Burning chametz is dangerous for children

JPost

Last year in Bnei Brak and environs, 70 children were hurt while burning the remaining leaven (hametz) from their homes. On Friday morning, when the hametz is burned in a fire before Passover begins that evening, an effort is being made to prevent such accidents there and in other locations around the country.

Among the injured children that United Hatzalah of the Dan Region treated last year was a 10-year-old boy who was hurt when burning cardboard hit his face. A group of kindergarten children were injured when an inflammable spray can was “accidentally” thrown into the bonfire and exploded.

Child slavery in India is normal

NYTimes

After a firefighter rescued her, the girl described a life akin to slavery, child welfare officials said. Her uncle had sold her to a job placement agency, which sold her to the couple, both doctors. The girl was paid nothing. She said the couple barely fed her and beat her if her work did not meet expectations. She said they used closed-circuit cameras to make certain she did not take extra food. 

In India, reported to have more child laborers than any other country in the world, child labor and trafficking are often considered symptoms of poverty: desperately poor families sell their children for work, and some end up as prostitutes or manual laborers. [...]

“There is a huge, huge demand,” said Ravi Kant, a lawyer with Shakti Vahini, a nonprofit group that combats child trafficking. “The demand is so huge that the government is tending toward regulation rather than saying our children should not work but should be in school.”

An insider explains why the internet is harmful

McDonald's claims to be kosher for Pesach!

Netziv:Jews in Egypt did not keep Torah & Mitzvos

Netziv (Bamidbar 15:41): I am the L-rd your G‑d…I am the L‑rd your G‑d. This repetition is explained in Menachos(44a) as G‑d will give punishment in the future and He will give reward in the future. However according to the plain meaning it is describing two types of circumstances for serving G‑d. When the Jews were in Egypt there were some very spiritual people who were attached to G‑d and G‑d in turn watched over them in miraculous fashion according their spiritual level. In contrast the masses prior to being redeemed from Egypt knew nothing about Torah and mitzvos. Consequently they did not have Divine providence (hashgocha protis) as individuals for their deeds until they were actually redeemed from Egypt and accepted the Torah and mitzvos. After they accepted the Torah and mitzvos the nature of providence changed so that it was a direct result of their deeds – but it was concealed. That is why there is a repetition of this phrase. Corresponding to the first “I am the L‑rd your G‑d” it indicates that providence is a reflection of the individual’s deeds since it adds that the Jews were taken out of Egypt. The second time it states “I am the L‑rd your G‑d” without mentioning the redemption from Egypt and thus it refers to the relationship that existed in Egypt itself. Thus we see that hashgocha protis is dependent on observing mitzvos and is different for those on a high spiritual level…. In Egypt the Jews had not accepted the Torah and mitzvos and in fact did not know what they were – except for the greatest of the generation who had received the traditions from the Patriarchs. But in general Torah had been forgotten from the masses and those who wanted to serve G‑d did it according to what made sense or seemed nice. In contrast when they were redeemed from Egypt G‑d gave them all Torah and mitzvos…

[A related idea is found here ]

Chazon Ish (Letters I:208): Responded to the assertion that the Jews in Egypt were on the highest level in Torah, Mitzvos, faith and piety. The assertion was based upon the medrashism which said that the righteous women went to the fields and gave birth and left their children and there were many miracles done for them…The deduction being that surely because of these righteous women and these miracles – the entire Jewish people must of have been totally devoted to G-d and his mitvos. A further foundation of this assertion was the medrash which states that the Jews were only enslaved for 86 years and that this is insufficient time to become significantly dissolute and debased. The Chazon Ish said that these deduction have no basis since they are all against what Chazal themselves say on the subject.   He concludes that the assertion that it was impossible for the Jews to become ruined since they saw miracles is not valid. In fact the Jews saw miracles when they were redeemed from Egypt and at the Sea, as well as the Manna and at the giving of the Torah – and yet they made the Golden Calf. Furthermore there were 10 miracles at the Beis HaMikdash and many miracles and wonders done by the Prophets – nevertheless this did not prevent them from having free will to serve idols. one should not interpret the early generations in such a way that it is impossible for us to comprehend and learn from them. In fact they had free will and this is the main thing in avodas HaShem.

Rav Schachter: Withholding get is serious aveira

Plight of the Agunah - video

See from 40 minutes - 50 minutes where he states that not giving a wife a get in the case of ma'os alei is a serious aveira. That there are three levels of pressure - where the gemora says a divorce is required then the husband can be beaten. In cases where gemora doesn't say to force a get - you have the procedures  of Rabbeinu Tam - which is to put in him cherem and destroy his livelihood  - but that isn't done today. The third level is to humiliate him with demonstrations etc etc. He claims the 3rd level can be used in the case of ma'os  alei -where the wife simply doesn't want to remain married to him

Response to R' Jeremy Stern's criticism

 Guest Post:

If Jeremy Stern claims [noted on this posting] that there is anything false or misleading with the summary of the case as posted on this blog, or as described in greater detail with citations at stuffandnonsensesaidalice- let him say specifically what is not true. 

