alone but was accompanied by a man or woman - even though this is not mentioned in the Torah’s account – since it is self-evident. (This is similar to the Torah’s description of Moshe going to meet his father-in-law where it is known from other sources (Mechilta Shemos 18) that he didn’t go alone.). However it just says, “That Shechem the son of Chamor the ruler of this land saw her.” This verse is to be understood to mean that since he was the son of the ruler he took Dina by force and was not concerned with the one who accompanied her and he wasn’t afraid of Yaakov and his sons. The Torah simple states, “Shechem took Dina and lay with her and tormented her.” [...] Perhaps the reason the Torah says that he “tormented her” is because sexual intercourse is inherently pleasurable even if it starts out as rape it will nevertheless typically result in physical pleasure. For example it is mentioned in the gemora that a woman came to Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi and told him that she had been raped. Since he held that a woman who is raped must resist from beginning to end – he asked her whether she had experienced any physical pleasure during the rape. Because in his view if there was any moment that she didn’t resist then she would be prohibited to her husband. She replied by asking him whether a person fasting on Yom Kippur who has honey forced into his mouth -  would he find the experience pleasurable even though it was done against his will? This is proof that a natural physical pleasure is not eliminated even if it is brought about by force. Thus this verse is alluding to the praise of Dina. Because she was so upset by the rape that she experienced no physical pleasure at all. All of this teaches us that Dina was absolutely free of all sin. Because if she had experienced pleasure there is no question that her brothers would have killed her when they massacred the community of Shechem and they would have viewed it as a case of an adulterous couple. However it was clear to them that it was absolutely a case of rape – from beginning to end -  and thus they did nothing to Dinah.

[The recent critical edition of the Abarbanel notes there is apparently no known source that Dina was engaged or married- in addition the Abarbanel's claim that she might have been killed if she had been forced to have pleasure is a view clearly against the halacha]
There seems to be a major dispute in the commentaries as to the degree of Dinah's complicity as well as whether she rejected Shechem totally - as the Abarbanel states - or wanted him as the Torah Temima notes.
תורה תמימה (בראשית לד:ב הערה ג): פירש"י שלא בא אליה בעונתה בשעה שנתאוית לו או שבא עליה שלא כדרכה, עכ"ל, ומה שלא פרשו חז"ל בפשיטות ויענה שאנסה שלא לרצונה, שעל זה יונח לשון ענוי כמו תחת אשר ענה את אשת רעהו (פ' תצא), י"ל ע"פ המבואר במ"ר בפרשה כאן בפסוק ויקחו את דינה ויצאו (פ' כ"ו) גוררין בה ויוצאין, והיינו שלא יצאה ברצון מבית שכם, א"כ מבואר שלא נאנסה על כרחה:

Bereishis Rabba(80:11):[[ 11. AND TOOK DINAH OUT OF SHECHEM'S HOUSE, AND WENT FORTH. R. Judah said: They dragged her out and departed.6 R. Hunia observed: When a woman is intimate with an uncircumcised person, she finds it hard to tear herself away. R. Huna [also] said7: She pleaded, ’And I, whither shall I carry my shame?’  (II Sam. XIII, 13), until Simeon swore that he would marry her. Hence it is written, And the sons of Simeon... and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman  (Gen. XLVI, 10): (this means, the son of Dinah who was intimate with a Canaanite).l R. Judah said: It means that she acted in the manner of the Canaanites.2 R. Nehemiah said: It means that she was intimate with a Hivite [Shechem] who is included in the Canaanites. The Rabbis said: [She was so called because] Simeon took and buried her in the land of Canaan

Minyan, group therapy, and the validation of being seen

Times of Israel by Rabbi Mendel Horowitz

Of those devout it is not unusual for men to gather, fedoras askew, seeking inspiration in the company of strangers. Thrice daily, observant men assemble for prayers and are routinely affected by the shared experience. The siddur is not lacking in appeals for personal growth; the process of supplication can be humbling, heartening, hardy. Still, as much as we talk to and about God, observant men are uncannily reserved about themselves. In a scheme that emphasizes ritual, it is easy to hide behind behavior.

A minyan is a curious thing. Ostensibly a forum for individual worship, much liturgical prose is composed in the plural, likening independent wants with communal needs. Restore us in repentance. Save us and we will be saved. Observant men pray not only with each other but for each other, regularly. Ideally, when joined in prayer dissimilar men concede similarities, the unaffiliated align. Stubbornly, differences tend to divide. There is a certain safety in praying for — and being prayed for by — others. In divine ears we each sound disharmonious. The “one for all, all for one” ideal increases our odds of being heard while protecting us from the humiliation of disclosure.

