Time to Give an Unconditional Get to the BDA and ORA - the case of Donny Novick

Baruch Hashem

Guest post by Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver

Let us discuss the current "agunah" case of Donny Novick and Sherri Essrog-Novick and the detrimental involvement of the BDA (the Beth Din of America) and ORA (the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot) in their dispute. I will argue that Sherri is not in fact an agunah because at no point did Donny refuse to give her a get. Rather, the wrongdoings of Sherri from both a halachic and human standpoint have delayed the get. Moreover, the BDA is culpable for miscarriage of justice and ORA is culpable for defamation. All are in violation of established Jewish law, and these travesties should move the Jewish community to ostracize these organizations.

ORA’s False Accusation of Get Refusal

On their Facebook page here, ORA posted an image (under the headline "Facts:"!) accusing Donny of refusing to give his wife a get for three years. On its face, this means that ORA claims to have solid proof that three years ago, Sherri went to beis din and requested a get, and that beis din instructed him to give one, yet Donny refused—out of misogynistic, vengeful, spiteful "recalcitrance".

It further states that the BDA placed on him a seiruv (issuance of contempt of court) for get refusal.

These are bold-faced lies. Donny did not refuse to give a get for three years or at all, nor did the BDA place him in seiruv for get refusal.

What are the facts?

Let’s look at the BDA’s letter supposedly issuing a seiruv for get refusal. A basic reading of the letter shows that that is simply not what it says. The relevant text from here:

…Daniel Novick has failed to appear in front of the Beth Din of America or an alternative beth din for the purpose of giving a Get or submitting to beth din adjudication of Sherri Novick’s request for a Get. Daniel Novick is thus deemed a mesarev lavo ledin, one who declines to appear in front of the Jewish courts according to Jewish law, and Sherri Novick is free to pursue any remedies permitted by secular law…

This letter is written in guarded language in comparison with other such letters. It was plainly issued not for get refusal itself but for failure to appear at a beis din. It did not recommend public pressure and punitive measures against Donny; it merely stated that his wife is not obligated to go to beis din and may use civil courts (we note that this dispensation is absurd, as the BDA was fully aware that Sherri was using civil courts without rabbinic permission long before this letter was composed; more on that below).

We wonder how ORA construed this letter as a green light for a public shaming campaign against Donny. In addition to the inherent sin of embarrassing a fellow Jew without sufficient warrant, such coercive actions without solid rabbinic approval cross the line into the grave issue of forcing a get without sufficient warrant according to Jewish law, which would invalidate any get given, rendering the offspring born from Sherri’s future unions illegitimate (mamzerim), G–d forbid (cf. Rashba 7:414, Radvaz 4:118, Bais Yosef Even Ha’Ezer 154, Chazon Ish Even Ha’Ezer 108:12).

Thus, ORA is guilty of making a false accusation against Donny.

It is not enough to state the superficial fact that a get was not given for three years. "Context is everything". Was Donny refusing to give a get or even refusing to cooperate with a beis din for three years, or at all? No.

The BDA’s Negligence

In reality, Donny's wife brought this case to be tried in two different batei din of her choosing, each of whose advice or ruling was not to her liking, until she took the case to secular court (in 2014) without rabbinic dispensation (a grave sin worthy of excommunication; see Gittin 88b, Shemos 21:1, Rashi and Ramban ibid., Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sanhedrin 26:7, Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26:1).

This means that in fact, the delay in the delivery of the get was the fault not of Donny but of Sherri, making her the get refuser and him the agun, the husband "chained" in a marriage against his will. If anyone should be the subject of a seiruv, it would be Sherri.

Then while the case was still in civil court, Sherri brought it back before the beis din—two separate batei din, in fact—yet once she learned that both those batei din require both spouses to sign a shtar chiyuvim, a legally binding contract requiring that matters of custody be settled by those respective batei din, she refused. Why would she do that? After all, she was already getting full custody using civil court and on her way to winning big bucks on a final settlement.

Yet Sherri did not have everything she wanted—she still needed a get. So she needed a beis din that would overlook her sinful use of civil courts and allow and therefore enable her to keep the custody and financial settlement cases there, yet push for and preside over the get at the same time. So she went shopping still further until she found a "beis din" that would ignore her halachic wrongdoings and thereby essentially aid and abet them—the BDA. Indeed, they agreed to push for a get without demanding that Sherri first take the custody dispute out of civil court and have them adjudicate it. Nor did they insist on even trying to mediate or negotiate the custody issue, as any decent rabbi involved in a divorce case would have required. 

While in email contact with the BDA, Donny told them (and he has the email trail to prove it, which he is willing to share upon request) that he had brought his case before other batei din (and he included their names and phone numbers in those emails), and was then later taken to court by her without rabbinic permission. He also stated that he was willing to give a get along with the civil divorce, even if the ruling of the divorce court would not be in his favor.

The BDA sent email summonses to Donny, and although he apologized and explained that he could not appear at those dates due to work restraints, they refused to work with his schedule and issued a seiruv against him for his failure to appear, along with giving permission to his wife to sue him in civil courts (knowing full well that she was doing so already regardless, without rabbinic permission). The seiruv was enough for ORA to go public and launch yet another shameful social media shaming campaign, this time against Donny.