From the beginning of Ora's involvement in this case, Jeremy Stern has acted in a matter best described as immature, dishonest, inflammatory, and irresponsible, seemingly designed to achieve maximum publicity for himself and Ora. Indeed, one might question whether Ora and Jeremy Stern are acting with any regard for whether Tamar actually receives a get. Ora has done everything it could to turn a very personal matter that could and should have been settled privately into a national and international news story, without any regard whatsoever for the interests of the parties' child. He acts out of his own self interest and has twisted all the facts of this case from the beginning.

He also claims he has the backing of R. Schachter - This is true on paper, but R. Schachter made it very clear Thursday night at the YU symposium that he does not look into the details and basically lets Jeremy Stern do what he wants. The day after (Friday), after reading the article by the mediator Rosenfeld, R. Schachter told a talmid of his "maybe I was all wrong in the Epstein Friedman case - maybe I should have looked into the facts, and not just relied on R. Kaminetsky doing so" So much for completely destroying a person, and THEN looking into the facts.

Please see the following email (the text of which is still at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcor/message/2429) that for some reason, is not currently on Ora's website.

How can anyone believe that Jeremy Stern and Ora have any credibility whatsoever? He states clearly (see below):

 "From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media."

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Rabbi Jeremy Stern
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Response to the New York Times
To: Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot
Reaffirming Our Values:
A Response to the New York Times
Friday, January 7th, 2011 / ב' שבט תשע"א

Dear ORA Supporter, An article in the New York Times this week has brought national attention to the Epstein-Friedman agunah case and the plight of agunot. From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media. To that end, ORA did not solicit the article, we declined to comment to the reporter, and we turned down many requests for interviews from other major media outlets. The NYT article contains one important factual error that warrants clarification, available here. The article has provided us with an opportunity to reflect on ORA's core values. Though some non-profit advocacy groups are focused on promoting the cause, our concern at ORA is with resolving each case. With that in mind, we advocate and raise awareness according to what is most effective for the cases at hand. We work very diligently in every case to verify the facts and perspectives, under the halakhic guidance of our posek, Rav Hershel Schachter, shlit"a. Divorce is tragic and challenging under almost all circumstances, often entailing much he said/she said. However, as a matter of public policy, in order to preserve the beauty and integrity of our Torah, a get must never - under any possible circumstance - be used as leverage to negotiate the contentious issues of a divorce settlement. I want to personally thank you for supporting our efforts on behalf of Tamar and the 60 other agunot whom we currently are assisting. Please feel free to contact me via email or at our office (212-795-0791). All the best, Jeremy

Dana Melnik: It’s Not All About the Get

Guest post by Dana Melnik

The concept of a Get, a Jewish religious divorce, in today's day and age has intrigued enough people to make national headlines, such as the New York Times, but the media has lost focus of what is really important here.  The child.   I am not an expert on paper, not a psychologist, not a lawyer and I don't have any fancy degrees.   I write this as a mother and a daughter.  Withholding a Get has been used throughout history, the majority of the time, to oppress the woman in which case I support organizations, such as ORA (Organization for the Resolution of Agunot), efforts and attempts to try and break this trend, but in the Epstein-Friedman matter this is not the case. The divorce rate today is high. It's unfortunate for the parents but even more unfortunate for the children. People fail to remember that when kids are involved, the stakes are quite high.

For the most part, growing up, my understanding of divorce was that when a mother and father split, the mother always got full custody of the kids with the father having visitation and maybe seeing the child/children every other weekend.  It seemed pretty straightforward to me.  The father wasn't as attached as the mother and he was simply able to pick up, move on and establish a new life with minimal contact with his children.  It seemed like the norm to me.  After all, I had friends and even family whose parents divorced and this seemed to be what always happened.  However, all that changed when it came to my own daughter.

