Wednesday, August 23, 2023

A disturbing postscript to the Sanhedria allegations of Satanic abuse

This morning while attending a family simcha I had the opportunity to speak with relatives who live in the Sanhedria community. In particular I was interested in the status of the wild allegations of Satanic child abuse ring which created panic and fear in that community - after Rav Berkowitz went public with his claims and "evidence".

One response I got was something I never expected. It came from a kollel member. After listening to the discussion I was having with another relative - he commented the following.

"What are you getting involved in this matter. It is none of your business. Rav Berkowitz is great talmid chachom who knows his community very well. You are not part of the Sanhedria community, You have no children there. Why are you getting involved? Rav Berkowitz has consulted experts, he has gathered testimony. You have no basis to disagree with him.

I pointed out that the Satanic abuse accusations have been made hundreds of times over the last few decades - and not one case and been proven to be true. That alone should give pause to any responsible person from make such accusations. In addition I noted that I have in fact spoken to people regarding the evidence - including professional in the field of abuse. None of these people believed Rav Berkowitz' claims.

He responded, "Just because no proof has been found so far - it doesn't mean it there is no such thing. Rav Berkowitz has seen the evidence and he clearly disagrees with you. What are you getting involved in this issue for?

I responded - "The mitzva of not standing idly by the blood of your fellow" says nothing about having to belong to a community in order to get involved. Rav Berkowitz is a wondeful person but he is not an expert in these matters and the people he has consulted don't seem to be experts either. The experts seem to be afraid to get involved in this matter in a public fashion"

I obviously had no influence on him. The discussion continued for sometime - but I was struck by the incredible blindness to reality and reliance on rabbinic authority (when it clearly was inappropriate and even harmful)

Sanhedria Murchevet Satanic abuse rings: Dr Joy Silberg a believer in Satanic cults (and repressed memories) and Rabbi Yitzchok Berkowitz

As I have noted, I recently had an an exchange of emails with Dr. Joy Silberg - a Baltimore psychologist who is viewed by many as an authority on child abuse. She also has trained,  endorses and is supportive of the two therapists (neither who are psychologists) - who were charged by the Israeli police with propagating false allegations in the community that satanic abuse rings are operating in Jerusalem - for financial gain.

Dr. Silberg wrote to me that she has seen no evidence of the existence of a satanic abuse ring - but she refuses to state this publicly. She did send me a very neutral statement that I could publish - that simply says that no conclusions should be made until all the data is evaluated and that the rabbis, professional investigators should be respected. It is important to note that she made absolutely no mention of reporting information to the police or even involving them in dealing with this problem. 

In addition I published her endorsement of a book - which is widely discredited account of a woman who has survived satanic abuse. Furthermore she recommended that I read a book by Ross Cheit - that claims that the "witch hunt hysteria in America regarding satanic abuse - which has been widely discredited - in fact contains "kernels of truth". Finally, despite the widespread rejection of "recovered memories" or "suppressed memories" that are recovered by some therapists - she still firmly believes in them. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-people-have-multiple-personalities/   This is a link to a book co authored by Dr. Silberg in which she supporting these "memories". See http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/us/misinfo.html 

Aside from the role of Dr. Silberg in providing not only the therapists but also the authority behind the belief in satanic cults in Jersualem - we have the question of her connection to Rabbi Berkowitz - the Rav of Sanhedredia Murchevet who last year publicly claimed that these cults exist and apparently still does - in spite of the claims of the police that they have found no supportive evidence.


It is helpful to reread the transcript of Rabbi Berkowitz public announcement from last year


From the transcript of Rabbi Berkowitz;

At the end of ;i."vl!m 1011, I received a phone call, a phone call from one of the yungerleit in the neighborhood, a member of the ·kehilla, someone whose family I know very well, I know every one of the children. He tells me, his daughter seems like she's trying to say something, his daughter sounds like someone hurt her, but he doesn't quite understand. I recommended that the daughter be brought to a woman I know that specializes in molestation, works primarily in chutz la'aretz, but happens to be here a good part of the year- I sent her there. 
After a session that lasted hours, I get a phone call from this therapist, and she says -I took out the teddy bears, and this girl described to me an act of oines, nothing less, with all the details - to the very end, including how they cleaned her up, and what hurt and when. In the conversation, what also emerged was that this happened many times. 

Obviously, I was shaken. I immediately phoned Mrs. Coopersmith from the children's unit at Neve, someone I always consulted with in issues of child psychology. I said I understand this is something that cannot go unreported - what do I do? She said, you've got to go the TI'i1 m;ti1'1 D1Yl, a place that was set up for interrogating children, rather than the police station .... social worker's there, a police representative. Something that's supposed to be a little more user-friendly for the kid. The girl was traumatized by the initial session with the therapist. The parents were even more traumatized. It took a lot of convincing - they went. The girl was once again traumatized - and said nothing. She wouldn't say anything. So I was informed, there's not much that can be done, because the girl isn't talking. 

Third, and this is what's most frightening, they use all sorts of technology, and systems, for compartmentalizing their brain, so that whatever they're experiencing remains subconscious, conscious on only a certain level, and the other part of their brain is totally unaffected by it, so that they won't talk. This seems quite clear, we've even discovered a lot of the technology. So kids don't naturally talk 

An interesting article  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/suggestibility.html  main chapters to read are 1 and 8



Questions:

Does Rabbi Berkowitz know Dr. Joy Silberg? Is he relying on her authority?

Who is the specialist that used Teddy Bears to elicit a 'clear picture of the abuse that took place' 

DID the methods used possibly give results more indicative of what this therapist wanted to hear rather than what actually occurred?

Where DID Rabbi Berkowitz get this idea of a compartmentalized brain and what kind of technology is capable of doing this! (all within the hour that they disappeared on the way home from school.)

Are the police being suspected by Rabbi Berkowitz and Dr. Silberg of collusion with the abuse rings?