The blame here lies with ORA:

·     *  for their zeal in going beyond the words of the BDA’s letter, which did not call for a public shaming campaign 

·        * for waging a public shaming campaign against a fellow Jew without sufficient warrant, committing the sin of shaming a fellow Jew 

 ·     * for willfully disregarding the fact (that Donny communicated to them directly when they contacted him) that Donny had been involved with several other batei din with which he had fully cooperated, and instead libeling him as a "get refuser" 

·       *  for creating halachically unwarranted communal pressure that could potentially result in a coerced and therefore invalid get (cf. Rashba 7:414, Radvaz 4:118, Bais Yosef Even Ha’Ezer 154, Chazon Ish Even Ha’Ezer 108:12)

But blame also lies with the BDA itself:

·              *   for taking up Sherri's request for a get in the first place, despite the fact that she was suing in civil court, in which case Jewish law rules that the Defendant in civil court need not respond to a summons to appear before the beis din, nor may the beis din impose a seiruv on the Defendant (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26:1)  

·       *     for ignoring Donny’s requests to delay the meeting with the BDA to a later date so it could fit in to his work schedule 

·     *      for publicizing a letter falsely accusing Donny of neglecting to come before beis din (he was willing to, just not at that date) when in reality it was Sherri who was guilty of that very wrongdoing by abandoning the earlier batei din that she herself chose—which had the effect of falsely implying that he is a get refuser 

·      *       for failing to issue any statement at all holding Sherri accountable for committing the grave sin of using civil courts (even alongside the seiruv against Donny, which would at least have demonstrated a modicum of balance) and calling for her to return the custody and financial disputes to beis din immediately (especially considering the severity of her case against Donny—see following section) 

·      *     for issuing even such a limited seiruv knowing full well that ORA would use it as carte blanche to publicly pillory Donny, even though there was no halachic basis to do so

Financial Ruin upon Donny through the Civil Case

Bringing the case to civil court has brought great financial ruin upon Donny:

·         Donny has been paying alimony since their separation in 2013.

          Sherri's lawyer managed to require Donny to pay for Sherri's lawyer.

   ·         This case has left Donny hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

The legal conflict that Sherri initiated is the real reason that the get has been delayed for so long:

1. The conflict over custody. Even the conflict over temporary custody has drawn out interminably. Despite the fact that Donny has no history of poor parenting, Sherri has refused every offer toward a reasonable temporary custody agreement, resulting in his daughter only spending four Shabbosim with him since January. (Every month he is required to send a list of dates that he wants visitation with his daughter for Sherri to approve, only after they are reviewed and approved by her lawyer.) And who has been forced to pay for all these unnecessary, petty legal squabbles, and suffer the painful distance caused between parent and child? Donny.

2. The conflict over the final settlement. Why indeed is the court requiring Donny to pay so much money, if he is currently a medical resident earning very little? Because Sherri is now arguing in court (and the documentation is accessible on the public record) that Donny's wealth must be evaluated not on its own merits at present, but in context of his family and their wealth, and in context of his future earnings as a doctor—earnings he never earned and does not have. If she really would get her way and win a final settlement for support on that basis, Donny could well be rendered homeless. As it is, she collects 70% of his earnings. The gross unfairness, injustice, and greed in this lawsuit is self-evident.

Moreover, Sherri is suing for a settlement that would place Donny in a lifetime of debt and thus make it impossible for him to ever remarry, rendering Donny an agun. (And as far as ORA is concerned, their callous lack of concern for Donny's remarriage prospects due to Sherri's forbidden lawsuit clearly reveals their feminist, misandrist agenda and the phoniness of their pious concern for the "chained".)

Thus, Sherri is not only litigating custody in civil court, which is forbidden in itself (and a form of kidnapping, which is even worse than stealing property); she is litigating for a monetary award to which she is completely not entitled under Jewish law, and which thus constitutes extortion and robbery. This makes the BDA's and ORA's acceptance of Sherri's ongoing lawsuit against Donny all the more morally wrong and severe.

Conclusion

In summary, Donny is no monstrous "get refuser" (which is anyway not wrong or forbidden in itself—see here) and Sherri is no "agunah". On the contrary, Donny was the one obediently submitting to Jewish law, willing to accept the rulings of a beis din following the standard procedure of negotiating his settlement and presiding over the giving of the get, enabling him to move on with his life. Donny did not refuse to give a get or demand anything outside the norm and he fully cooperated with four other batei din of Sherri's choosing. Rather, it was Sherri who rejected their authority and went on to commit a series of acts that neutral bystanders, as well as the arbitrators of those batei din, found to be totally beyond the pale.

Although a detailed account is beyond the scope of this article, Donny is only the latest in a long line of Jewish men who have been the victims of such treatment. The public must realize that despite the apparent worthiness of their cause, both the BDA and ORA are morally corrupt institutions with a long, sordid history of persecuting and victimizing Jewish men: The BDA, for issuing unwarranted seiruvim; and ORA, for knowingly libeling Jewish husbands as malicious "get refusers" guilty of "domestic abuse" while knowingly covering up the crimes and lies of abusive wives, all in order to promote their misandrist, feminist agenda (and harming the legitimate cause of true agunim and agunos—those unable to remarry because of the truly malicious refusal of their spouses to accept or give a get).

It’s time for the Jewish community to give an unconditional get to the BDA and ORA—with recalcitrance.