I moved to Maryland from New York with my husband, for my husband actually, with our 6 week old daughter.  For whatever the reasons were, our marriage didn't work out and we began the process of separation. There was a lot going on at the beginning and of course things were tense.  They are ALWAYS tense at the beginning.  Separating and getting divorced is NEVER easy, and there were bumps in the road, but we were determined to work on a good schedule that would accommodate both of us for our daughter’s well being.  Of course, the thought crossed my mind numerous times to move close to family since I had no one here to help me out.  With a full time job and a toddler, things can get really difficult, but how was I going to move away, when she had a father who loved her so much.  How was I going to explain, when she got a little older, that I intentionally took her away from her father just to make my life a little bit easier for the short term? What goes on between husband and wife should not affect the relationship a daughter deserves to have with her father.  I can tell you from personal experience and seeing the way my daughter interacts with her father and the relationship I have with my father, that there is NO substitute for that!  The child deserves two parents, not necessarily who are together, but who realize the importance of keeping things amicable and working together to raise the child. There seem to be two main factors that come in to play when parents get divorced and children are involved. The legal aspect in the court system and 2)  The emotional aspect. Unfortunately many states and their court systems don't take the idea of co-parenting, shared custody, into account when deciding custody.  Family law has left a lot of room for interpretation on custody and what is really best for the child, allowing the Judge, in every case, to pretty much determine a child and parent’s destiny. This has become an issue which affects not only the parents in very long drawn out custody disputes but affects the child tremendously. The idea from the beginning should be to involve both parents in the child's life equally.  Ron Henry, a children’s advocacy attorney in Washington, D.C.,  has focused his efforts on trying to "demilitarize" divorce.  He works on the legal reform level to try and get laws passed which make courts start every custody case with the idea of co-parenting.  Unfortunately, every state is different when it comes to its family laws and no state is perfect in protecting the child’s right to have two actively involved parents but there has been progress. The District of Columbia, for example, has a statute that creates a presumption of joint custody that Mr. Henry helped to write.  Maryland has no such statute and judges sometimes allow one parent’s manipulation to squeeze the other parent out of the child’s life.  In the case of Aharon Friedman, Tamar, took their child to Philadelphia and the court allowed her to keep the child there, making it extremely difficult for Mr. Friedman to establish a relationship with his daughter or even a workable custody schedule (he works a full time job).  This makes no sense to me as a mother who understands that a fathers right to an equal amount of time should never be taken away from him barring egregious circumstances, which is not the case here.

The second issue here is the emotional aspect of the parents.  The consistent argument here is that this issue has inflicted emotional pain on both sides, thereby not allowing the parents to think clearly for the child and what is in the child's best interest.  To that my answer is, grow up!  If the court has limited the father’s time with the child it does not mean that the mother shouldn't see the consequences a weak relationship with the father will have on the child down the

Most mothers don't believe that I have shared custody with my child’s father.  Our child spends half the time with her father and half the time with me.  I know my child’s father is an excellent father and my daughter loves him, so why should I fight for having more time?  Because I want more child support?  Because I'm her mother so naturally she should be with me?  Is it for emotional reasons?  I can't separate from my child?  All these reasons are selfish.  Most mothers fight out of guilt.  If I don't fight for my child and have them a majority of the time, what kind of mother am I?    What kind of mother is able to be away from her child half the week and be okay with that?  Well, how about a mother who is confident the daughter is being well taken care of by her father and if she didn't have a strong relationship with both parents in her life there is the concern of what might happen down the line.  Children want love and need two parents.

Mr. Friedman is holding on to what he believes is his last hope which might allow him to establish a relationship with his daughter.  Who can blame him?   Every man is the "tough guy" until they are actually put in that situation.

"Forcing a get if there is a civil divorce is evil!"

A close friend of my was speaking with a godol in Yerushalayim yesterday and mentioned that there are rabbis who claim that once there is a civil divorce and no chance of reconciliation - that the wife has the right to demand a get. His reaction was that such a rabbi was a rosho and was causing others to sin.

ORA's coercing a get: Publicly Humiliate family

Fliers are regularly distributed in Brooklyn where Aharon Friedman's family lives. Don't know of any halachic justification for publicly humiliating family

One of the involved parties requested that I take off the poster

Friedman-Epstein Facts: Beis din's involvement

 [update: 4/3/12  Just had a long talk with R' Jeremy Stern of Ora regarding this post which he strongly questions the accuracy of the assertions.

To clarify issues that might be misunderstood.
First of all this is a guest post - it was not written by me.
Second Ora has an alternative scenario which can be accessed by this link
Thirdly - Rabbi Stern and I have strong disagreements on the halachic level as to the acceptability of ORA's tactics but as he says he is not a posek and just accepts that of Rav Schachter and others.]
===============================================
Epstein filed for divorce in civil court, not Friedman.  Friedman never agreed to a civil divorce; it was imposed by the court at Epstein's demand.

It is true that Friedman brought an emergency child custody motion, but that was only after Epstein had abducted the child, violated an agreement with Friedman regarding custody, severely limited the child's time with Friedman, (for example, Epstein had refused to let the child spend time with Friedman on Shabbos or Yom Tov for more than two months) and refused to negotiate or go with him to a rav to find a way to adjudicate their dispute.  Epstein's continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would transfer jurisdiction over the matter to the Pennsylvania court, unless Friedman filed in Maryland.  In addition, Epstein’s continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. 