Compulsory prayers are by design both a declaration of praise and an expression of lacking. The Hebrew term for prayer – t’filah — connotes intervention, a petition for mystic involvement in the minutia of existence. Appealing for such intervention involves appreciating celestial supremacy and confessing human deficiency. Indeed, the Hebrew term for gratitude — hoda’ah — is of the same root as that of admission. While minyans can seem boisterous, the prayers they comprise can function as means for silent confessions and resolutions

Rubashkin appeal rejected by Supreme Court

Forward  The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by Sholom Rubashkin, the former chief executive of a kosher meat packing plant in Iowa who was sentenced to 27 years in prison on charges of financial fraud.

Without comment, the high court refused to consider whether Sholom Rubashkin’s sentence was excessive for a first-time, nonviolent offender and whether he was entitled to a new trial based on evidence of alleged judicial misconduct in the case.

The rejection could mark the last step in a four-year legal saga that began in May 2008 when federal authorities raided the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa.

California bans therapy for sexual orientation

NYTimes  California has become the first state to ban the use for minors of disputed therapies to “overcome” homosexuality, a step hailed by gay rights groups across the country that say the therapies have caused dangerous emotional harm to gay and lesbian teenagers.

This bill bans nonscientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement on Saturday after he signed the bill into law. “These practices have no basis in science or medicine, and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

The law, which is to take effect on Jan. 1, states that no “mental health provider” shall provide minors with therapy intended to change their sexual orientation, including efforts to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Tattoo to remember the Holocaust

NyTimes   When Eli Sagir showed her grandfather, Yosef Diamant, the new tattoo on her left forearm, he bent his head to kiss it. Mr. Diamant had the same tattoo, the number 157622, permanently inked on his own arm by the Nazis at Auschwitz. Nearly 70 years later, Ms. Sagir got hers at a hip tattoo parlor downtown after a high school trip to Poland. The next week, her mother and brother also had the six digits inscribed onto their forearms. This month, her uncle followed suit. [...]

It is certainly an intensely personal decision that often provokes ugly interactions with strangers offended by the reappropriation of perhaps the most profound symbol of the Holocaust’s dehumanization of its victims. The fact that tattooing is prohibited by Jewish law — some survivors long feared, incorrectly, that their numbers would bar them from being buried in Jewish cemeteries — makes the phenomenon more unsettling to some, which may be part of the point.

“It’s shocking when you see the number on a very young girl’s hand,” Ms. Sagir said. “It’s very shocking. You have to ask, Why?” [...]

Ms. Sagir, a cashier at a minimarket in the heart of touristy Jerusalem, said she is asked about the number 10 times a day. There was one man who called her “pathetic,” saying of her grandfather, “You’re trying to be him and take his suffering.” And there was a police officer who said, “God creates the forgetfulness so we can forget,” Ms. Sagir recalled. “I told her, ‘Because of people like you who want to forget this, we will have it again.’ ”

Holiness is not ascetisicm:Rav Shimon Shkop

Translation by Rabbi Micha Berger click here for full introduction

In my opinion, this whole concept is included in Hashem’s mitzvah “Be holy, [for I am Holy].”3 The Midrash (Leviticus, Emor, ch. 24) says about this verse: “Can it [truly] be ‘Like Me?’ This is why it continues, ‘for I am Holy’ to teach that My Sanctity is above yours.” And about the foundation of this mitzvah of sanctity the Toras Kohanim4 has “‘be holy’ – be separate”. Nachmanides, in his commentary on the Torah, explains at length this notion of separation as it is stated in this mitzvah, that it is separation from excessive comfort and pleasure – even if they are actions that are not prohibited to us. In one illustrative statement, he writes that it is possible for a person to be disgusting with [what would otherwise be] the permission of the Torah, see his holy words there.