Shoftim 76 - Learning and action-good deeds , what drives what ? by Allan Katz

Guest post by Allan Katz

'When you besiege a city for an extended period, to make war against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees…... for you may eat from them, and you shall not cut them down, - for is the tree of the field a man? or, for man is like the tree of the field – (2 ways to read this), that you should besiege it? Only the trees which you know are not trees for food may you destroy and cut down, in order to build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls. (Devarim 20:19-20)

כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים להלחם עליה לתפשה לא תשחית את עצה לנדח עליו גרזן כי ממנו תאכל ואתו לא תכרת כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך במצור: {כ} רק עץ אשר תדע כי לא עץ מאכל הוא אתו תשחית וכרת ובנית מצור על העיר

Our verses deal with times of war and it is in this context that we are warned to preserve fruit trees. Man acts in a most destructive way against the planet -his home in times of war. Today, when chemical and atomic warfare is available and has been used, this message is very relevant. IS the tree of the field a man that he can flee into the besieged city ? or why make war on trees ? - they are non-combatants. We can read this as a statement, not a question - for man is like the tree of the field – for man's life is dependent of the fruit of the tree and there is a promise that after the war you will eat from the tree. The exception to the rule - trees that don't bear fruit or give food, may be cut down for a purpose ( building). The prohibition of meaningless destruction of tress is extended to not unnecessarily destroying or wasting objects called the laws of ' bal tashchit ' - do not destroy. The cutting down of forests – non- fruit bearing trees can have a negative ecological impact on the environment and man's future, so forests need sustainable management that takes into account their regenerative capacity. Fruit bearing trees can be cut down if there are good reasons justifying this.

The statement – for man is like the tree of the field is seen by Sages as a metaphor – man can be compared to a tree. Psychologists use the ' tree drawing test ' that reveals something about personality. The trunk represents the sense of who you are and how intact your personality is - a small trunk – you feel weak, a large trunk, you have more strength. The branches are like your limbs symbolizing the efforts you make to connect to the world and support your needs to survive. Leaves and fruit are symbols of productivity. Roots show a sense of security and being in touch with reality.

The Mishna from Pirkei Avot – Ethics of Our fathers 3:17

כל שחכמתו מרבה ממעשיו, למה הוא דומה, לאילן שענפיו מרובין ושרשיו מעטין, והרוח באה ועוקרתו והופכתו על פניו. אבל כל שמעשיו מרובין מחכמתו, למה הוא דומה, לאילן שענפיו מעטין ושורשיו מרובין, שאפילו כל הרוחות שבעולם באות ונושבות בו אין מזיזין אותו ממקומו.

Anyone whose wisdom exceeds his good deeds, what is he comparable to? To a tree with many branches and few roots; comes a storm and uproots it, and turns it on its face. But one who's good deeds are greater than his wisdom, to what is he compared? - To a tree with many roots and few branches, whom all the storms in the world cannot budge from its place. Here, the roots of the tree are compared to a man's good deeds and actions and the branches – the head of the tree are compared to a man's learning, wisdom and Torah. What feeds, secures and the source of man's wisdom - are his good deeds and actions.

הגמרא בקידושין מ:. שאלה תלמוד גדול או מעשה גדול? נענה רבי טרפון ואמר - מעשה גדול. נענה רבי עקיבא ואמר- תלמוד גדול. נענו כולם ואמרו- תלמוד גדול, שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה.

The Gemorrah in Kidushin 40b asks – what is greater - Learning or mitzvoth - actions. R' Tarpon answered – actions, R' Akivah answered – Learning is greater. Then all the Rabbis in the study hall answered – learning is greater because it leads to action. A person in essence is his Torah – תורתו, a live, dynamic and walking Torah scroll .He can be described as a tree of dynamic knowledge and when he does mitzvoth and good deeds, he is giving expression to his inner being, he is giving expression to his Torah, a Torah which he has internalized and integrated, a Torah which is part of his personality. The tree is his wisdom - his Torah, and his good deeds, mitzvoth and actions are the fruits of his learning. The tree is greater than the fruit. From this Gemorah, the source of a man's good deeds is his Learning.

Our Mishnah from Pirkei Avot sees good deeds as ' roots' feeding, securing and driving learning whereas our gemorrah in Kidushin sees learning as the source of our actions and the driving force to good deeds, mitzvoth and actions. So how can we reconcile the two statements? We have learning and actions – what drives what?

There is an obvious question on our Mishnah's statement – 'how can good deeds should exceed one's wisdom'. ? We usually act on our knowledge in our order to pursue any planned action, so wisdom always exceeds one's deed. The opportunities for learning are many, both formal and informal, but opportunities for action are more limited. R' Yonah explains that when the Israelites made a sincere commitment to bring the Pascal sacrifice, the Torah credited them as if they did it immediately. A general commitment to fulfill God's commandments and mitzvoth, even those that one has not yet learned, is credited by God as if one has already done the action. This makes one's actions greater than one's knowledge. So what drives learning is a desire to learn to be active in the world and a commitment to action. It is a desire to answer questions related to actions and good deeds, solve life's problems, act in the world, and be of service to man and to serve God. The Gemorah in Kidushin sees man as the Torah within himself. His ultimate desire, like the pianist who wants to perform before an audience in a great concert hall, is to give expression to his learning and act on his learning. The Gemorah in Menachot 98 says that ' sometimes the stopping and not learning Torah to do mitzvoth is the very foundation of the Torah ' - שביטולה של תורה זהו יסודה-קיומה פעמים. Action and good deeds drive learning and give it direction while the learning itself builds Torah personalities who want to give expression to their Torah and do mitzvoth in the world.

What drives the educational system is getting good test scores rather than teaching kids relevant material so they can act in the world. Learning should be driven by questions, problems and projects. It is about being in the world and acting in the world. Once they are involved in answering questions, solving problems and doing projects we can really assess true learning. There is no need for a test and in the end we have ' exhibitions of their mastery' and children who have internalized and integrated their learning, burning with desire to share their learning and give expression to their learning by doing.