What else was Friedman supposed to do if he wanted the child to spend time with him?  Get into a physical tug-of-war by grabbing the child back?  Spend months trying to get Epstein to come to a neutral Beis Din, during which time Epstein would continue to severely limit or entirely eliminate the child's time with him, and then Epstein would file in the Pennsylvania courts at which time Epstein's abduction of the child would be a fait accompli?  So Friedman asked a shai'la, and received a psak  to bring an emergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that he would bring the matter to Beis Din after the emergency hearing, before any further proceedings, such as a trial, in Court. 

And the key point regarding whether Friedman tried to have custody decided in civil court or Beis Din is that Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 civil trial to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din only because that was required by the psak and he wanted to follow halacha.  Friedman followed the psak to cancel the trial even though it was to his own severe disadvantage as: (1) Friedman had every reason to believe that the Court would have ruled in his favor at the October 2008 trial (based on the comments of the judge at the emergency motion and the severity with which the Comment to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act regards the abduction of children; even Epstein's lawyer, after lying as to whether Epstein had abducted the child, acknowledged that if she had abducted the child, it would look very bad at trial); and (2) even if Friedman prevailed in Beis Din (or the Beis Din would not ultimately decide custody), he would be at risk that the Court would ultimately decide the issue at a later date (the Court may not show deference to a Beis Din decision in custody cases, even if the parties have agreed to binding arbitration), and Friedman would be severely prejudiced in such a later proceeding by the fact that the child would have been in Pennsylvania for a much longer period.

And that is what happened.  The Baltimore Beis Din held several hearings into the case.  Epstein refused to follow the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case.  Thus, the civil trial was held in June 2009.  Epstein asked the court to rule that the child should stay in Pennsylvania because the child had been there for so long, which was the basis for the Court's decision that the child stay in Pennsylvania.  In fact, Epstein specifically argued that the child's time in Pennsylvania should be prejudicial because Friedman had agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial (in order to bring the case to beis din).  The Baltimore Beis Din has never ruled that a get be given.

Epstein and the rabbis supporting her are making a total mockery of the beis din system. 

Rabbi Schachter told Ami Magazine: "That we can’t have a bais din system that works is an embarrassment, a shanda and a cherpa."  Rabbi Schachter's actions in this case support and encourage the very manipulation and abuse of the beis din system he purports to oppose.

For those who are interested, a detailed summary of the case is at www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com

ORA's rally to force a get

Friedman-Epstein: Tamar's "matrydom" & R' Schachter folly!

I did a bit of investigation into the case and would like to convey what I have found. Contrary to the publicity of ORA and Rav Schachter who is the adviser and supporter of ORA - the Friedman-Epstein case is a very weak case - and is not that of an actual Aguna. A real case of Aguna is one in which husband disappeared and it is not known what happened. Another real case is one in which the husband is prohibited to the wife and yet he refuses to give a divorce. The present case is simply one in which Tamar decided she didn't want to be married to Aharon - also known as a case of ma'os alei.

Tamar made no complaints of being abused by her husband - she simply wanted out of the marriage. The claim of abuse is solely a circular one. She is abused because he won't give her a divorce and she wants to be divorced because he is abusive!

Aharon was in fact ready to give a get - he had one condition. She was to live in an apartment in Silver Spring so that he would be able to have access to his daughter. He said he would pay the rent. He was only asking for her to do this for one year - after that she was free to do what she wanted. She walked away from the deal and refused to negotiate. One of the most critical facts to understand this case of chilul haShem is that Tamar has consistently refused to accept mediation. It is her way or the highway.

The above facts make clear that there is absolutely no basis in halacha to require Aharon to give a get. Rav Shachter insists that the mere fact that Tamar wants out of the marriage is sufficient basis that Aharon must give a get. There is such a view asserted by Rav Chaim Palaggi - but apparently no one accepts this view. To give approval to ORA to persecute Aharon based on this principle - is simply outrageous. In addition the involvement of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky in this case is viewed as a major mistake - both politically and halachically - by those familiar with him and with the halachic issues. Rav Belsky and Rabbi Ralbag collectively represent a problematic duo when it comes to gittin - that is for a later post.

Tamar is her own worst enemy and has created a prison of her own making - with the enthusiastic assistance of ORA and Rav Schachter and the passive compliance of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.