According to this, it would seem the Midrash is incomprehensible. What relevance does the concept of separation have to being similar to the Holy? The verse tells us with regard to this that His Will is not like this. As it says, “Can it [truly] be ‘Like Me?’ This is why it continues, ‘For I am holy’ to teach that My sanctity is higher than yours.” It is more difficult to understand “My sanctity is higher than yours.” This explanation is incumbent upon us to understand – in truth there is some similarity in the holiness He expects of us to His [Holiness], except that His Holiness is more general and inclusive. If we say that the essential idea of the holiness He demands of us (in this mitzvah of “be holy”) is distance from the permissible, that kind of holiness has nothing to do with Him.5

Weberman: The smoking gun

Rabbi Horowitz   After many delays and much legal wrangling, Nechemia Weberman will finally stand trial in Brooklyn Criminal Court on October 30th for allegedly abusing a young girl in the Williamsburg community over a period of three years -- beginning when she was 12 years old. Mr. Weberman is entitled to his day in court and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.[...]

Moreover, it would help undo the denial and cognitive dissonance of those who defend Weberman -- by pointing out how disturbing were the circumstances of his "treatment" of the young girls referred to him.

Think of it this way. Wouldn't alarm bells go off in your mind if a doctor performed an invasive procedure without using latex gloves or if he/she picked up a used syringe to give you an injection? Wouldn't you think it strange if you were a single mother and were requested to meet with your son’s Rebbe or principal at 9 p.m. one evening in a deserted Yeshiva building to discuss your son's progress?

Well, those of us familiar with the do's and don'ts of accepted practice in the mental health profession saw similar blaring warning lights in our minds, as should you when the facts were made public that Weberman:

1) Had unregulated access to many girls over a number of years in his inappropriate and illegal role as their unlicensed "therapist."

2) Had these young girls referred to him for counseling by very Chassidish schools, whose general level of gender separation far exceeds those of the typical "Bais Yakov" (and it would be exceedingly rare for non-Chassidish girls’ schools to regularly refer their Talmidos to a male therapist)

3) Engaged in private, unsupervised counseling sessions with young girls -- often in an office/apartment that contained a working bedroom -- violating all norms of Yichud and Tzniyus.

In addition to all these disturbing facts, it has become clear that these serious allegations are in fact not isolated ones. In fact, since Mr. Weberman's arrest, I was personally contacted by immediate family members of four additional alleged victims of his who are afraid to come forward, and those of us close to the community have heard similar reports from others as well. [...]

Mea Shearim:No gender segregation for Sukkos

YNet   The Toldot Aharon Hasidic dynasty has pledged not to send ushers to the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood's streets to impose modesty rules during the holiday of Sukkot, and not to enforce gender segregation as it has done in previous years.

In discussions held between senior haredi community members and representatives of the police and Jerusalem Municipality, the parties agreed that a safety fence would be set up to maintain order during the Simchat Beit Hashoeivah celebrations held in the area on the intermediate days of Sukkot – but not to impose segregation.

The Jerusalem Police updated Jerusalem Council Member Rachel Azaria on the developments, following her petition to the High Court of Justice against the gender segregation on the neighborhood's main street in past years and the judges' ruling that authorities must prevent this situation. [...]

Jewish student lied about hate crime assault

MLive  Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III said a 19-year-old Jewish Michigan State University student who alleged he was assaulted last month because of his religion won't face criminal charges for false reporting.

Zachary Tennen, of Franklin, said he was at a party about 1:30 a.m. on Aug. 26 in the 500 block of Spartan Avenue, about a half-mile north of MSU's campus, when two college-aged men asked him if he was Jewish. When he responded in the affirmative, the pair beat him unconscious then stapled his mouth, he alleged.[...]

The case was closed Thursday, though, after authorities concluded there was no merit to Tennen's assertions of a hate crime. A police report on the matter detailed the accounts of multiple witnesses who said Tennen harassed and inappropriately touched women at the party, leading to his being punched in the mouth.

Kav HaYashar:Myth of Ramban's apostate "son"

Debunking a Parshas Nitzavim Myth

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times

http://5tjt.com/?p=7894

There are a number of Seforim on the weekly portion of Nitzavim that cite a story in the “Kav HaYashar” regarding the words of the Ramban on Dvarim (29:17), “Ki Mishoresh Matok lo yetzeh mar – from a sweet root, something bitter will not be produced.”

The book “Kav HaYashar” was first printed in Frankfurt, Germany by Rav Tzvi Hersh Keidenower in 1705.  Rav Keidenower was the son-in-law of the Shach’s brother and authored a remarkable commentary on Mussar and Chumash.  Although it is a well respected Sefer, in this book, the author puts forth an extraordinary claim (Chapter 81 in some editions), regarding a story that he had heard of one of the sons of the Ramban. 