How to Protect our Childrein: Amudim: Sunday 9/11 in Lakewood

Dignity of the Synagogue by Professor Cyril Domb F.R.S.

  Dignity of the Synagogue Prof Domb 

Ronit Bitton says that her son will not join his non-Jewish father in Belgium - despite court ruling

Arutz 7

Sources close to Ronit Bitton, who sat in jail for three and a half years for interference with legal proceedings dictating custody of her 17-year-old son to her non-Jewish ex-husband in Belgium, deny claims that the youth will soon join up with his father.

“We’re talking about a 17.5-year-old youth,” the sources said. “He is haredi. It is impossible to force him to go live with his non-Jewish father. Word to the contrary on this matter is incorrect.”

The Jewish Belgian paper Regards reported that Bitton agreed that the son be given to his father’s custody; in exchange, authorities in Israel agreed not to press charges against Bitton’s accomplices for hiding her son.

According to that report, Bitton “kidnapped” her son from his father in Belgium in 2006, when the boy was seven years old. Belgian and Israeli courts ruled that the father, Vincent Georis, was the sole legal guardian, and that the son needs to be transferred to his guardianship. The mother claimed that she did not know where her son was and, in an interview with Arutz Sheva in 2013, had asserted that she hadn’t seen him for five years. An Israeli court sentenced her to five years imprisonment for interfering with legal proceedings; she began to serve her sentence in 2013.

Last month, she was released from prison. It is unclear whether a third of the sentence was simply deducted or whether some sort of bargain transpired between Bitton and enforcement authorities which enabled her early release. The son, as far as is known, reported to a Jerusalem police station, and took a DNA test that verified his identity.

The father told the Belgian newspaper that he had spoken with his son on the telephone. “I have no words to describe my happiness,” he had said.[...]

‘Private Hell’: Prep School Sex Abuse Inquiry Paints Grim Picture

NY Times

Sexual abuse was so rampant that it created a “private hell” for some students at an elite prep school in Rhode Island in the 1970s and ’80s, investigators reported on Thursday, describing an atmosphere of terror in which at least 61 students were victimized and some staff members committed assaults for years before being forced out.

The investigation found that at least 51 students were abused by employees of St. George’s School, a prestigious private boarding and day school near Newport, and at least 10 others by fellow students — and that the true numbers are probably significantly higher. The inquiry came after years of pressure from victims who said that St. George’s had refused to squarely acknowledge the extent of the problems.

The report — with pages of vivid, painful detail from accusers — follows other revelations about sexual abuse at several prominent prep schools in the same area, but none have matched the sheer scale and pervasiveness of the misconduct discovered at St. George’s.

More victims will come forward, and “when the sun is set on this case, it could be the largest school sex abuse case in history,” said Roderick MacLeish, a lawyer and St. George’s alumnus who has worked with abuse survivors in pressuring the school to conduct the investigation. “It’s in the thousands of years of suffering this caused.”

The abuses that alumni have recounted, often after decades of silence, include forced intercourse, oral sex and digital penetration; one student sodomizing another with a broomstick; sexual groping; harassment; and taking photographs of naked students without their knowledge and showing them to other students.

The misconduct by one staff member, the report said, was so frequent and such common knowledge that many of the former students — now middle-aged, and many of them women — told investigators they did not see how other adults could have been unaware of it.

“Many of these students remember St. George’s as a place where their abusers created a kind of private hell for them — a place where they suffered trauma and emotional wounds that, for many, remain unhealed,” Martin F. Murphy, the leader of the inquiry, wrote in the nearly 400-page report documenting the findings.[...]

Re'eh; Listening To A Navi When The Torah Says Otherwise by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Rashi in Re'eh (12;13) quotes a Sifri, that learns from the words בכל מקום אשר תראה.... that the prohibition to bring a Karbon out of the Beis Hamikdash, is only when one wants to do so on his own. When a Navi commands Klall Yisroel to do it, it's OK . Rashi (still quoting the Sifri) then brings an example- Eliyahu Hanavi on Har HaCarmel.

The problem is, that Rashi in Parshas Shoftim (18;22) - ALSO quoting a Sifri - brings an entirely different source for the Har HaCarmel exception... 

For questions and comments please email us at salmahshleima@gmail.com

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Reb Sholom will explain how Elul is time to repent for sinning

Share:

Representing the Greater Flatbush Community Flatbush Shiurim This Monday, September 5 Hakhel Yarchei Kallah ELUL: A Time of Opportunity, A Time of Growth Location: Agudath Israel of Madison Zichron Chaim Tzvi2122 Avenue S Shacharis will be at 8AM, followed by refreshments.  9:00 AM   HARAV YISROEL REISMAN , Shlita, Rav, Agudath Israel of Madison Zichron Chaim Tzvi, will speak on " LESSONS FROM CHAGAI HANAVI". 10:00 AM HARAV ELIYAHU BRUDNY, Shlita,  R'M, Yeshivas Mir, will speak on "THE ROAD TO TESHUVA". 10:30 AM HARAV SHOLOM KAMENETSKY,Shlita,  Rosh Yeshiva Philadelphia, will speak on "ELUL: DAYS OF DISTINCTION". 11:30 AM HARAV AVROHOM SCHORR, Shlita,  Rav, Beis Medrash Nezer Gedalyah, will speak on "BRINGING BRACHA INTO THE COMING YEAR". Free Admission for Men and Women. The Flatbush Jewish Community Coalition, FJCC unites and represents the greater Flatbush Jewish community on communal, civic and political concerns. Visit our website www.flatbushjewish.com For comments or suggestions, to join the Flatbush Coalition, or add an email to the FJCC community list, please send to info@flatbushjewish.com  347-729-1940

The Minhag to say L'Dovid Hashem Ori; Why, When, and if, it should be said... Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Guest post Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Most have the Minhag to say "לדוד ה אורי" , many don't.