On the other hand, what is Aharon benefiting by not giving a get? The issue of custody is not clear. There are clearly halachic views that a daughter belongs with her mother and that the father has no basis to demand custody or even regular visiting rights. A simple answer is it is a case of spitting on a person who has tried being fair and going beyond what is required - despite the personal pain. When you galvanize the press and orchestrate demonstrations against him as a "monster" - I don't know too many people who would lie down and say "please step on me again". 

In sum, Tamar could have had a get on very favorable terms from the beginning. Instead she has gotten wrapped up in being a martyr and is primarily focused on the cheers and adulation of ORA.  She is more focused on beating Aharon into submission and humiliating him - than she is on getting divorced and starting life over again. At this point it is up to Tamar whether she wants to change what she views as most important.

Allegations of major extortion operation against Chareidi world

Haaretz

"This is going to be one of the biggest extortion scandals in the history of Israel," a senior ultra-Orthodox figure told Haaretz Sunday, following the arrest of four directors of the popular Haredi website Behadrey Haredim. 

 

The four senior directors of the website were arrested Sunday morning at their homes and the website's offices in Tel Aviv, and taken for questioning in Jerusalem. 

Some of the website's employees told Haaretz they were completely taken by surprise by the arrests, but rumors circulating in Haredi circles for the past year describe a system of extortion by the website's directors against dozens of Haredi figures, some of whom are very well known. According to the rumors, the directors would approach well-known figures and demand a sum - anywhere from several thousand dollars to NIS 100,000 - in return for withholding publication of potentially damaging information. On Sunday, the police interviewed dozens of people who revealed various details about the website in past few years.

Prohibiting Archaos (Civil Courts) & Mesirah

http://www.mishpattsedek.com/KolKoreh-70Rabbis.htm

Suicide-murder after mistaken child abuse allegations

Denver Post

Photos and memories are all that the families have of Tiffany and Dave O'Shell and their daughter, Alyssa, a beautiful baby with green eyes, a mop of red hair and a great smile. At three months, child protection workers took Alyssa and handed her to a foster mother.

"I know he would never hurt her intentionally," Tiffany O'Shell told a Commerce City police investigator about her husband and his treatment of their daughter, Alyssa. "He loves her to death."

Two weeks before, on June 17, 2008, Adams County child protection workers had taken Alyssa and handed her to a foster mother. They did so after a hospital found 11 broken bones in Alyssa's 3-month-old legs, but no bruises or other signs of abuse.

Dave and Tiffany had been allowed to see their daughter just once in those two weeks. Tiffany's lawyer was advising her to divorce her husband if she ever wanted her baby back. Clouds of suspicion swirled around Dave. Police were about to arrest him, he thought, for felony child abuse. He had grown more despondent day by day.

Nobody seemed to hear the family's pleas that there must be some other explanation for all those broken bones. [...]

Suicide rather than being old & gay

NYTimes

BOB BERGERON was so relentlessly cheery that people sometimes found it off-putting. If you ran into him at the David Barton Gym on West 23rd Street, where he worked out nearly ever morning at 7, and you complained about the rain, he would smile and say you’d be better off focusing on a problem you could fix.[....]

It was a topic he knew something about. Having come out as gay in the mid-1980s, Mr. Bergeron, 49, had witnessed the worst years of the AIDS epidemic and emerged on the other side. He had also seen how few public examples there were of gay men growing older gracefully. [...]

The inference was clear. As Mr. Bergeron saw it at the end of his life, the only right side of 40 was the side that came before it.

State religious school bans fathers from school party

YNET

The struggle for the face of state-religious education continues: Fathers of girls at the Noam-Haro'e religious school in Ramat Gan claim they were not allowed to participate in a school event for their six grade daughters' Bat Mitzvah on Sunday. The reason for the ban is modesty – a halachic prohibition on men to watch women sing and dance.[...]

The father, himself a graduate of the state-religious educational system, said classes were mixed in his day. Since then, he said, a radicalization process emerged introducing norms of modesty which he described as distasteful and unprecedented. Gal noted that in some cases separation was imposed as early as pre-school years.

Noam Haro'e is one of Ramat Gan's oldest state-religious schools. However, over the years the neighborhood's religious communities have been replaced by more Orthodox families who direct the school's religious character. According to Gal, "they eliminate the wishes of the silent, sane majority.

Chinuch as tochacha for teenagers & young adults

 The mitzva of chinuch is generally understood to be from about 5 years till bar mitzva. However there is another aspect of chinuch which is giving tochacha. Both are learned from the same verse in Mishlei (22:6).

Kiddushin(30a) says, Raba said to R. Nathan b. Ammi: Whilst your hand is yet upon your son's neck,[you should get him married] which is  between sixteen and twenty-two. Others state, Between eighteen and twenty-four. This is disputed by Tannaim. Mishlei (22:6) Train up a youth in the way he should go: R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ thereon]. One maintains, [Youth means] between sixteen and twenty-two; the other affirms, Between eighteen and twenty-four.