After 3 years of public hysteria and panic - with claims of over 400 children being abused and yet no suspects - what is needed to end this chilul hashem?

Angels judge and kill

 Tanis (21a) Ilfa and R. Johanan studied together the Torah and they found themselves in great want and they said one to another, Let us go and engage in commerce so that of us may be fulfilled the verse, Howbeit there shall be no need among you. They went and sat down under a ruinous wall and while they were having their meal two ministering angels came and R. Johanan overheard one saying to the other, Let us throw this wall upon these people and kill them, because they forsake life eternal and occupy themselves with life temporal. The other angelreplied: Leave them alone because one of them has still much to achieve. R. Johanan heard this but Ilfa did not. Whereupon R. Johanan said to Ilfa, Master, have you heard anything? He replied: No. Thereupon R. Johanan said to himself: Seeing that I heard this and Ilfa has not, it is evident that I am the one who still has much to achieve. R. Johanan then said to Ilfa: I will go back, that of me may be fulfilled, For the poor shall never cease out of the land. Thereupon R. Johanan went back but Ilfa did not. When at last Ilfa returned, R. Johanan was already presiding over the school, and the scholars said to him: Had you remained here and studied the Torah you might have been presiding. Ilfa then suspended himself from the mast of a ship and exclaimed, If there is any one who will ask me a question from the Baraithas of R. Hiyya and R. Hoshaiah and I fail to elucidate it from the Mishnah then I will throw myself down and be drowned in the sea. And an old man came forward and cited the following Baraitha: If a man in his last will and testament declares, Give a shekel weekly to my sons, but actually they needed a sela’ then they should be given a sela’; but if he declared, Give them a shekel only, then they should be given a shekel. If, however, he declared, On their death others should inherit their allowance in their stead, then whether he has declared ‘give’ or ‘give only’ they are given a shekel only. He replied: This is in accordance with the view of R. Meir who said: It is a duty to carry out the will of a dying man.

Mordechai Tendler's "Mesores Moshe" - What is it?

[See also  A review of Masoras Moshe by Rabbi Yair Hoffman]

update: see my recent post  Get Me'usa an apparent contradiction between Igros Moshe and Mesoras Moshe

Someone recently asked me about Mordechai Tendler's recent publication Mesores Moshe. In particular his reporting of what he claims Rav Moshe Feinstein held about Get Me'usa. I purchased the sefer last week - Manny told me that it is selling very well and in fact he said I had bought his last copy.

What exactly is this sefer and what siginficance does it have? It seems that when Mordechai Tendler was Rav Moshe's gabbai - that each night while the details were fresh in his mind - he would write down the discussions he had with Rav Moshe. This present volume is in fact one of many notebooks that he produced.
To ensure that his recollection was correct and that material that could be misunderstood not be published - the family had Rav Shmuel Fuerst - one of Rav Moshe's closest students - go over the material. He notes that many of the discussions he heard from Rav Moshe himself - and the other material sounds like Rav Moshe.
On the other hand - despite receiving haskomas from Rav Dovid and Reuven Feinstein - as well as Mordechai Tendler's father - they say material can not automatically be used for psak halacha. However the way they word this caution - it would seem that it applies to the Igros Moshe itself!

ואפילו אחר כל השמירות שנעשו, אנו צריכים להדגיש, כי פסקים מאאמו"ר זצ"ל בלי ביאור מלא בסוגיות,
לא יכול להחשב בכל מקרה כפסק הלכה לדורות, (ע' הקדמה של אאמו"ר לאגרות משה חלק א, ואג"מ יו"ד
ח"ד ס' לח, ויו"ד ח"ה ס' ח). בפרט שאאמו"ר זצ"ל לא היה דרכו לסמוך על דעתו הקודמת, אלא על כל שאלה
ושאלה שבא לפניו היה שוקל בדעתו מחדש, ופעמים היה מחמיר לזה ואח"כ היקל לזה. מכל מקום הנידונים
והמשא ומתו וחוות דעתו שנמצא בספר הזה, ראויים ללמוד בהם, ושיהיו ביד בל אחד ואחד שרוצה לעמוד
על דעתו הגדולה של אאמו"ר זצ"ל.


It seems that many of the discussions -are not clear and I am not sure what purpose the family saw in publishing this material. An example is a discussion about using a non-religious psychiatrist on Shabbos.
This is not the first time that problematic material from Rav Moshe has been published. Rabbi Yitzchok Berkowitz told me that in the 7th volume there is much material that is not written by Rav Moshe but was transcribed by Mordechai Tendler. He said it is problematic making diyukim in the language because of this. Rabbi Shabtsai Rappaport - editor of the Igros Moshe and son-in-law of Rav Moshe Dovid Tendler -  told me that Rav Eliashiv wanted to put the 8th volume in cherem because he thought there was material in there that was not from Rav Moshe. He said that he sat down with Rav Eliashiv and showed him that that which he objected to -  could also be found in the earlier volumes and therefore the material was genuine.

Rav Dovid Feinstein told me regarding the 8th volume that the family was faced with the question of what to do with material of variable quality that was left. He said they decided to publish it rather than putting it in storage -  but at the same time indicate the quality of the material as to whether it was written by Rav Moshe or recorded by others.