What is the reason for this minhag, and when did it start?

Why does Nusach Ashkenaz say it after Shachris & Maariv, and Nusach Sfard say it after Shachris & Minchah...??

Should it be said until after Yom Kipor, Shmeni Atzeres, or Simchas Torah??

[Note: This Shiur was given last year, so some of you saw it then.]

For questions and comments please email  salmahshleima@gmail.com

https://youtu.be/3R1M-fRmY9U

False claims in Israeli Family Law destroying the fabric of Society as men suffer human rights abuse

Moran Samun, head of committee to investigate false claims in family law in Israel. She talks frankly of the problems with feminist organisations such as Wizo who are disempowering men, women and children and bringing in a new generation of men who are fearing women, and women who have all the power. Moran Samun loves her country and describes the need for a change in the law, exactly what the feminists abhor

Father finds son after 2-month search - with ex-wife in shelter for battered women

Arutz 7

After almost two months of searching for his 3-year-old son, who had disappeared to a location unknown to him with his ex-wife, divorced father Ariel has discovered that his son is staying with his mother in a shelter for battered women.

Up until the time that his ex-wife disappeared with his son, Ariel enjoyed legal status as joint custodian of the child; the child stayed with him half the time, according to the agreed-upon arrangement of the court.

In the past, the mother had filed several complaints against Ariel for alleged violence against her, but all these cases had been closed. Two of the complaints had even been closed on grounds of "lack of guilt," a rare outcome in these sorts of cases (which police generally prefer to close on grounds of "lack of proof" or "lack of interest to the public" so as to prevent the possibility of future suits for false arrest).

Once he knew where the child was located, Ariel turned to court to request that his son be taken out of the shelter. The judge quickly answered the request, and instructed that the mother's reply be received. Ariel then went to the shelter accompanied by police (shown in the video below), in order to give the mother the court's decision. [...]

While the shelters do, undoubtedly, afford protection for women escaping from violence and abuse, often only with the clothes on their backs, there is another aspect to the problem. According to journalist Marianne Azizi, who has accompanied Ariel through his ordeal and filmed the clip above, "many women take advantage of the apparent slack screening in battered women shelters. The financial advantage for such women, and also the center, lends itself to the question of incompetence or corruption," she said.

Doctors continue to practice after sexually abusing patients - because they are too important and needed

Atlanta Journal Constitution

A broken system forgives sexually abusive doctors in every state, investigation finds

In each of these cases, described in public records, the doctors either acknowledged what they’d done or authorities, after investigating, believed the accusations. While the scale and scope of the physicians’ misdeeds varied tremendously, all were allowed to keep their white coats and continue seeing patients, as were hundreds of others like them across the nation.

In a national investigation, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution examined documents that described disturbing acts of physician sexual abuse in every state. Rapes by OB/GYNs, seductions by psychiatrists, fondling by anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists, and molestations by pediatricians and radiologists.

Victims were babies. Adolescents. Women in their 80s. Drug addicts and jail inmates. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

But it could be anyone. Some patients were sedated when they were sexually assaulted. Others didn’t realize at first what had happened because the doctor improperly touched them or photographed them while pretending to do a legitimate medical exam.

Some doctors were disciplined over a single episode of sexual misconduct. A few physicians — with hundreds of victims — are among the nation’s worst sex offenders. But the toll can’t be measured by numbers alone. For patients, the violations can be life-altering. The betrayal even pushed some to suicide.

How do doctors get away with exploiting patients for years? [...]

Some victims say nothing. Intimidated, confused or embarrassed, they fear that no one will take their word over a doctor’s. Colleagues and nurses stay silent.

Hospitals and health care organizations brush off accusations or quietly push doctors out, the investigation found, without reporting them to police or licensing agencies.[...]

But when a physician is the perpetrator, the AJC found, the nation often looks the other way.

Physician-dominated medical boards gave offenders second chances. Prosecutors dismissed or reduced charges, so doctors could keep practicing and stay off sex offender registries. Communities rallied around them.[...]

The Roman Catholic Church, the military, the Boy Scouts, colleges and universities. They have all withered under the spotlight of sexual misconduct scandals and promised that abuse will no longer be swept under the rug.

The medical profession, however, has never taken on sexual misconduct as a significant priority. And layer upon layer of secrecy makes it nearly impossible for the public, or even the medical community itself, to know the extent of physician sexual abuse.[...]

Today, after months of unearthing rarely viewed documents and tracking some cases from beginning to end, the AJC is exposing a phenomenon of physician sexual misconduct that is tolerated — to one degree or another — in every state in the nation.[...]

Yet many, if not most, cases of physician sexual misconduct remain hidden. The AJC investigation discovered that state boards and hospitals handle some cases secretly. In other cases, medical boards remove once-public orders from their websites or issue documents that cloak sexual misconduct in vague language.

When cases do come to the public’s attention, they are often brushed off by the medical establishment as freakishly rare. While the vast majority of the nation’s 900,000 doctors do not sexually abuse patients, the AJC found the phenomenon is akin to the priest scandal: It doesn’t necessarily happen every day, but it happens far more often than anyone has acknowledged.[...]

Over and over again, records show, predatory physicians took advantage of a doctor’s special privilege — the daily practice of asking trusting people to disrobe in a private room and permit themselves to be touched.

