Religious Bullying - "You are a shaigetz, I am a tzadik"

One of the spiritual dangers of being religious is the use of assumed moral/religious superiority as a club or debating tactic. "You can't question that because it part of the mesorah [ said with great indignation]" Who are you to disagree with the godol/rebbe hador?" "Only people with weak faith [latent kefirah] asks those types of questions [said with a sneer]." "You need to do teshuva for making such a statement [said with great self-righteousness]." "Only baalei teshuva ask those type of questions." "Why of course I am speaking lashon harah - but it is l'to'eles since they are so krum[i.e. against the mesora]."

I recently was discussing this issue with my chavrusa [he is also a psychologist]. Why is there such joy dumping on group X and such strong and sometimes vicious reaction when one of our own is criticized - or even worse if c.v. we ourselves are criticized - by an outsider. BTW I admit I am also a perpetrator on occasion.

Furthermore why is it so resented when we try to stop one of our own dumping on an "outsider" and why is there often a very hostile reaction when we criticize our own community - especially a rabbi or rosh yeshiva or community practice. [e.g. what happened with Rabbi Dr. Twerski]

Besides the agreement that this phenomon exists perhaps what disturbed both of us was the realization that neither of us had had much such success in 1) making our acquaintances aware of this phenomenon [of course we all know that "others do such things"] 2) having any positive influence on the activity while it occurring. I am not talking about the halacha of tochacha but rather ego building and defensive - at the expense of being ehrlich.

Perhaps the issue is that religious bullying is satisfying as a substitute for meaning in life. Assuming spiritual superiority over others is a substitute for our own spiritual strivings. Focusing on what we need to do to grow is very hard. It is much easier - especially when validated by one's own group - to focus on what is wrong with everyone else. Being part of a group [mob] is very satisfying.

Suggestions welcomed.

This is an intersting example I published in Daas Torah I page 202

Maharik(12:62): There are some rabbis who want to dominate their students more than is appropriate and they assert that whoever has been a student even as a child is forever subordinate to them and can never disagree with them in any issue. They claim that this is true even if the student has become their equal or even their superior in learning because they assert that the main factor is where the relationship started not where it is now. They furthermore assert that even if the rabbi has clearly erred or behaves incorrectly, that disagreeing with the rabbi is the same as contradicting G‑d and other such claims. The answer to this that even if the student is forever subordinate to his teacher as these rabbis assert, nevertheless is quite obvious that that is only in relationship to honoring him by standing up for him or ripping his garment irreversibly in mourning for him. However, concerning matters of Heaven e.g., he saw his teacher err in Halacha which is a chilul HaShem—there is no requirement to honor his teacher. This can readily be seen in the many examples in the gemora such as the events with Rabban Gamliel (Berachos 26b)…

Man of halacha - R' Moshe Soloveitchik

Rav Shurkin tells the following story in Megged Givos Olam,

Rav Moshe Soloveitchik first learned of the petira of his father Rav Chaim from the newspapers. Rav Moshe poskened that one should not believe anying published in a newspaper and thus it was not considered notification. As a result he did not sit shiva but rather took the dangerous journey [during World War I] to Warsaw where Rav Chaim had died. After 10 days he returned suddenly to his house with a pale face and a terrible appearance and said he had received reliable testimony that his father in fact was niftar and he started observing aveilus. After a number of days he received a letter of condolence from Rav Hirsch the son in law of the Chofetz Chaim who was a very close friend. He wanted to know why Rav Moshe had not believed the newspapers to sit shiva - since it was a matter which was readily verifiable? Rav Moshe wrote back the following. Concerning the verses describing the death of Eliyahu and the response of Elisha and the bnei neviim - despite Elisha seeing his rebbe going into Heaven and the bnei neviim reporting Eliyahu's death - they wanted to search after Eliyahu as if he were alive? Rav Moshe said you learn from this that one is prohibited to believe that one's rebbe had died. When Rav Hirsch received this letter he showed it to his father-in-law, the Chofetz Chaim and he agreed with it and praised it.