Finally the 9th volume of the Igros Moshe that came out in 2011. The material is of lower quality then the other volumes and there are some teshuvos which are fragments of discussions or psakim without context to explain what the issue was. Finally there are clear contradictions. The very first teshuva deals with the time of shema and shemona esrei - Reb Moshe there says that one should be machmir like the Magen Avraham. However in an earlier teshuva (O.C. 1:24) he says we definitely posken like the Gra and there is no mention about needing to be machmir

שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק א סימן כד

בדבר זמן ק"ש בשחרית הנה מנהג רוב מקומות /שבמדינותינו/ שבדינותינו רייסן וליטא וכן מנהג הישיבות היה עד שלש שעות מנץ החמה כשיטת הגר"א והגר"ז וכן הוא העיקר לדינא בכל הענינים ורק יחידים היו מחמירין לעצמן עד ג' שעות מעלות השחר, ובלוח יש לקבוע כעצם הדין. ומנחה אין להתפלל אחר שקיעה רק בשעת הדחק יכולין לסמוך על המקילים. עיין במ"ב סי' רל"ג. ולענין מוצאי שבת מפני החומר יש להחמיר כר"ת. וכן יראה ידידי בכל המקומות במ"ב שדעתו נוטה כהגר"א והרבה ראשונים סוברין כן. ולכן איני רוצה להכנס בפלפולא בענין זה כי מה אנחנו להכריע בין הרים גדולים אבל הגר"א הוא בתראה והסכימו עליו כל העולם שהוא גדול טובא וראוי להכריע וא"כ הלכה כבתראה ובפרט שגם הגרש"ז סובר כן. ומש"כ ידידי שלתינוק שנולד אחר שקיעה דסוף שבת שהיו נוהגין למול בשבת, ודאי הוא שלא כהראוי שהעיקר לדינא כהגר"א והגרש"ז שנמצא שהוא ספק איסור מלאכה והראוי לענין זה להחמיר כחומר ב' השיטות.

I asked Rabbi Bluth - who was Rav Moshe's gabbai before Mordechai Tendler. He said "Don't worry about it. Reb Moshe was a broad man." In other words he could say contradictory things. Similarly when the issue of indexing the 8th volume in the Yad Moshe - someone who is very close to the Feinstein family told me, "It is none of your business to judge what they do - just index what they publish."

I used to be able to accept that.

Contradiction between new 9th vol of Igros Moshe & older volumes regarding Magen Avraham & Shema

The 9th volume of the Igros Moshe just came out. In the very first teshuva of this volume Rav Moshe says that it is important that eveyone follow the view of the Magen Avraham and that if the local minyan doesn’t one should find a minyan that does. The problem is that there are two teshovs in earlier volumes where Rav Moshe clearly says that the halacha is in accord  with the Gra and the Baal HaTanya and that the Magen Avraham is a chumra of a minority. I don’t know how to resolve this. The editors of the new volume obviously were aware of this problem as they themselves say to look at the two older teshuvos.
Please refer also to Rabbi Hoffman's review of the 9th volume
 סימן א' בדבר לחשוב זמן ק"ש מעלות השחר
בעה"י י"ג מנחם אב תשל"ד
בדבר שיטת המג"א דזמן ק"ש צריך לחשוב מעלות השחר ודאי היא שיטה דכמה ראשונים, ויש לכל אדם להחמיר לקרא ק"ש ולהתפלל בהזמן שיוצאין גם אליבא דהמג"א, כי בכל מצוה הא ספק לחומרא ובפרט במצוה זו שהיא קבלת עול מלכות שמים שצריך לעשותה באופן שיהיה בלא פקפוק. ואין להשגיח על המקומות שנוהגין להקל בזה שהוא מטעם שאין למחות בזה, אבל ודאי מדקדקין כל יראי השי"ת לקרא ק"ש קודם על תנאי, וגם יש הרבה מנינים שמתפללים לצאת גם ידי המג"א והולכות לשם, ולכן במקום שנהגו כל השנים להתפלל בשעת שיהיה בזמן ק"ש של המג"א אין לשנות, וצריכים כולן להסכים לזה וח"ו עוד לעשות מחלוקת ובזכות מצות ק"ש בזמן שיוצאין לכו"ע יתברכו בכל הטוב והשלום ולזכות לישועת ישראל בקרוב,
======================================================
שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק א סימן כד
בענין זמן קריאת שמע א' דחנוכה תשי"ז. מע"כ ידידי מו"ה ר' שלום הלוי קוגעלמאן שליט"א.
בדבר זמן ק"ש בשחרית הנה מנהג רוב מקומות /שבמדינותינו/ שבדינותינו רייסן וליטא וכן מנהג הישיבות היה עד שלש שעות מנץ החמה כשיטת הגר"א והגר"ז וכן הוא העיקר לדינא בכל הענינים ורק יחידים היו מחמירין לעצמן עד ג' שעות מעלות השחר, ובלוח יש לקבוע כעצם הדין. ומנחה אין להתפלל אחר שקיעה רק בשעת הדחק יכולין לסמוך על המקילים. עיין במ"ב סי' רל"ג. ולענין מוצאי שבת מפני החומר יש להחמיר כר"ת. וכן יראה ידידי בכל המקומות במ"ב שדעתו נוטה כהגר"א והרבה ראשונים סוברין כן. ולכן איני רוצה להכנס בפלפולא בענין זה כי מה אנחנו להכריע בין הרים גדולים אבל הגר"א הוא בתראה והסכימו עליו כל העולם שהוא גדול טובא וראוי להכריע וא"כ הלכה כבתראה ובפרט שגם הגרש"ז סובר כן. ומש"כ ידידי שלתינוק שנולד אחר שקיעה דסוף שבת שהיו נוהגין למול בשבת, ודאי הוא שלא כהראוי שהעיקר לדינא כהגר"א והגרש"ז שנמצא שהוא ספק איסור מלאכה והראוי לענין זה להחמיר כחומר ב' השיטות.

שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן קכט
ג' לענין זמני ק"ש ותפלה וכ"ש לענין שבת יש להחמיר כשתי השיטות אבל במקום שנוהגין כהגר"א שבאו תלמידי הגר"א רשאין לנהוג כמותו אף לקולא אבל סתם אינשי צריכין להחמיר גם כשיטת ר"ת וכדנהגינן כאן.

What is a tzadik?