Offenses ranged from lewd comments during intimate exams to molestation, masturbation by the doctor in front of the patient, swapping drugs for sex and even rape. Because many orders are vague or undetailed, it isn’t always clear if a doctor claimed the patient consented. However, the profession says consent is never a defense because of the power imbalance between doctors and patients.

David Clohessy, the executive director of SNAP, a support and advocacy organization for people sexually abused by priests, doctors and others, said many Americans view physicians with too much deference and automatic respect.

“We are so reliant on them, we are so helpless and vulnerable and literally in pain often times when we go in there. We just have to trust them,” Clohessy said.

“So when they cross the boundary and their hands go into the wrong places, we are in shock, we are paralyzed, we’re confused, we’re scared. We just do not want to believe, first of all, that a doctor is capable of this , and secondly that their colleagues and supervisors will not address this immediately and effectively when we report it.”[...]

Legislature passes law mandating jail time for sexual assault of a person who is unconscious or too intoxicated to consent

CNN

California is one step closer to making prison time mandatory for anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a person who is unconscious or too intoxicated to consent -- a measure inspired by former Stanford University student Brock Turner's sentence.

AB 2888 passed the state Assembly Monday by a unanimous 66-0 vote. It is headed to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk.

Lawmakers proposed the measure in June in response to the outcome in the former Stanford swimmer's trial.

Turner was sentenced to six months in jail and three years of probation for sexually assaulting a 23-year-old unconscious woman in 2015 behind a trash bin on the university's campus. Critics condemned the sentence from Santa Clara County Judge Aaron Persky as too lenient, leading to efforts to recall Persky and change sentencing laws for sexual assault.

The Santa Clara County district attorney's office had requested the maximum sentence of six years, based largely on the woman's condition.

Turner would have served the sentence in a state prison, as opposed to the sentence he is currently serving in the Santa Clara County jail. He is scheduled to be released Friday.

Under current state law, those convicted of certain sex crimes such as rape by force and aggravated sexual assault of a child are ineligible for probation or a suspended sentence and must serve prison time.

AB 2888 would amend the law to create the same punishment for those convicted of rape, sodomy, penetration with a foreign object and oral sex if the victim was unconscious or incapable of giving consent due to intoxication. [...]

Court voids state sex offender registry for imposing unconstitutionally retroactive punishment

Washington Post

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held that recent amendments to Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) are unconstitutional because they impose retroactive punishment on sex offenders in violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws. Among other things, the plaintiffs argued that amendments to Michigan’s SORA increased the severity of its requirements after their convictions imposed retroactive punishment. In John Does #1-5 v. Snyder, the Sixth Circuit agreed.

Judge Alice M. Batchelder wrote for the court, joined by Judges Gilbert S. Merritt and Bernice B. Donald. Her opinion for the court begins.

Like many states, Michigan has amended its Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) on a number of occasions in recent years for the professed purpose of making Michigan communities safer and aiding law enforcement in the task of bringing recidivists to justice. Thus, what began in 1994 as a non-public registry maintained solely for law enforcement use . . . has grown into a byzantine code governing in minute detail the lives of the state’s sex offenders . . . Over the first decade or so of SORA’s existence, most of the changes centered on the role played by the registry itself. In 1999, for example, the legislature added the requirement that sex offenders register in person (either quarterly or annually, depending on the offense) and made the registry available online, providing the public with a list of all registered sex offenders’ names, addresses, biometric data, and, since 2004, photographs. . . . Michigan began taking a more aggressive tack in 2006, however, when it amended SORA to prohibit registrants (with a few exceptions . . .) from living, working, or “loitering”1 within 1,000 feet of a school. . . . In 2011, the legislature added the requirement that registrants be divided into three tiers, which ostensibly correlate to current dangerousness, but which are based, not on individual assessments, but solely on the crime of conviction. . . . The 2011 amendments also require all registrants to appear in person “immediately” to update information such as new vehicles or “internet identifiers” (e.g., a new email account). . . . Violations carry heavy criminal penalties.

The Plaintiffs in this case—identified here only as five “John Does” and one “Mary Doe”—are registered “Tier III” sex offenders currently residing in Michigan. It is undisputed on appeal that SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments apply to them retroactively. That law has had a significant impact on each of them that reaches far beyond the stigma of simply being identified as a sex offender on a public registry. As a result of the school zone restrictions, for example, many of the Plaintiffs have had trouble finding a home in which they can legally live or a job where they can legally work. These restrictions have also kept those Plaintiffs who have children (or grandchildren) from watching them participate in school plays or on school sports teams, and they have kept Plaintiffs from visiting public playgrounds with their children for fear of “loitering.” Plaintiffs are also subject to the frequent inconvenience of reporting to law enforcement in person whenever they change residences, change employment, enroll (or unenroll) as a student, change their name, register a new email address or other “internet identifier,” wish to travel for more than seven days, or buy or begin to use a vehicle (or cease to own or use a vehicle).

After an extensive analysis that explains why the SORA amendments are punitive and, therefore, qualify as retroactive punishment, Judge Batchelder concludes:

A regulatory regime that severely restricts where people can live, work, and “loiter,” that categorizes them into tiers ostensibly corresponding to present dangerousness without any individualized assessment thereof, and that requires time-consuming and cumbersome in-person reporting, all supported by—at best—scant evidence that such restrictions serve the professed purpose of keeping Michigan communities safe, is something altogether different from and more troubling than Alaska’s first-generation registry law. SORA brands registrants as moral lepers solely on the basis of a prior conviction. It consigns them to years, if not a lifetime, of existence on the margins, not only of society, but often, as the record in this case makes painfully evident, from their own families, with whom, due to school zone restrictions, they may not even live. It directly regulates where registrants may go in their daily lives and compels them to interrupt those lives with great frequency in order to appear in person before law enforcement to report even minor changes to their information.