The story, in essence, has the Pope (presumably Clement the IV) having just read a comment from the Ramban’s recently printed commentary that if a son of a Jew adopted another religion it is a proof that he was never from Jewish lineage in the first place, sent a message to the Ramban.  The message stated that since the Ramban’s own son had just converted to Christianity, his interpretation was wrong.  The Kav HaYashar continues that the Ramban was quite saddened until his wife revealed to him that long ago she was attacked by a nobleman on the way to immerse in a faraway place and this particular child was from that encounter.  As proof she produced the nobleman’s severed finger which she had bitten off. 

The Ramban told the Pope what had happened and the Pope brought the nobleman to see his hand.  Sure enough after the glove was removed from the nobleman’s hand, the finger was missing.  The Ramban felt that his interpretation was thus exonerated.

The story is cited by a number of more contemporary figures other than the Kav HaYashar, including Rav Menashe Klein.  Notwithstanding the citations, it is this author’s view that the story is apocryphal.  There are no less than eight different reasons for this conclusion:

1.       The story is filled with anachronisms.  There was no printing press in the time of the Ramban.  The story uses the term “Dfus” which indicates that there was an actual physical press and also indicates that the Ramban’s work was printed.  This was not the case.

2.       The Ramban’s three sons, Shlomo, Nachman, and Yehuda are known and had Jewish descendents or interactions.  Shlomo had children and the Ramban wrote that they should rather name him after the maternal grandmother and not after him.  Nachman was the recipient of letters from the Ramban and authored commentaries.  Yehuda is cited It is possible that there was a fourth son, Yoseph, but the record shows that he maintained his Judaism, when he is mentioned.  No histories indicate one iota that there was  a descendant of the Ramban or his wife who became Catholic.  Also, this is the type of information that would be spread and cannot be kept hidden.  The Dominicans, antagonists of the Ramban, would certainly have spread it as certainly as they defamed the Ramban in regard to matters of the disputation.

3.       Pope Clement IV was never in Aragon, where the Ramban lived.  He lived in Viterbo 50 miles north of Rome throughout his entire pontificate.  There is no known personal interaction between the Ramban and Pope Clement IV.  The Pope did extend a ban on the Ramban returning to Aragon, but that was by proxy

4. 

5.     [...] See Five Towns Jewish Times for full article

8.     

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

Lulav & Esrog versus Honoring Father?

The Better Lulav and Esrog

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman  http://5tjt.com/?p=8905

Here’s the scenario. Your father asked you to pick him up a lulav and esrog set. You bought two. One for you and one for your father. One of them is more Mehudar than the other. Who gets the better one?

Believe it or not, the issue is not so clear. A number of Poskim rule that there is no obligation to give the better one to the father, and they cite the following She’arei Kneses HaGedolah and Bikkurei Yaakov as proof. 

The She’arei Kneses HaGedolah (OC 660) states that if you want to buy a lulav and esrog and someone else is trying to purchase it for a leading sage of the generation, there is no obligation to let the sage have it. The Bikkurei Yaakov (OC 656) writes that the same would be true regarding a father. 

Rabbi Shammai Kehas Gross, a Dayan in Belze in Eretz Yisroel, and author of the Shaivet HaKehasi (Vol. IV #175) is one of the Poskim that ruled that there is no obligation. Initially, Rav Gross wished to distinguish between a case when the father was aware that a second one was purchased from when he was unaware. He writes that when the father is aware, it may cause him an ill feeling if he was given the lesser quality set. Later on, he cites a responsa of the Maharam Lublin (#136), that if the embarrassment to the father is caused only by inaction rather than action, it is not a problem. The Shaivet HaKehasi thus rules that even in such a situation there is no obligation to give it to the father.

Rav Aharon Yehudah Grussman (Vedarshta v’chakarta Bereishis 9) writes that not only may the son keep the better one, but he is even permitted to deceive the father and hide the existence of the second better quality Esrog.

The responsa Chukei Chaim, written by Rav Chaim Shaya Koenig, (Vol. IV #131) (cited in the Sukkas Chaim p. 196) also rules that the son has no such obligation. 

It is this author’s view, however, that the citation of the She’arei Kneses HaGedolah and the Bikkurei Yaakov have no relevance to our case because they are both discussing a situation where there is only one esrog set available for purchase. In that case, it is clear that there is no obligation.[...]