 Baal Shem Tov once mentioned that there was a great person who would be together with him in Heaven. The Chassidim of course were interested in meeting this great tzadik and they asked who it was. The Baal Shem Tov mentioned the person’s name and the village where he lived. A group of the Chassidim immediately started on the journey to that distant village. The excitement abated when they reached the village. There were very few Jews there. None of these were religious. When they inquired about the home of the one they looked for they were met with astonishment. “Why would anyone want to visit that person? All he does is eat and eat and eat.” The Chassidim found the broken‑down hovel. Through the doorway they saw a grotesquely fat person busily eating. He didn’t look like a tzadik and he certainly didn’t act like one. He was obsessed with doing one thing - stuffing as much food as he could in his mouth. He was obviously irritated at their interrupting his meal - as he muttered, “What do you want?” The perplexed Chassidim told him of their mission and asked why the Baal Shem Tov thought so highly of him. The person responded between bites, “I don’t know what he is talking about. I am nothing special.” They then asked him why he was constantly eating. “It is very simple. When I was a child, my father was arrested for being a Jew. He was a pious Jew who kept the mitzvos with simple faith. He refused to convert. The non‑Jews decided that his rejection of conversion was a crime that deserved the punishment of being burnt alive in the public square. I still remember the pitifully small fire that they made of him - since he was a small thin man. I vowed then that when they burned me that there would be a giant fire and everyone would notice they were burning a Jew.”

 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.

Sheitel and maris aiyen

Igros Moshe (E.H. 02:12):Maris aiyen vs sheitel. Even though there is view to be concerned to prohibit sheitel because of maris aiyen (Ateres Zekeinim O.C. 75). Nevertheless the vast majority of authorities permit it. For example Rema O.C. 75and 303), Darchei Moshe, Magen Avraham, Pri Megadim and apparently also the Gra and the gemora Shabbos. Since we don’t see that the gemora prohibits it because of maris aiyen we don’t learn from other places that it is prohibited. This is because it is not a negative commandment but a positive command for the woman to be modest and cover her head and therefore you can not generalize from other negative commands. In addition in most cases it is obvious that it is not her natural hair but a wig. Even if it is not obvious to men who don’t normally look at women and thus don’t realize the difference, nevertheless it is clearly obvious to women in most cases and perhaps  in all cases. Therefore we don’t prohibit because of the very small number of cases that it might not be detected. Similarly it is permitted to shave the beard with scissors which produces a result similar to a razor and yet it is not prohibited because of maris aiyen. This is in spite of the fact that shaving is prohibited with five negative commands. We see therefore that we don’t prohibit every case where it might lead to a mistaken perception. Perhaps shaving is permitted because it is obvious to those who shave regularly that it is not done with a razor and therefore we don’t prohibit for the rare occasion where it isn’t obvious. This is true even amongst men who normally don’t shave and can’t tell the difference. However since it is known that people shave with scissors and chemicals etc. and not with a razor. So surely concerning a woman who is primarily found amongst other women who can readily recognize that she is wearing a wig, there is no basis to prohibit sheitel because men might not recognize that it is a wig. Even if her work is mainly among men but since women know there is no basis to prohibit even if occasionally it is not recognized and even if it were prohibited with a negative command. There is another major reason for not prohibiting sheitel. That is that it is well known that women wear wigs that look natural and therefore there is no Torah prohibition because of concern that in rare cases that men who don’t normally look at women might think it is her own hair. That is because she is presumed to be a good observant woman and it would readily be detected by other woman if she was wearing a wig. Don’t say that since in contemporary America most women are not observant that she is also one of them and therefore despite the fact that the rabbis did not prohibit it it should be prohibited Firstly we do not create new prohibitions that were not prohibited originally in the gemora and Gaonim. In addition it is impossible that something bad will possibly come from this to those who know the woman who clearly will not suspect her of wrongdoing. And regarding those that don’t know her and they say she must be nonobservant but they won’t learn from her more than from the many unobservant women and thus there is no basis for prohibition. This is also the reason that shaving with scissors or crème is not prohibited even though the results are like that of a razor since it is known that it can be done in a permitted fashion there is no suspicion of wrong doing.  In conclusion the halacha is that you have no right to protest that your wife wears a sheitel. So even if you want to be strict and protest you can’t make your wife stop because she doesn’t have to accept this stringency because it is entirely her halacha which she is correctly observing according to the majority of authorities who appear to support her position. And surely when she wants to wear a sheitel with a hat which covers most of the sheitel. So if you are one of those who shaves closely with scissors or crème and are not concerned with maris aiyen for shaving there is no basis to be strict with your wife concerning sheitel and you are being self contradicting.