Pischei Tshuva (O.C. 156): Not speaking lashon harah might be sinful

Pischei Tshuva (O.C. 156): I want to note here that while all the books of mussar are greatly concerned about the sin of lashon harah, I am greatly concerned about the opposite problem. I want to protest about the even greater and more common sin of refraining from speaking negatively when it is necessary to save someone from being harmed. For example if you saw a person waiting in ambush to kill someone or breaking into someone’s house or store at night. Is it conceivable that you would refrain from notifying the intended victim to protect himself from the assailant - because of the prohibition of speaking lashon harah? By not saying anything you commit the unbearable sin of transgressing the prohibition of Vayikra (19:16): Do not speak lashon harah [but] do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow man is threatened? By not speaking up, you violate the mitzva of returning that which is lost to its owner Devarim (22:2). Now if you can understand the obvious necessity of speaking up in these cases then what is the difference between a robber breaking into someone’s house or store or seeing that his servants are secretly stealing from him or that his partner is deceiving him in their business or that another person is cheating him in commerce or that he is lending money to someone that you know doesn’t repay? How is this different from stopping a proposed marriage to someone you know is a wicked person who would be a horrible husband. Saving a person from these situations is clearly included in the command (Devarim 22:2) to return to the person himself or his money. From where do we get the mistaken idea that in the case of murder, I will speak up but that it is prohibited to say anything in other situations where someone is being harmed? The general principle is that these are matters which depend upon the speakers motivation. If the informant’s intent in relating these matters is entirely to cause harm that is lashon harah. However if his intent is to bring about benefit to the other person and to save him and to protect him – then it is a great mitzva. In my opinion this is the underlying intent of the Yerushalmi which the Magen Avraham brings which says that it is permitted to speak lashon harah about people who cause disputes. … It is obvious that even concerning those who cause disputes it is not permitted to speak lashon harah gratuitously about them in all matters. It is only permitted for those things directly related to the particular dispute. It is only permitted concerning that which they are trying to harm others. In such a case it is permitted to reveal degrading things about them in order to save others. … Unfortunately I have seen many times where someone witnesses another person trying to cause harm to someone – and he suppresses the information and says, “Why should I get involved in a matter which isn’t my business…However one needs to be very careful about these and similar matters. Our Sages have said – when the permissibility depends on motivation - it says, “And you should be afraid of your G‑d.”

[See also Rav Sternbuch's teshuva on this subject]

R' Moshe Feinstein: Blessing the sun - and a child

Every 28 years there is a special blessing made on the sun. It is in commemoration of the sun returning to the position it was in when the world was created. On one of those special occasions a large crowd gathered in front of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s apartment building on the Lower East Side of New York. It was just before sunrise and they had come to say the blessing with him.

However shortly before the designated time for saying the blessing, a father brought his young son to Rav Moshe’s apartment to receive a beracha from the great sage. Time was short but he just wanted to take advantage of this opportunity. Rav Moshe greeted them warmly and then seemed agitated about something. “I am sure your son – like other children - would like to have a candy but I can’t remember where my wife put it.”

He started opening and closing the kitchen cabinets trying to locate the candy. The crowd was getting impatient and yet Rav Moshe kept looking. Rav Moshe was focused on one thing - the happiness of that child. However being short in physical stature he couldn’t reach the upper cabinets. So he climbed up on the kitchen counter to reach them and he continued systematically searching. Finally he found it and climbed down from the counter.

He quickly gave the child the candy – and a beracha - and then hurried downstairs. The opportunity to bless the sun - while important - could wait a little while. The greater importance was making sure that the child had a pleasant and memorable experience meeting a genuine talmid chachom.