It is this author’s view that even according to the Poskim that Hiddur Mitzvah is biblical (Raavad in his critique on Baal HaMeor on Sukkah 29b; Chiddushei Anshei Shaim on the Rif and others, Kapos Tmarim Sukkah ibid), one would still be obligated in giving it to the father, as one can still fulfill the Mitzvah with the other set. Honoring parents is known as one of the highest Mitzvos and would be preferable to Hiddur Mitzvah as well. [See Five Towns Jewish Times for full article]

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

Cure of PTSD? Injection in neck nerves

 

Fox News  A federally-approved injection is offering new hope to veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The injection, which takes approximately 15 minutes to administer, has led to dramatic improvements in some veterans who suffer from the disorder.

 

PTSD is an anxiety disorder that typically follows exposure to a traumatic event such as combat, disaster or assault.  Symptoms include nightmares, jumpiness, paranoia, irritability and aggressiveness.  It is often accompanied by depression, substance abuse or other anxiety disorders.

To address the soldiers who aren’t finding relief from standard therapies, Dr. Eugene Lipov,  medical director of Advanced Pain Centers in Chicago, director of pain research at Northwest Community Hospital and medical director of Chicago Medical Innovations, is championing a little-known treatment called Stellate ganglion block (SGB). 

According to Lipov, PTSD sufferers who have been administered the block have reported relief from symptoms in as little as 30 minutes.  

 

Lipov has received a waiver from the FDA to perform SGB and is currently recruiting participants for a clinical trial.  SGB, which has also been used in the past to treat depression, schizophrenia, psychosis, and other mental health disorders, is not backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treating PTSD in soldiers.

For the treatment, local anesthetic – commonly used in epidurals during labor – is injected into a collection of nerves in the neck known as the stellate ganglion.  These nerves are connected to various parts of the brain, including the amygdala, which are thought to be associated with PTSD. 

Guilt of Yisroel Weingarten - letter of R M Stauber to Beis Din of Rav Wosner

What Was Said Inside Satmar About Yisroel Moshe Weingarten

by Yerachmiel Lopin on 12/07/2010

In 2003 a letter was sent by Rabbi Mordechai Stauber in Antwerp to the Bais Din of R Wosner in Monsey. You can see the Hebrew original here. (Translation by Yerachmiel Lopin- full copyrights reserved for translation) Printed here with permission

BAIS RACHEL
Kleuter, Lagere, Middelbare School en Satmar
Lamorinierestraat 26-28
2019 Antwerpen
Tel 281-3000 – Fax 218 91-23

Friday, Parshas Pinchas, 5763, [July 18, 2003] Antwerp, May Zion be Restored

Respectfully to the renowned great scholar, presiding on justice, righteous leader to his congregation, his glory on the Jewish people, the honorable renowned, Rabbi, Gaon Benzion Yaakov Halevi Wosner, may he be granted long days, and along with him to the rabbis and sages, members of the Beit Din Tzedek (religious court) of the Holy Congregation of Monsey.

After inquiring about your well-being, I am answering your request to write what I know about the painful affair of the Weingarten family.  They lived here in our city Antwerp for many years. Their young girls were educated here in Bais Rachel of Satmar. There was a feeling during all those years that an oppressive atmosphere was controlling the girls and their mother. Though we tried to do everything for the good, it did not help much. In the summer of 5756 [1996] Reb Yisroel Moshe came and pestered us to move his oldest daughter, Frumah Leah, to a higher class; something we don’t do for others. After deliberation we decided to agree. We knew the bitterness of the daughter came from the goings-on at the house. Therefore [we thought] it is worth giving in on a trivial matter; perhaps through this the student will be more satisfied.  But actually we saw, to the contrary, that she came to school with swollen eyes, and at times, with other marks. We did not want to touch this because we knew they were odd people and we wouldn’t accomplish anything.

Reb Wolf Gross, who lives several houses away from them, was a true friend of Yisroel Moshe, and he helped them a lot so there would be something to eat in their house. He told me that Frumah Leah wants to commit suicide, G-d save us, and throw herself out the window. They actually saved her at the last moment. [He told me that] in my role as principal I am obligated to interrogate her in order not [to be guilty of] “standing by on the blood of a fellow Jew” [Leviticus 19:16].