Beis Mamikdash and demons

 Gitin (68a) I gat me sharim and sharoth, and the delights of the sons of men, Shidah and shidoth. ‘Sharim and Sharoth’, means diverse kinds of music; ‘the delights of the sons of men’ are ornamental pools and baths. ‘Shidah and shidoth’: Here in Babylon they translate as male and female demons. In the Palestine they say it means carriages.   R. Johanan said: There were three hundred kinds of demons in Shihin, but what a shidah is I do not know.   The Master said: Here they translate ‘male and female demons’. For what did Solomon want them? — As indicated in the verse, And the house when it was in building was made of stone made ready at the quarry, [there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building]; He said to the Rabbis, How shall I manage without iron tools]? — They replied, There is the shamir which Moses brought for the stones of the ephod. He asked them, Where is it to be found? — They replied, Bring a male and a female demon and tie them together; perhaps they know and will tell you. So he brought a male and a female demon and tied them together. They said to him, We do not know, but perhaps Ashmedai the prince of the demons knows. He said to them, Where is he? — They answered, He is in such-and-such a mountain. He has dug a pit there, which he fills with water and covers with a stone, which he then seals with his seal. Every day he goes up to heaven and studies in the Academy of the sky and then he comes down to earth and studies in the Academy of the earth, and then he goes and examines his seal and opens the pit and drinks and then closes it and seals it again and goes away. Solomon thereupon sent thither Benaiahu son of Jehoiada, giving him a chain on which was graven the Divine Name and a ring on which was graven the Name and fleeces of wool and bottles of wine. Benaiahu went and dug a pit lower down the hill and let the water flow into it and stopped [the hollow] With the fleeces of wool, and he then dug a pit higher up and poured the wine into it and then filled up the pits. He then went and sat on a tree. When Ashmedai came he examined the seal, then opened the pit and found it full of wine. He said, it is written, Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whosoever erreth thereby is not wise, and it is also written, Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the understanding. I will not drink it. Growing thirsty, however, he could not resist, and he drank till he became drunk, and fell asleep. Benaiahu then came down and threw the chain over him and fastened it. When he awoke he began to struggle, whereupon Benaiahu said, The Name of your Master is upon you, the Name of your Master is upon you. As he was bringing him along, he came to a palm tree and rubbed against it and down it came. He came to a house and knocked it down. He came to the hut of a certain widow. She came outand besought him, and he bent down so as not to touch it, thereby breaking a bone. He said, That bears out the verse, A soft tongue breaketh the bone.  He saw a blind man straying from his way and he put him on the right path. He saw a drunken man losing his way and he put him on his path. He saw a wedding procession making its way merrily and he wept. He heard a man say to a shoemaker, Make me a pair of shoes that will last seven years, and he laughed. He saw a diviner practising divinations and he laughed. When they reached Jerusalem he was not taken to see Solomon for three days. On the first day he asked, Why does the king not want to see me? They replied, Because he has overdrunk himself. So he took a brick and placed it on top of another. When they reported this to Solomon he said to them, What he meant to tell you was, Give him more to drink. On the next day he said to them, Why does the king not want to see me? They replied, Because he has over-eaten himself. He thereupon took one brick from off the other and placed it on the ground. When they reported this to Solomon, he said, He meant to tell you to keep food away from me. After three days he went in to see him. He took a reed and measured four cubits and threw it in front of him, saying, See now, when you die you will have no more than four cubits in this world. Now, however, you have subdued the whole world, yet you are not satisfied till you subdue me too. He replied: I want nothing of you. What I want is to build the Temple and I require the shamir. He said: It is not in my hands, it is in the hands of the Prince of the Sea who gives it only to the woodpecker, to whom he trusts it on oath. What does the bird do with it? — He takes it to a mountain where there is no cultivation and puts it on the edge of the rock which thereupon splits, and he then takes seeds from trees and brings them and throws them into the opening and things grow there. (This is what the Targum means by nagar tura). So they found out a woodpecker's nest with young in it, and covered it over with white glass. When the bird came it wanted to get in but could not, so it went and brought the shamir and placed it on the glass. Benaiahu thereupon gave a shout, and it dropped [the shamir] and he took it, and the bird went and committed suicide on account of its oath. Benaiahu said to Ashmedai, Why when you saw that blind man going out of his way did you put him right? He replied: It has been proclaimed of him in heaven that he is a wholly righteous man, and that whoever does him a kindness will be worthy of the future world. And why when you saw the drunken man going out of his way did you put him right? He replied, They have proclaimed concerning him in heaven that he is wholly wicked, and I conferred a boon on him in order that he may consume [here] his share [in the future]. Why when you saw the wedding procession did you weep? He said: The husband will die within thirty days, and she will have to wait for the brother-in-law who is still a child of thirteen years. Why, when you heard a man say to the shoemaker, Make me shoes to last seven years, did you laugh? He replied: That man has not seven days to live, and he wants shoes for seven years! Why when you saw that diviner divining did you laugh? He said: He was sitting on a royal treasure: he should have divined what was beneath him. Solomon kept him with him until he had built the Temple. One day when he was alone with him, he said, it is written, He hath as it were to'afoth and re'em, and we explain that to'afoth means the ministering angels and re'em means the demons. What is your superiority over us? He said to him, Take the chain off me and give me your ring, and I will show you. So he took the chain off him and gave him the ring. He then swallowed him, and placing one wing on the earth and one on the sky he hurled him four hundred parasangs. In reference to that incident Solomon said, What profit is there to a man in all his labour wherein he laboureth under the sun. And this was my portion from all my labour. What is referred to by ‘this’? — Rab and Samuel gave different answers, one saying that it meant his staff and the other that it meant his apron. He used to go round begging, saying wherever he went, I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem. When he came to the Sanhedrin, the Rabbis said: Let us see, a madman does not stick to one thing only. What is the meaning of this? They asked Benaiahu, Does the king send for you? He replied, No. They sent to the queens saying, Does the king visit you? They sent back word, Yes, he does. They then sent to them to say, Examine his leg. They sent back to say, He comes in stockings, and he visits them in the time of their separation and he also calls for Bathsheba his mother. They then sent for Solomon and gave him the chain and the ring on which the Name was engraved. When he went in, Ashmedai on catching sight of him flew away, but he remained in fear of him, therefore is it written, Behold it is the litter of Solomon, threescore mighty met, are about it of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword and are expert in war, every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night.   Rab and Samuel differed [about Solomon]. One said that Solomon was first a king and then a commoner, and the other that he was first a king and then a commoner and then a king again.

Source of the berachos of a tzadik - heard from the Bostoner Rebbe

 I once asked the Bostoner Rebbe zt"l about how to understand that  Bilam's spiritual gifts were from the Sitra Acher. He replied with a chasidic story.  This is my best recollection of something I heard many years ago if anyone has a better version - please let us know!