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

Rashi explains, When your hand is still on your son's neck - means when you still have power and influence over your son before he gets older and doesn't listen to your admonition you should get him married. ... Another explanation is that the time while you still have influence over him take care to teach him instructions & chastise him and this time is from the age of 16 until 22. Prior to this time he doesn't have the mental ability to accept your instructions & chastisements so much. On the other hand if you try chastising  him and pressuring him with punishments after the age of 22 there is concern that he might rebel - and this main understanding of this gemora. According to his way - meaning you should teach him in his youth the path that he should follow for the rest of his life. The time for this teaching is a dispute as to whether it is between 16-22 or 18-24.

Meiri (Kiddushin 30a), A person should always focus his attention of supervising his children and to continually give instruction and correction whether they are old or young. Nevertheless the proper time to make successfully reprimand him is from the time the mind starts maturing until it is mature. That is from the age of 16 to 24. Prior to 16 he doesn't have have sufficient maturity and after 24 he doesn't really listen anymore. So this is the best time to continually convey reprimands and instructions  regarding the son.:

Gang-raped, burned & murdered - police cover-up

NYTimes

The crime was shocking enough: an 18-year-old woman gang-raped, half strangled, set on fire and left for dead. But what sent hundreds of Ukrainians into the streets and rushing to her hospital to give blood this month was a police decision to free two suspects rumored to be politically connected. 

The uproar has shaken the upper echelons of Ukraine’s government. On Thursday, three weeks after the attack, the young woman died. Viktor F. Yanukovich, the president, and Nikolai Azarov, the prime minister, were among the first to offer condolences — along with vows that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. [...]

For Ukrainians transfixed by her ordeal, she came to embody long-simmering animosities over government impotence and impunity for the privileged in this former Soviet nation. It was only after the street protests and Mr. Yanukovich’s personal intervention that the police in the small southern town of Nikolayev re-arrested the young men. On Thursday, they and a third jailed suspect were officially charged with murder.

Silence & self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up

This is too much of he says/she says- without providing enough solid evidence - but it does a good job of reviewing the major issues and shows that despite progress - there is still a long way to go.

British Guardian

When Mordechai discovered his mentally disabled child was being molested, he reported the crime to the police. A local man was arrested and charged with repeatedly raping the boy in their synagogue's ritual bath. When news of the arrest got back to their Brooklyn community, the neighbours launched a hate campaign. But the object of their anger wasn't the alleged perpetrator, Meir Dascalowitz, it was the abused boy's father. 

For the last two years, Mordechai says he's been hounded by his community. "The minute this guy got arrested I started a new life, a life of hell, terror, threat, you name it." There were bogus calls to the fire department resulting in unwelcome late night visits, anonymous death threats, banishment from synagogue, even a plot to derail his move to a new apartment. "I lost my friends. I lost my family. Nobody in Williamsburg can talk to me. Nobody means nobody. We are so angry, so broken." 

Mordechai's persecution is part of a widespread cover-up of child sexual abuse among Brooklyn's ultra-Orthodox Jews. With echoes of the Catholic priest scandal, for decades rabbis have hushed up child sex crimes and fomented a culture in which victims are further victimised and abusers protected.

Forced Get: Rav Schachter's use of public humiliation

 In order to focus more directly on the serious halachic issues I am copying a sampling of comments from a previous post   Rav Herschel Shacter: Options for Agunot. 

[PLEASE STOP THE NAME CALLING - IT ONLY CAUSES READERS TO DISCOUNT YOUR STATEMENTS]

The issues of concern here are 1) Is there is an widely accepted basis of forcing a husband to give a get through public humiliation - after she has left him and gone to secular court and refuses mediation in a case where she claims she can't stand him (mo'us alei). In particular where there is already a civil divorce and no chance of reconciliation - does a beis din have the right and duty to force him to give a get. This would exclude suggestions which are clearly labeled as potentially l'halacha  but not applicable at present l'maaseh . Explicitly saying that it is perceived as a constructive proposal that needs agreement of gedolim. 2) Is  obtaining a get in this manner  a pyrrhic victory since it is viewed as an innovation and thus many poskim hold that use of humiliation produces at least a doubtful get and thus future children would be sofek mamzerim? 3) Does refusing a summons to a particular beis din - even one that is perceived as hostile or biased -  justify the beis din encouraging a public campaign of humilation and vilification? 4) Is there an acceptable protocol for obtaining a get when the wife doesn't want to remain in the marriage.