Homosexuality - view of Rav Moshe Feinstein

Igros Moshe(O.H. 4:115): The first thing you need to know is that homosexuality has the severe punishment of stoning and kares and it is also called disgusting by the Torah itself. It is one of the most debased sins and it even is prohibited for non‑Jews. This knowledge is a strong bulwark against the yetzer harah. Secondly it is inexplicable that there should be a lust for it. That is because in the creation of man himself there is no natural lust for homosexuality… The desire for homosexual relations is against natural lust and even the wicked do not have a desire for it itself. Rather their entire desire for it is only because it is something prohibited and the yetzer harah seduces them to rebel against the will of G‑d. This knowledge of what is the will of G‑d is a powerful protection against the yetzer harah. You have already defeated the yetzer harah in that you believe in G‑d and all the 13 principles of faith and the entire Torah. With this you can defeat the yetzer harah in this that it seduces you to rebel against G‑d and to anger Him. There is an explicit verse in HaAzinu “That with abominations they provoke Him to anger” [Devarim 32:16] Rashi says an example is homosexuality which is a sin which causes G‑d’s anger. He also says this regarding magic which interferes with the Heavenly family as is stated in Sanhedrin (67b). Thus the explanation of this verse is that it causes you to deny the decrees of Heaven and to act to anger G‑d – chas veshalom! The third thing is that homosexuality is an embarrassment even to the common man. Because the entire world – even the wicked - ridicule those who are homosexuals. Even in the eyes of the wicked who participate in these acts, he looks down on the one who did it with him and ridicules and insults him. This awareness will greatly strengthen you against the yezter harah. …Awareness of how debasing a sin is, is a good advice to strengthen oneself against the desire to do a sin which is disgusting and ridiculed such as this one. Because not only is it against the Torah which prohibits it with the most severe punishment, but it is also the greatest embarrassment to his whole family. The greatest advice to overcome this is to learn Torah in depth. This will save and guard you from all sins – even from the thoughts of sins as the Rambam states at the end of Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah: “Greater than all this, turn oneself and ones thoughts to words of Torah and expand one’s mind in wisdom.” So surely this will save you from the yetzer harah of this despised sin.

Authority of Gedolim IV - Chassidic rebbes today - Klausenberger Rebbe - Reason for dispute between Gra & Chassidus

The Klausenberger Rebbe said: Our grandfather the Ateres Tzvi once said while fish were being prepared and they were flopping around after their heads had been cut off. "In this same manner will the chassidic rebbes dance and jump - without a head - before the coming of Moshiach." In my humble opinion in understanding the words of the sages and their mysteries - that the intent of our grandfather was positive concerning our times. These times in which we see the lowliness of the generation. A time when there are no great people to ask or seek counsel from. The question spontaneously wells up in the heart concerning the value of the chassidic movement which was founded by the Baal Shem Tov. I have personally said many time commented concerning the well known frightening letter that the Gra wrote erev Yom Kippur - how could he speak so harshly against those great tzadikim? In fact the dispute between the Gra and the Chassidim was similar to the dispute between Yosef and his brothers... They asserted that offspring that are no good - severely diminish the forefathers retroactively for many generations. And surely it has a bad impact on the future. Perhaps this was the reason for the strong opposition of the Gra and the misnagdim when they saw with ruach hakodesh up until the time of our generation. They wanted to reject chassidus because they knew how degenerate it would become in the generation just before the coming of Moshiach. In contrast the Baal Shem Tov and his followers - despite the fact that they all foresaw the degeneration in chassidus which would develop - but they also saw its benefits. In fact it is quite obvious that chassidus has in fact been the main factor in saving Yiddishkeit even in our generation - even though we are well aware of its lowly state. In fact there would be little left of Yiddisheit if it weren't for chassidus with its special clothing and the close attachment of the chassidim to the community and their rebbe. This external social cohesion is the basis of the vital strength of chassidus. The strength of chassidus has significant influence on the non-chassidic world also. This then was the intent of our grandfather's statement. He wanted to indicate the tremendous value in chassidus even just before Moshiach and that we should not fall into despair when we see the lowliness of the generation. The rebbes - even though they are mindless creations without heads - nevertheless they jump about and still have some vitality and provide social cohesion. They retain the strong spirit that sustains Yiddishkeit.