There was once a very poor man who was crushed by his financial obligations which he had no  known rational path to settling. One day he was wandering in a dark forest where he met a man with a long white beard who immediately commented on his depression and sadness. When he explained about his overwhelming debt - the man said he would give him a beracha that would take care of the problem, When he returned home - all of a sudden  he became wealthy. He was very excited about his change of fortune - so he ran right away to tell his rebbe the good news. After he told his rebbe the whole story, his rebbe said "I want you to go back to that man and not only tell him you don't want his blessing but also that the reason is because it all came from the Sitra Acher." Of course he obeyed his rebbe. He found the man in the dark forest and delivered the message. The man replied,"I'll take it back on one condition - You need to take my comment back to your rebbe and repeat it exactly as I said it." He of course agreed to the condition. He returned to his rebbe with the following words, "All your power also comes from the Sitra Acher.  The Rebe screamed a horrible cry when he heard those words and he ran away and was never seen again,

 The rebbe said it is often difficult differentiating where the beracha is coming from.

Tzadik overruling G-d - Ohr HaChaim (Bamidbar 16:15)

 Ohr HaChaim (Bamidbar 16:15) ויאמר אל ה׳ אל תפן, He said to G'd: "do not turn to their gift-offering." Moses now understood the depth of Datan and Aviram's hatred, that they were thoroughly wicked and actually hated anything or anybody who was good. He was aware that there are no people who do not have certain merits due to good deeds they have performed. He realized that G'd does not withhold the reward for such merits from anyone, and that if the people in question cannot be rewarded in the hereafter because they had forfeited their hereafter, G'd would compensate them in this life. This is based on Deut. 32,4 that "the Lord is one of faithfulness without iniquity." Sanhedrin 106 provides us with an example of the wicked Bileam, who had after all pronounced all the blessings on the Jewish people, collecting his fee for having the Moabites seduce the Israelites, prior to his being slain. Moses did not want G'd to accept even the good deeds Korach and associates had performed for whom they had not yet received a reward. This is what he had in mind when he referred to מנחתם. You may well ask how Moses could expect G'd to change the rules of how He dealt with the wicked on account of himself? Be aware that the righteous possess the power to annul merits which the wicked have accumulated when they observe that the potential recipients have become thoroughly wicked. This is the mystical dimension of Samuel II 23,3 צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים, "The righteous rules in matters of G'd-fearingness." This means that G'd has given the righteous leeway to cancel merits that the wicked have acquired. The idea is that although G'd Himself does not do this, He has allowed the righteous to be His surrogates in this respect. This is not so surprising as the same principle which has been adopted by a court in our world which has the right to deprive an accused of property he owns under the heading of הפקר בית דין הפקר, that when a Jewish court declares certain property as ownerless such a declaration is binding (compare Gittin 36). 

Essential obligation of every Jew is to unquestionally accept everything the tzadik of the generation says - Rav Nachman

 Likutei Moharan (123) 1. The essence and foundation on which everything depends is one’s binding oneself to the tzaddik of the generation:accepting his word in whatever he says, “This is how it is,” in matters small and great; not deviating, God forbid, from his word “to the right or the left” (Deuteronomy 17:11), as our Sages teach: even if he tells you that right is left… (Sifri, op. cit.) ;casting off from oneself all pseudo-wisdoms;and dismissing one’s knowledge as if one had no intelligence other than what one receives from the tzaddik and rav of the generation, because as long as one retains some of one’s own intellect, one lacks completion and is not bound to the tzaddik. 2. When the Jewish people received the Torah, they possessed great pseudo-wisdoms. For then, the mistakes of those who served idolatry at that time stemmed from great pseudo-wisdoms and philosophies, as is known. Had Israel not cast off from themselves the pseudo-wisdoms, they would not have received the Torah. They might have denied everything, God forbid. All that Moshe Rabbeinu did with them would have been of no help to them. Even all the signs and awesome wonders which he performed before their very eyes would not have helped them. Today, as well, there are heretics who deny [God] based on the foolishness and error of their pseudo-wisdoms. 3. But Israel is a holy people. They saw the truth and cast off the pseudo-wisdoms, and “believed in God and in His servant Moshe” (Exodus 14:31). Through this, they received the Torah. Thus, Onkelos renders “a nation naval (foolish) and unwise” (Deuteronomy 32:6) as “a nation that received the Torah and did not act wisely.” They received the Torah primarily because they “did not act wisely”—i.e., because they cast off from themselves all the pseudo-wisdoms, as above. 4. This is NaVaL: an acrostic for LeV Netivot (thirty-two paths). These encompass the entire Torah—the true wisdom, vis-à-vis which all pseudo-wisdoms are nullified. Thus, NaVaL is an aspect of Torah, which is called “NoVLot (an incomplete version) of the Upper Wisdom” (Bereishit Rabbah 17:5). {Come and see that, now, this Aramaic translation is clear and in place. For it is really surprising, and everyone wonders about this: What reason is there for naval to be translated as “receiving the Torah”? But now, how sweet are these words of the Aramaic translation.} 5. Now, the essential devotion is to be ‘simple and upright, God-fearing and diverted from evil’ (cf. Job 1:1), without any pseudo-wisdoms. Thus King Shlomo, of blessed memory, though it was written of him that “he was wisest of all men” (1 Kings 5:11), he said, “For I am more brutish than a man and have not the understanding of man” (Proverbs 30:2). Likewise, Asaf said (Psalms 73:22), “I was brutish and unknowing, like an animal I was with You.” It is also written (Proverbs 21:30), “There is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against God.”