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

Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMar 26, 2012 05:27 PM

I have listened to the first section of the lecture by Rabbi Shachter about Agunoth and I think it is completely wrong. He says basically that the various pressures available to coerce a GET, beating, Beth Din commanding the husband to divorce, or passive ostracizing, are things to discuss when a husband supports his wife and they are living together but the wife wants out. However, says Rabbi Shachter, if the wife has left the husband, and surely if she has a civil divorce, we may beat the husband with sticks to force him to divorce. This is completely wrong.

The laws of a woman who spurns her husband and wants a GET are not where RS says it is, in chapter 154 but in chapter 77. There the SA does not mention forcing the husband, as the Rashbo forbids coercing the husband with MOUS OLEI. Forcing is mentioned only in chapter 154 regarding a forbidden marriage where we can use force to coerce a GET. The next category in 154 is when the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not say to force the husband. In that case, the Beth Din can tell the husband he is a sinner and people can call him a ROSHO, but no humiliation or active pressure is permitted. Ramo says that in such a case, where the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not clearly state to force the GET, we may do a passive ostracizing. The Vilna Gaon and others say this only applies with two conditions: One, that the Talmud says there must be a GET, and two, the husband can escape the ostracizing by going to a different town. It is not permitted to ostracize the husband passively in a case where the wife wants a divorce, so the ostracizing is not mentioned in chapter 77 where these laws are taught.
The Ramo permits passive ostracizing only when the Talmud comands a GET and not when the wife wants a GET. THe Shach and Chcazon Ish forbid even passive ostracizing even when the Talmud commands a GET.

Thus, Rabbi Schachter is completely wrong, and he has no support for his opinion, and whoever follows his opinion such as ORA with its public humiliation of the husband will produce children considered by normative halacha to be mamzerim.

Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn Mar 29, 2012 05:52 PM

Someone challenged me here: "1) The opinions you are putting forward are not universally accepted. There are a great many Acharonim and Poskim that allow a forced get עישוי כדין." Okay. A great many Acharonim and Poskim. Tell me one.

The halacha is clear: Some men, such as he who marries a forbidden women, is coerced severely and physically. Someone the Talmud demands that he divorce his wife but does not call for coercion, is not beaten, and any coercion is a problem and machlokes, but these are rare cases. We are talking here about MOUS OLEI, and I want you to tell me one major Acharon who permits coercing a husband to divorce his wife with public humiliation when his wife leaves him.

I have been careful in this blog and elsewhere to support my comments with sources. Where are your sources? Even R Schachter has no sources, other than the need to help Agunoth and the airy opinion that all of the sources I quote are only talking about when the wife didn't leave the husband, a ridiculous statement that no normative posek would make.

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

Rabbi Michael Tzadok

Some clarification:

Are you asking specifically in the Friedman-Ephraim case or in general?

Regarding the Friedman-Ephraim case:

1) There is seems to be no valid halakhic reason to compel a Get עישוי גט by any method as the case has not come before a B"D.

2) Public embarrassment however is warranted on the sole fact that Friedman refuses to appear before a B"D. I have above quoted the Sh"A on that matter, see there.

Regarding עישוי גט for a wife saying is is repulsed by her husband מאוס עלי you have two categories:

1) No extenuating circumstances There are Poskim who rule that in such a case there are ways to coerce a get עישוי גט כדין(admittedly none of which rely upon public embarrassment). They are:

a)Rabbi Moshe Feinstein Iggrot Moshe EhE 3:44, 4:106

b)Rabbi Ovadiah Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 2:8 and 6:17

2)When there are extenuation circumstances. If there is abuse, emotional, physical or sexual, or for a variety of other reasons. In such cases the B"D may ossur the wife to the husband and thus act accordingly:

a) Rav Ovadia Yosef Yabia Omer Ehe 3:18 and 3:20

b) Rav Ovadia Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 5:67 6:15(and numerous other places)

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

Yitzy Hillel Mar 29, 2012 11:29 PM

L'kavod Harav

After a week of research on the inyan of meos aliu, I have concluded that Rabbi Shachters actions can be defended: In his shiur plight of agunah minutes 48-101 he states that humiliation today is mutar and not even the harchakos of R'tam. In his other shiur that he talks about dead marriages and using any means in those cases, he was very vague about which cases and he must have been referring to cases of coffin osu that were mefaresh in shas otherwise that statements makes absolutely no sense.)

Your teshuva stresses the Rashba, Shach and Chozen Ish as the main sources for your oppinion. I found the following on this issue.