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l - conversion of intermarried couples is very problematic I

Y.D. (1:157): Question: Concerning a convert who does not accept the obligation of doing mitzvos is he considered a convert? Answer: It is clear and obvious that he is not a convert at all even after the fact. This is also what my father actually ruled in Strabin. He said in such a case that the person was not a ger in any sense whether for leniencies or strictness. That is because the acceptance of mitzvos is an absolutely necessary condition to become a convert (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 268:3). Even if the person asserts he is accepting the mitzvos – if we are aware that he is not actually accepting them – his assertion is meaningless. While it is true that if a person is converting for the sake of marriage it is valid after the fact – but that is only if he is fully and truly accepting the mitzvos for the sake of marriage. This is clear and obvious. All this was stated explicity by my father when he ruled in this case. I really don’t understand the reason why some rabbis err in this matter. Even according to their mistaken view that the acceptance of mitzvos is not required – what is the benefit that they are providing for the Jewish people in accepting as converts those who don’t accept the mitzvos. It is certain that G‑d does not approve nor is it desirable for the Jewish people that such converts become mixed into the Jewish people. It is simply obvious that such a person is not considered a convert.

Y.D. (1:159): …In general this whole enterprise of conversion for the sake of marriage is displeasing to me. Therefore I refrain from involvement in it. Not only from the halachic viewpoint that one should not convert someone for the sake of marriage lechatchila, but also because of the reason - that it is almost certain based on our experience - that they are not actually accepting the obligation to do mitzvos. They are just making empty assertions that they will keep the mitzvos. The fact is that without the acceptance of doing all the mitzvos – even one detail (Berchoros 30) - that they are not to be accepted. This is not comparable to Shabbos (68) of a person converting in isolation amongst the non-Jewish population and he doesn’t know about Shabbos or the prohibition against idolatry – nevertheless he is considered a genuine convert since he is fully and sincerely accepting all the obligation encumbent on a member of the Jewish people. Such an acceptance is valid since it an acceptance of the entire Torah – even though he does not know what these halachos are. In fact concerning every prospective convert it is not necessary to inform him of all the mitzvos before he converts. After the fact it is not necessary to inform him of anything as is clear in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch sif 12. However if he in fact is not accepting the obligation to do all the mitzvos he is not accepted as a convert. This is the essence of conversion. However it is a fact that the majority of converts in this land who convert because of marriage – they do not actually accept to do the mitzvos even though they assert they are. It is well known that they are lying. That is because they are not concerned about being more religious than their husbands who are non observant and transgress all the laws of the Torah. However perhaps in the present case that you are asking me about - she will truly accept the obligation of doing mitzvos. Therefore I am not making a ruling about the validity of the present case to you because there are many rabbis in New York who accept this type of convert. Therefore there is no reason for me to say that it is prohibited to accept her. However I personally am not happy with this. My father also did not find it acceptable but did not say it was prohibited to accept such converts. Therefore you should do according to your understanding of the situation and how urgent you perceive it….

Does a victim have to forgive abuser if he asks three times?

UPDATE: I was recently asked regarding the well known halacha that if someone who has hurt another in various ways -  asks the victim three times to forgive and and the victim refuses - then the sinner is automatically forgiven and the victim becomes the sinner for bearing a grudge and holding on to hatred. It is claimed that this applies also to sexual abuse and furthermore that automatic forgiveness after 3 requests happens even if the abuser is not sincere in his apology! The simple answer is that according to most poskim it isn't so. Let me go through the sources.

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

 Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 606:1) based on the Rambam states: "Sins between men are not atoned by Yom Kippur but require that the victim be placated. This is true even if the sin was just verbal abuse.  If the victim is not placated by the first apology then the sinner should return two and even three times. Each time he should bring 3 men with him. If the victim is not placated after the 3 apology then the sinner is not required apology to him again but should go before 10 men and ask for forgiveness. However if the victim of his abuse is his teacher then it is necessary to continue going to him many times until he is placated. Rema: The victim should not be cruel and refuse to forgive unless he refuses because he thinks it is beneficial to the one asking forgiveness [or to himself - Mishna Berura]. However if the sinner slandered him then it is not necessary to forgive him [and he is not considered cruel - Taz].