Rav Dessler: Yeshiva should deny self-esteem to those not fully involved in Torah study

Rav Dessler (Michtav M’Eliyahu 3:356-357): [translation copyrighted ]The Frankfurt school system taught secular subjects and viewed going to university as an accepted part of education.  The price that they paid for this approach was the reduction in the number of great Torah scholars that came from their students. And even those who went on to learn in the Lithuanian and Polish yeshivas after learning secular subjects in Germany – only an extremely small number...went on to become great Torah scholars. On the other hand the advantage of this system was that only a very small number of the students ended up leaving religious observance. In spite of this minimal loss, there was a definite problem about the purity of religious faith in the Torah. Whenever there was a conflict between Torah and the sciences, they would make strange compromises. As if it was possible to have contradictory beliefs in one heart. Nevertheless almost all of them remained faithful to observing the mitzvos with dedication and self-sacrifice. And many were extremely careful to observe even the finer details of the mitzvos. In contrast the Lithuanian yeshivos focused on a single goal – to create great Torah scholars who were also G-d fearing people. To accomplish this they prohibited going to university. They realized that there was no other way to produce great Torah scholars except by concentrating all their students’ energies and desires exclusively to learning Torah. Don’t think that they didn’t realize from the beginning that this approach would ruin some who would not be able to deal with this extreme lifestyle and would consequently leave religious observance. But this is the price that they paid for the sake of producing in their schools great Torah scholars who were G‑d fearing. Obviously they tried their best to deal with those who could not remain full time yeshiva students – but not in a way which would encourage others to follow in their path of leaving yeshiva. For example, those who had to leave the yeshiva were advised to become storekeepers or other low-status jobs which were not professions. These were jobs which didn’t require training or studying and would not be attractive or interesting to the students. However those who had a strong desire to learn a profession and surely those were interested in become academics were completely abandoned and not dealt with at all. This rejection was done so that the actions of these students wouldn’t harm others by giving them any legitimacy by trying to help them in any way. I heard that they found support for such an approach by the statement found in Vayikra Rabba (2:10), One thousand students enter to study Bible and only one comes out as a posek and G-d says “that is the one I desire.” They also mentioned the words of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, “It is better that 1000 fools die in order to obtain one Torah scholar.”
===================================
[It is important to note that the medrash cited by Rav Dessler does not support this program as it is simply describing natural attrition. It is not prescribing a program which might destroy the majority of students. Just as problematic, the Rambam never said the words attributed to him. The Rambam did say in Moreh Nevuchim that we teach the truth even if 1000 fools are messed up by misunderstanding the truth that we present them.The Rambam's words are the following: [translation by Prof S Pines] "To sum up: I am the man who when the concern pressed him and his way was straitened and he could find no other device by which to teach a demonstrated truth other than by giving satisfaction to a single virtuous man while displeasing ten thousand ignoramuses - I am he who prefers to address that single man by himself, and I do not heed the blame of those many creatures. For I claim to liberate that virtuous one from that into which he has sunk, and I shall guide him in his perplexity until he becomes perfect and he finds rest." The interpretation cited by Rav Dessler is actually from Shem Tov's commentary to the Moreh Nevuchim [page 10 of the standard edition] and is clearly not the intention of the Rambam.]

[Rav Sternbuch told me to append a note to this letter of Rav Dessler’s letter. He said that the halacha is clear that it is not allowed to produce gedolim if it causes others to stop being observant. He said that Rav Dessler doesn’t mean that it is certain that people will go off the derech because of this approach – but only that it can happen. In addition that going off the derech here refers to a possiblity of losing the yeshiva standard of observance  - not giving up religious observance entirely.]

Rav Dessler - Produce gedolim even if most students are destroyed.

first posted Oct 6 2008
 Rav Dessler (Michtav M’Eliyahu 3:356-357): [translation copyrighted] The Frankfurt school system taught secular subjects and viewed going to university as an accepted part of education.  The price that they paid for this approach was the reduction in the number of great Torah scholars that came from their students. And even those who went on to learn in the Lithuanian and Polish yeshivas after learning secular subjects in Germany – only an extremely small number...went on to become great Torah scholars. On the other hand the advantage of this system was that only a very small number of the students ended up leaving religious observance. In spite of this minimal loss, there was a definite problem about the purity of religious faith in the Torah. Whenever there was a conflict between Torah and the sciences, they would make strange compromises. As if it was possible to have contradictory beliefs in one heart. Nevertheless almost all of them remained faithful to observing the mitzvos with dedication and self-sacrifice. And many were extremely careful to observe even the finer details of the mitzvos. In contrast the Lithuanian yeshivos focused on a single goal – to create great Torah scholars who were also G-d fearing people. To accomplish this they prohibited going to university. They realized that there was no other way to produce great Torah scholars except by concentrating all their students’ energies and desires exclusively to learning Torah. Don’t think that they didn’t realize from the beginning that this approach would ruin some who would not be able to deal with this extreme lifestyle and would consequently leave religious observance. But this is the price that they paid for the sake of producing in their schools great Torah scholars who were G‑d fearing. Obviously they tried their best to deal with those who could not remain full time yeshiva students – but not in a way which would encourage others to follow in their path of leaving yeshiva. For example, those who had to leave the yeshiva were advised to become storekeepers or other low-status jobs which were not professions. These were jobs which didn’t require training or studying and would not be attractive or interesting to the students. However those who had a strong desire to learn a profession and surely those were interested in become academics were completely abandoned and not dealt with at all. This rejection was done so that the actions of these students wouldn’t harm others by giving them any legitimacy by trying to help them in any way. I heard that they found support for such an approach by the statement found in Vayikra Rabba (2:10), One thousand students enter to study Bible and only one comes out as a posek and G-d says “that is the one I desire.” They also mentioned the words of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, “It is better that 1000 fools die in order to obtain one Torah scholar.”

===================================================================
It is important to note that the medrash cited does not support this program as it is simply describing the natural attrition. It is not prescribing a program which is known to destroy the majority of students. Just as problematic, the Rambam never said the words attributed to him. The Rambam did say in Moreh Nevuchim that we teach the truth even if 1000 fools are messed up by misunderstanding the truth that we present them.The Rambam's words are the following: [translation by Prof S Pines] "To sum up: I am the man who when the concern pressed him and his way was straitened and he could find no other device by which to teach a demonstrated truth other than by giving satisfaction to a single virtuous man while displeasing ten thousand ignoramuses - I am he who prefers to address that single man by himself, and I do not heed the blame of those many creatures. For I claim to liberate that virtuous one from that into which he has sunk, and I shall guide him in his perplexity until he becomes perfect and he finds rest."