We conclude that Michigan’s SORA imposes punishment. And while many (certainly not all) sex offenses involve abominable, almost unspeakable, conduct that deserves severe legal penalties, punishment may never be retroactively imposed or increased. Indeed, the fact that sex offenders are so widely feared and disdained by the general public implicates the core countermajoritarian principle embodied in the Ex Post Facto clause. As the founders rightly perceived, as dangerous as it may be not to punish someone, it is far more dangerous to permit the government under guise of civil regulation to punish people without prior notice. Such lawmaking has “been, in all ages, [a] favorite and most formidable instrument[] of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 84, supra at 444 (Alexander Hamilton). It is, as Justice Chase argued, incompatible with both the words of the Constitution and the underlying first principles of “our free republican governments.” Calder, 3 U.S. at 388–89; accord The Federalist No. 44, supra at 232 (James Madison) (“[E]x post facto laws . . . are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”). The retroactive application of SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments to Plaintiffs is unconstitutional, and it must therefore cease.

Kaminetsky:Greenblatt Heter: The Horse and the Rider - Chazal talk about the fraudulent denial of liability for sins

Guest Post by Joe Orlow. 

Joe Orlow is to be commended for his devotion to the cause of seeking the truth of the Torah and exposing Lies. Remaining silent "for the kavod of gedolim" - is just causing the internal rot of our souls - because we all know the truth and we are required to protest. Pretending that Tamar and Adam are not committing adultery because the "gedolim" gave a false heter - doesn't change reality.

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

The crux of the matter is how Halacha is decided. In this case, the Halacha was "Pore'ach Min Ha'Avir", it sprouted out of thin air. We find this decision making process at the crossing of the Red Sea. The horse claimed: "I did nothing wrong. I relied on the driver who gave me directions." The driver claimed: "I did nothing wrong. The horse galloped on its own into battle. I was dragged along into chasing Bnai Yisrael."

What happens, according to the Medrash? The driver is put on the horse and together they are both tossed into the sea.

Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky told me that if I want, I can rely on Rabbi Nota Greenblatt in regard to the Heter for Tamar Epstein to marry Adam without a Get from her husband Aharon Friedman. Rabbi Greenblatt says he performed the marriage of Tamar to Adam by relying on the Gadolim, an apparent reference to Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. There you have it: "Sus V'Rachvo".

The effect of all this is to corrode the Kedusha of the Jewish Nation. And it leads to absurdities. Rabbi Hillel David told me that he sat on the Feinstein Bais Din and that the Bais Din ruled that Tamar is married to Aharon. Are Tamar's future progeny to be Mamzer in Manhattan but not in Memphis?

Worse than this is that some young Torah Scholars in America are becoming jaded. They think -- consciously or not -- that the Agudath Israel is a corrupt organization. The Moetzes Gadolai Hatorah is corrupt. Their attitude becomes: "Ah! But what can you do?"

What can you do? You can shriek from the rooftops! The Jewish People may be splitting into two Nations that can't marry into each other. We'll survive. But can we survive with a Rabbinate that is cynical and steeped in hopelessness?

The outrage against the Avlah of the Feinstein Bais Din is pent up, but I'm told from a reliable source that the outrage is there. I say that when outrage is repressed, the capacity to become outraged becomes blunted and stunted.

If we don't stand up and protest now, the situation will only deteriorate until we are left barren without anyone who will even listen to our cries.

Ekev 76 - What you resist, persists - the case for positive education

Guest Post by Allan Katz

In our parasha, Moses continues to encourage the nation to trust in God to ensure the successful conquest and settlement of the land. In order to help the nation build trust in God and see God as the source of their success and power, Moses describes God's care and providence. God protected them from the hardships of the desert,' HE fed you the manna, your garment did not wear out upon you and your feet did not swell' – ויאכילך את המן, שמלתך לא בלתה ורגלך לא בצקה . Moses reminds them that the goodness comes with challenges and hardships in order to prepare them for life in the land of Israel. In order to survive in Israel, one needs a high level of faith and trust in God and life in the desert למען ענתך לנסותך, ויענך וירעבך ויאכילך את המן, כאשר ייסר איש את בנו - living a life dependent on miracles, not being able to store food for the next day and or do anything that will give life some certainty and predictability, prepared them for life in Israel. They should know that this path was for their benefit. Moses then warns about the dangers that prosperity brings – arrogance, self- aggrandizement and self- glorification. This leads to forgetting God and saying ' it is my strength and the might of my hand that made me all this wealth'. Ultimately this leads to idolatry, going after the gods of others.

כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי, עָשָׂה לִי אֶת-הַחַיִל הַזֶּה. וְהָיָה, אִם-שָׁכֹחַ תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וְהָלַכְתָּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים

The first question is that on entry into the land of Israel, the children of Israel are commanded to destroy all manifestations and vestiges of idolatry as it would be unbefitting that idolatry should exist in God's palace, the land of Israel. So why is Moses so concerned about idolatry, if the land has been cleaned out of any temptations and enticement? The 2nd question – prosperity allows people to be independent rather than dependent on God and so people attribute their success to their own efforts and beings, rather than God's support, so why would people then subjugate themselves and submit to idols. ? R' Isaac Sher gives 2 answers. At a time when there existed a passion for idolatry, people had the power to use these negative forces of idolatry to improve their materialistic situations. The second answer - when a man attributes all his success to his own doing, he is denying God's role and he begins to worship himself. A person who is rude and coarse, gets angry – thinks he is a god and people have to listen to him. A person who is arrogant and self-glorifies himself is involved in idolatry = uvoda zara. An atheist or non-believer, even though he does not believe in anything but himself is also an idolater. When one puts his trust in others and flatters people with power - החונף he is considered worse than an idolater. A person who is an idolater's slave is considered as if he serves idolatry. The verse in Judges 10: 6 gives a list of gods of the surrounding nations that the children of Israel worshipped and served. ויעבדו את הבעלים ואת העשתרות ואת אלהי ארם ואת אלהי צידון ואת אלהי מואב ואת אלהי בני עמון ואת אלהי פלשתיםThe Midrash connects this idolatry to the children of Israel's laziness and lack of effort in prayer. R' Isaac Sher explains that when people do not tire from activities that serve their interests but are tired when it comes to prayer, it means that the nation places more value and trust in political agreements and alliances with the surrounding nations than prayer, and that people have more faith in their efforts than in prayer. When this happens – it is as if the nation serves the gods of these nations and people who cheapen prayer do the same.

Although there is a commandment to clear out and destroy idols and manifestations of idolatry, the thrust of Moses' speech is positive, focusing on building trust and relationship with God. If you have a problem with idolatry, the underlying problem is your relationship with God. The problem is mainly within man and not outside of him, so we focus on building personalities rather than engineering the environment so there is not temptation or enticement.

A similar problem - a man is overcome with lustful thoughts when he is certain environments. The Talmid= student of R' Chaim Volozhin, the Keter Rosh wrote down the teachings of his mentor. He writes about a man, (most likely unmarried) who had a problem with impure thoughts when he sees women. In order to deal with his problem and fight his lustful thoughts he decides to make a vow not to look at women. If he breaks his vow and looks at a woman, his desire will burn inside him like a fire. The situation is much worse, since he fought reality and energized the negative action he was fighting. Instead, he should accept the reality and pray for God's assistance and mercy in dealing with the challenges as he ventures into the market place. He is not told to avoid the market place. R' Moshe Feinstein said– if a person is challenged by public transport he should know he has a problem and work on himself.

כתר ראש ארחות חיים קצה ] הסתכלות עריות ושיחתן אמר זה הכלל כל מה שינדור א״ע ויפרוש מראיה אח״כ אם יראה ויביט יבער בו היצר כאש, אלא כשדעתו לילך בשוק יתפלל ויבקש רחמים לבל יכשל ח׳יו בשום נדנוד חטא והרהור עבירה ר׳ל;

כתר ראש - הנהגותיו שנכתבו בידי תלמידו של ר, חיים מולוזהין רבי אשר הכהן משערשוב.

When we are dealing with children we need to give them structure and make the environment safe and protect them from e.g. bad diet – sugar and the media. The solution for adults – engineering the environment beyond the demands of Halacha – Jewish Law so that the environment will be free of any temptation or challenges has many downsides. The focus is no longer on positive education and building righteous people who can overcome challenges, but on creating a sterile environment and fighting the external threats to a person's spirituality. There is another problem – when you fight ' evil', you actually support and strengthen ' evil' as Carl Jung said - 'what you resist persists'. The answer is to accept reality and not to fight reality and then focus on positive steps and education which will help you change reality. ' 'What you resist , persists' - means that if a person has a character flaw – lustful thoughts , or he has an anger problem or he has food or drink problems, the more the person fights the reality, the bigger the problem becomes. He has ' energized the problem and given it center stage in his life. Instead of going away, it fights back and persists. If a man has bad thoughts, he can use the principles of Mindfulness – acknowledge his thoughts, put them aside and then focus on his breathing and then something else. If he tries to resist these thoughts, they fight back and persist. He should be building his personality so his mind is occupied with ideas or being mindful of what he is doing so he is not distracted. He should try to see the image of God – צלם אלוקים in each person and relate to their contribution to society instead of focusing on their gender. If he breaks his diet , resists and fights back by being over-critical of himself, full of shame , he will ultimately give up , and say ' what the hell and then he will go on the binge – eating and drinking without any restraints. So a person with a drink or diet problem , needs a plan that will focus on what he can eat , replacement foods , a new life style instead of focusing of what he should not eat. When he does fail and breaks his diet, he should have some self- compassion instead of being over- critical and giving energy to breaking his diet and focus on getting back on track. Campaigns against 'talking in shul ' will be more successful if they focus on positive education and not ' energizing' talking in shul. Campaigns about the dangers of internet and cell phones tend to cause people to shift blame from people and their relationships or exploring underlying problems and just blame it all on the internet. People forget that the most potent and dangerous communication tool is our tongues and not the cell phone or the internet. Here too, we need to focus on the positive, what we can talk about and connect with people in a positive way. Even if a person makes a conservative and restricted choice concerning the media, he has to remember the downside of resisting and energizing the dangers - the negative side and focus on positive education. In politics, candidates in election who focus on the negative of their opponents rather than saying something positive about themselves, strengthen their opponents. The campaign to remain in the European Community failed because it focused on negative consequences of leaving rather than the positive reasons for staying in the community. Instead of giving a list of what pupils cannot do in the holidays, a teacher should focus on what they could do.

There is tendency in education to try and control the environment and people's choices rather focus on positive education and build people. When the focus is on fighting the negative, we need to understand the downside – 'what we resist persists.'.