However we find elsewhere in the Shulchan Aruch regarding physically hurting another that there is no mention of apology - but that the judges force the assailant to placate the victim and that includes significant monetary payments. No mention is made of automatic forgiveness after asking three times but rather there is a requirement to pay money and the assailant is placed in cherem until it is paid - and this is not dependent on whether the apology is accepted..  

Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 1:2): In the case of a man who hit another person, the judges lack the true semicha of Israel and therefore can not collect payment for nezek, tzar, pgam, boshes and kofer. However they can collect sheves and ripoi. Rema: And some say that even sheves and ripoi can not be collected anymore (Tur citing the Rosh). However I have not seen anybody observering this restriction. The standard procedure is that the judges force the assailant to placate the victim and the exact punishments according to that which seems appropriate to them.

Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 1:5): Even though that judges without the true semicha can not collect fines nevertheless they place the assailant in cherem until he placates the victim. As soon as he gives the victim an amount which appropriate then he is released from cherem  (and this is true whether or not the victim has been placated). Alternatively if the victim himself forcibly takes that amount of money that is appropriate for him - the judges don't take it away from him. [...]

Thus at least according to the Rema - physical assault does not have to be forgiven by the victim but the assailant is forced to pay that which the judges think is appropriate. Similarly slander does not have to be forgiven. That is because slander is difficult to undo since not everyone who heard the slander heard the apology. Finally, if the victim thinks it is beneficial either to himself or the assailant [Mishna Berura] not to forgive - he has the right not to forgive.

Furthermore the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to go against the Yoma (23a) as pointed about by the Minchas Chinuch (241:1): Do not take revenge - Look at the Rambam (Hilchos De’os 7:7). However in Yoma (23a) it explains that this prohibition only applies in monetary matters but not matters involving bodily pain there is no prohibition of not taking revenge or not being spiteful. In the case of bodily pain it is only an act of piety not to hold a grudge. But the Rambam and also the Chinuch omit mentioning of this distinction and in fact it appears that they hold that one transgresses the prohibitions in all cases and this is a contraction to the gemora. Also look at the Rambam (Hilchos Talmid Torah 7:13) where he states that a talmid chachom that has been publicly embarrassed should take revenge and hold a grudge. See also the Kesef Mishna and the Lechem Mishna. Nevertheless no one commits a sin for taking revenge for personal suffering. I found in the Semag (11-12) who states that for personal suffering one does not transgress the prohibition of revenge and that this is learned from Yoma (23a).
[Updated section ]
It is apparently also the view of the Mishna Berura (156:4) that the prohibition of revenge and bearing a grudge applies only to monetary issues

Therefore the question remains why the Rambam and the Chinuch apparently rule contrary to the gemora.

Rabbi Dovid Castle states in his excellent source book (To live Among Friends 28.42 page 913): "Most Poskim maintain that the sins of taking revenge and of bearing a grudge apply only to offenses related to monetary issues, such as refusal to lend something, but not to physical pain which includes degradation, lashon hara and embarrassment. For such matters bearing a grudge and taking revenge are permitted even if the offenses were not committed in your presence. For these matters it is only a measure of extreme piety not to bear a grudge or take revenge, but not an obligation. "

 More relevant to the question of how the Rambam and Chinuch can ignore Yoma (23a) Rabbi Castle  notes (28.47 page 926) [that even though the Chinuch prohibits revenge and grudges even for physical offenses the Chinuch (#338) also states that the Torah does not expect one to remain like a stone]. "Some say that everyone forbids taking revenge even for physical pain and embarrassment, but everyone permits bearing a grudge in such cases [of physical assault] because it is too much to demand from a person not to bear a grudge in such situations...." [He has much additional discussion in his chapter 28 on "Returning Hatred, Gruge, Revenge" pages 877-1043]

Thus it is possible to understand that everyone - including the Rambam and the Chinuch - do not require forgiveness for non monetary abuse when it is too difficult. However that is only while the pain or embarrassment is still being experienced.  However when the pain subsides and the victim is able to forgive - then it is possible that he will accept a sincere apology in order not to be cruel. Obviously if the apology is not sincere there is no need to consider it. With sexual abuse that time might never happen.