The interpretation cited by Rav Dessler is actually from Shem Tov's commentary to the Moreh Nevuchim [page 10 of the standard edition] and is clearly not the intention of the Rambam.

Shem Tov said:
Let millions of fools die for the sake of saving the superior man. And the superior man should not be sacrificed for the sake of saving millions of fools. That is because the fools are comparable to animals for which it is a mitzva to slaughter them for the sake of intelligent man. So surely it is not appropriate to be concerned about the degradation of the great masses if there can be benefit to the superior man. Therefore it is required for the chochom to reveal the truth in a manner so as not to contradict the Divine intent - even if it leads to the debasement of many fools.
Rabbi Shwab wrote a critical letter - published anonymously - in which he points out that there was no evidence that such a program actually produced gedolim. See a discussion of this matter in Prof. Willam Low's article on page 204 in Encounter - published by the Association of Orthodox Scientists.
========================

Based upon a conversation I had with Rabbi Ronny Greenwald about this letter , Rav Dessler (in consultation with the Chazon Ish) was noting that after the holocaust it was critical to rebuild Torah leadership as well as appreciation for Torah scholarship. He was asserting that this was best done by a system which was elitist and was focused on greatness in Torah. The fact that such a system would inevitably result in losses was acknowledged but it was felt that there was no alternative to try to recover from the devastation of the war. It was now a time to fight for Torah and as in every war there are losses. We are not talking about a lack of concern for the masses. His point of view was simply that the entire world requires and benefits from having gedolim. The fact that there were many who would not develop to their potential as Torah scholars because of the focus on producing gedoim would be compensated by the production of gedolim. Rabbi Greenwald pointed out that this approach has succeeded but now we are no longer facing the same crises. The issue now is whether the system would not be better served by altering the single focus to one that allows a multiple tier educational system. Are the losses justifiable anymore? It is not that Rav Dessler was wrong but that the circumstances are no probably longer best served by the approach he advocated then. Rabbi Greenwald stated that the gedolim have in fact been reorienting their goals as a result of the changed circumstances.

[Rav Sternbuch told me to append a note to this letter of Rav Dessler’s letter. He said that the halacha is clear that it is not allowed to produce gedolim if it causes others to stop being observant. He said that Rav Dessler doesn’t mean that it is certain that people will go off the derech because of this approach – but only that it can happen. In addition that going off the derech here refers to a possiblity of losing the yeshiva standard of observance  - not giving up religious observance entirely.] 

Yakov was punished for calling himsel Israel (Dinah was raped)

 Netziv (Bereishis 33:20) The medrash explains that Yakov called himself god. The doesn’t mean that he called himself G-d, Heaven forfend!, but that he called himself Israel and consequently G-d was called the G-d of Israel. In other words that Yakov prayed before the altar “ The G-d of Avraham and the G-d of Yitzchok and the G-d of Israel. Yakov was punished for this with the incident of his daughter Dinah being raped as is stated in Bereishis Rabbah (79:8). In other words even though an angel had told him that his name had been changed to Israel, nevertheless G-d had not called that as we see in the gemora. . 

 Rabbeinu Bachye (Bereishis 34) Dinah, Leah’s daughter went out, etc.” What happened to Dinah was a punishment for Yaakov for several misdemeanors. Firstly, he had said to Lavan (30,33) “let my integrity testify for me in the future.” Secondly, he was punished for denying Esau a glimpse of Dinah, for maybe she could have exercised a beneficial influence on him if he had married her. Thirdly, he was arrogant in assuming authority on earth as indicated by the name he gave the altar. According to Bereshis Rabbah, G-d told him: “never praise yourself with something that is in the future.” You have said: “let my integrity testify for me in the future. Tomorrow your daughter will leave her house and she will be raped.” …Another criticism of Yakov mentioned in the Midrash in the name of G’d is the fact that he had assigned G’d sovereignty in the heavens whereas arrogating to himself something parallel in the terrestrial spheres as we explained in connection with his naming the altar. G’d said to him: “even the reader in the synagogue does not arrogate to himself the right to act on behalf of the congregants. He waits for an invitation by the congregation to act on their behalf. Tomorrow your daughter will be raped.” The reason this punishment followed the misdemeanor so promptly was because Yakov had spoken to G’d in a somewhat provocative manner.

Bereishis Rabbah (73:9) SO SHALL MY RIGHTEOUSNESS WITNESS AGAINST ME TO-MORROW 30:33). R. Judah b. Simon said: It is written, Boast not thyself of to-morrow (Prov. 27: 1), yet you say, SO SHALL MY RIGHTEOUSNESS WITNESS AGAINST ME TO-MORROW -to-morrow your daughter will go out and be violated, as it says, And Dinah the daughter of Leah went out, etc. (Gen. 34:1). AND LABAN SAID: BEHOLD (HEN), WOULD (LU) IT MIGHT BE ACCORDING TO THY WORD (30:34). R. Hiyya the Elder said: Every agreement which Laban made with Jacob he retracted ten times, for it says, Hen, lo.2 The Rabbis said: A hundred times, for it says, And your father hath mocked me, and changed my wages ten times- monim (ib. 31:7), [that means ten times ten], for a minyan (quorum) is not less than ten.

Bereishis Rabbah (79:8) 8. AND HE ERECTED THERE AN ALTAR, AND CALLED IT EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL (33:20). He Jacob declared to Him: ‘You are G-d in the celestial spheres and I am a god in the terrestrial sphere.’ R. Huna commented in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: God reproved him: ' Even the synagogue superintendent cannot assume authority of himself,  yet you did take authority to yourself. To-morrow your daughter will go out and be dishonoured!’ Hence it is written, And Dinah the daughter of Leah went out, etc. (Gen. 34:1).