I initiated discussions with her several times until she revealed to me that she endured murderous beatings from him [her father] for reasons she could not reveal to me under any circumstances. Only after much urging and assurances, she wrote on paper that for a long time her father was doing with her [sexually] perverted things, have mercy on us. I do not remember all she wrote. But this I remember exactly as I received it from her. “He takes and he ejaculates (motzi zerah l’vatallah) …(ellipses in original) very close to actual biblically prohibited incestuous intercourse, (ad karov ligiluy arayos mamash), have mercy on us.    She added afterwards, verbally, that she was disgusted with a life like this for a quite a while and that he hit her with frightening sadism. Because of this she wanted to put an end to her life, G-d save us.

It is self understood what a shock this was for us.  Because the one of whom we speak was a girl of 15, we passed the matter over to the rabbonim and the leader of Satmar [in Antwerp], Rabbi Chaim Yosef Dovid Weiss, may he live long, head of our congregation. [Rabbi Weiss] took the testimony and he [the father] did not deny it. As a consequence he [Rabbi Weiss] forbade him [Yisroel Weingarten] to seclude himself with his daughter (asar lo l’hityached im bito). He arranged for her to immediately go to Manchester, [England, to a girls school where she would board].

This happened during Chanukah, 5757 [December 1997]. At the end of the winter she returned from Manchester and the whole family traveled to Israel for Passover. After Passover he [Yisroel Weingarten] returned alone with his aforementioned daughter and he was secluded with her all summer. All we did was write a letter that we have no responsibility (achrayis) for the aforementioned student [Frumah Leah] from here on in. Also, that none of his children have permission to set foot in our institutions. Till the month of Ellul, his disgrace was not [publicly] revealed. On the contrary; he [Yisroel Weingarten] made himself out to be a respectable man and we kept quiet. In the middle of Ellul his true disgrace was revealed through others with more ugly things. The whole city was astonished. Suddenly it came out through a tape that the daughter was involved in sin with a neighbor, Meyerowitz Meierowitz. This was something that the dayan of Satmar did not hear from him [Yisroel Weingarten] all through the course of the previous winter while he judged him.

We surmised that all of his doings were astounding and full of contradictions. My wife, may she live long, told me many times at the end of long discussion that she senses from him an air of impurity (ruach tummah). I still gave him the benefit of the doubt until I heard from his daughter the aforementioned deeds [about which she wrote]. Through this were explained many contradictions.

His wife endured a lot from him. Many times she burst out in gushing tears. He was terribly, unfathomably, sadistic towards her. After some weeks she returned and said that all of her words were nonsense and lies, and so on. It was seen that he manipulates her [manipaleert ) in a terrible way.

The devastation (hachurban) [evoked] in putting forth my words pains me greatly. [Do] what it is in your power to save them from this hypocrite, crook and swindler without equal who does the acts of Zimri and demands the reward of PinchasBT Sotah 22b referring to Numbers 25:6-14].  I would also add, that the Admor Rabbi Leibish of  Phshevorsk, may he live long, said that they investigated the family in 5757 [1997-1998], meaning the woman and daughter, in Jerusalem the holy city, and they [the investigators] uncovered things. [

Signed and sealed in sorrow and wishing you success,

Mordechai Stauber

(HT for Translation to DH and JE)

Mother suing church for delayed abuse report

Washington Post  The mother of a 13-year-old girl allegedly raped at a Tulsa megachurch is suing the church for waiting two weeks to report the allegation.

The lawsuit — first reported by the Tulsa World — was filed Friday in Tulsa County District Court. It seeks more than $75,000 and alleges that Victory Christian Center officials tried to conceal the allegation in an effort at “damage control.”

 =========================

kjrh   Another possible victim has come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against former Victory Christian Center employee Chris Denman, the fourth involving a former church employee in recent months.

The 12-year-old girl is the third minor to bring claims of sexual abuse against Denman. Denman, 20, was arrested Sept. 5 for raping a 13-year-old girl at a church event and molesting a 15-year-old girl.

The original allegations against the former church intern have ignited a firestorm in recent weeks as six other Victory Christian employees have been arrested -- one Israel Castillo for making a lewd proposal to a minor and using a computer to facilitate a sex crime and five others for failure to report child abuse.

Among the five were John Daugherty, Victory Christian youth pastor and son of senior pastor Sharon Daugherty, and wife Charica Daugherty.

A lawsuit filed by one of the alleged victims' parents also accuses Sharon Daugherty of having knowledge.