In sum: The requirement to forgive after three sincere requests therefore only apply to monetary issues where the victim doesn't experience serious emotional upset and trauma. In the case of non-monetary issues in addition there is the requirement for compensation which is required whether or not the victim forgives.

Trump lawyer’s claim that indictment attacks First Amendment rights is dubious, experts say

 https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/aug/07/trump-lawyer-claim-indictment-attacks-first/

"Trump has First Amendment rights, but that does not mean that what he says and does to further a scheme to defraud is legal," said Joan Meyer, a partner at the law firm Thompson Hine LLP and a former federal prosecutor. "If your statements are part of an agreement to commit an unlawful act with your co-conspirators, the admission of these statements is fair game in a prosecution and can be used as evidence against you."

Trump responds to Pelosi's 'scared puppy' jab with rant on husband's 'weird story': 'Sick & demented

 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-responds-pelosis-scared-puppy-jab-rant-husbands-weird-story-sick-demented

I saw a scared puppy," Pelosi said on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports."

"I didn’t see any bravado or confidence or anything like that," she added. "He knows the truth that he lost the election, and now he’s got to face the music."

Trump fired back, writing that the "millions" of people watching him on television enter the courtroom "didn’t see that."

"I wasn’t ‘scared,’" he said. "Nevertheless, how mean a thing to say! She is a Wicked Witch whose husbands journey from hell starts and finishes with her. She is a sick & demented psycho who will someday live in HELL!"

Trump Flips Out In Hellishly Bizarre New Social Media Meltdown: 'I Wasn't Scared'

 https://news.yahoo.com/trump-flips-hellishly-bizarre-social-044436787.html

When the U.S. women were eliminated from the World Cup later on Sunday, the former president ― like many others on the right ― was weirdly thrilled.

He called the loss “fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation under Crooked Joe Biden” and accused the players of being “openly hostile” to the country.

“WOKE EQUALS FAILURE,” he wrote, then took a shot at star player Megan Rapinoe. “Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!!”

Best postings

 I am collecting for publication the best and most influential postings that have appeared in this blog. Please indicate those that made an impression on you.

Trump is legally immune and didn’t violate U.S. Constitution, says his defense lawyer

 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/us-elections-government/ny-trump-legally-immune-lawyers-says-20230806-ek3ncaci6vdztijhhilptjxxre-story.html

“A technical violation of the Constitution is a violation of the Constitution,” he said. “Our Constitution is designed to stop people from trying to overthrow elections and trying to overthrow the government.

“There are people who are in jail for several years for counterfeiting one vote,” Raskin said. “He tried to steal the entire election.”

Even if Trump Technically Violated the Constitution, He’s No Criminal: Attorney

https://www.thedailybeast.com/even-if-donald-trump-technically-violated-the-constitution-hes-not-a-criminal-attorney-says?ref=home 

Even if former President Donald Trump committed a “technical violation of the constitution” by seeking to overturn the 2020 election, that doesn’t make him a criminal, his attorney argued Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. The comments came following a question by host Chuck Todd about Mike Pence’s repeated assertions that Trump asked him to violate the constitution by moving to stop the counting of valid electoral college votes on Jan. 6, 2021, prompting attorney John Lauro to assert that it is “just plain wrong” to suggest that makes him a criminal. When asked in a follow-up email whether he believes that Trump did violate the constitution with his request, Lauro told NBC that he “never said that President Trump committed a technical violation.” Rep Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a key member of the Jan. 6 committee and an outspoken critic of Trump, later said on the network that the defense put forward by Lauro was “deranged.”