-Rav Sternbuch (5: 344) holds that in our generation we must ignore them and hold of the harchokes of R'tam in certain cases. He chooses the Rivash's Girsa in the Rashba (against the version of the Rashba in the Beis Yosef) which takes out the word humiliation and therefore advises that one can humiliate the guy on some level. He also argues with you and says the Chazon Ish holds that a get obtained through humiliation bedieved would be a valid GET

-Rabbi Yosef in Yabea Omer 8:25 paskens in a case of mius aley that we should apply the harchakos of R'tam. The Titz Eliezer signs off on those harchakos on the bottem of the teshuva. From this teshuva we also see that they are not choshesh for the Maharshdam's shitta which Rav Sternbuch and Rav Elyashiv are choshesh for because they mention the GET issue in their harchakas.

-Based on the above, I feel it is misleading to say that the Harchakos are off limits today, as some of the Gedole Haposkim in our generation have used them.

-I found the sefer Get Meusa (on the otzar hachachma database ) by Dayan Goldberg of Tel Aviv. In this sefer he comes out that obtaining a get through humiliation is not kefia he has a long footnote with sources which I will try to send to you in the coming days.

This sefer therefore agrees with Rabbi Shachter that humiliation is not even the Harchakas of R'tam. Therefore, following the husband from town to town would be ok. Also since this isn't kefia, your lumdus about the get isn't his rotzon wouldn't apply.

-lastly Rav Sternbuch writes that many of the great rishonim (Rambam, Rif, Rashi..)hold that in these cases we can even beat the husband for refusing the get when the woman wants out. Although the Shulchan Aruch doesn't pasken like them, this is something to keep in mind.

You asked to find any source showing that humiliation is ok...I ask you are there sources that clearly show humiliating is kefia and the get would be posel bedieved? The only source that I have found that mefaresh pasuls the get is the Maharshdam, which Rav Yosef and the Tzitz Eliezer weren't choshesh for in Yabea Omer 8:25.

However, I agree that from the fact the Eretz Yisrael Rabbonim don't talk about humiliating and rallies as being an option they perhaps would hold that what Rabbi Shachter is promoting is worse than R'Tam.

Although I attempted to defend Rabbi Shachter, I feel that you are right about getting approval from others before doing drastic changes in policy in halacha especially when the potential nafka mina is mamzerus.

For all those readers who will attack me for my above defense as being pro feminist and YU, I like Rabbi Eidensohn are interested in emes and sources and not name calling and hate. So if you disagree with what I said please explain how my defense is wrong and back up your claims with sources. I will be truly grateful. I think the blog will benefit if we could all stop the hate and venom and stick to trying to discuss issues of Jewish Identity in a respectful and pleasant manner,

kul tuv,

Yitzy Hillel

IDF Givati's "proud" tradition of hazing

YNET

Chareidim happy to see Livni defeated

YNet

Many haredim sees Tzipi Livni as the driving force behind the wave of incitement against them. To them, last night's results were payment in kind.

A source within United Torah Judaism told Ynet that "it isn't gloating or hitting someone when they're down, it is sending a message with a lesson to every rookie politician who adopts a dialogue of hate against the haredi public – it isn't worth your while. It may make a great media slogan, but the public does not accept it, and yesterday, Kadima voters proved they don't either. 

Pakistani wife abuse:Throwing acid in her face

Fox News

Younus' story highlights the horrible mistreatment many women face in Pakistan's conservative, male-dominated culture and is a reminder that the country's rich and powerful often appear to operate with impunity. Younus' ex-husband, Bilal Khar, was eventually acquitted, but many believe he used his connections to escape the law's grip -- a common occurrence in Pakistan.

More than 8,500 acid attacks, forced marriages and other forms of violence against women were reported in Pakistan in 2011, according to The Aurat Foundation, a women's rights organization. Because the group relied mostly on media reports, the figure is likely an undercount.

Chasidic Jew ostracized for reporting son's abuse

CBS News

Chance to hear Rav Schacter , Tamar Epstein & Ora live

Tyranny of beauty or why don't girls use make-up?

Jewish Press by Yitta Halberstam

The second thing that jolted me when I opened the door (and which I know will incur many a mother’s wrath, but which I feel I must speak about) was the conspicuous and glaring lack of make-up on a significant percentage of the girls’ faces. I was stunned. The girls knew why they were there; there was no attempt at pretense on anyone’s part. The mandate of the event was to give them the opportunity to present themselves in the best possible light. Why weren’t they?

Let me tell you about this particular population of girls: They were between the ages of 21 and 24, and mostly seeking “learning boys.” (The organizers’ plan for the future is to hold additional events for other age groups and different categories of boys: learners/earners, professionals, working boys only, etc.) They were eidel, frum, sincere, intelligent, and committed to the learning ideal. But even the most temimasdika ben Torah is looking for a wife whom he finds attractive. Yes, spiritual beauty makes a woman’s eyes glow and casts a luminous sheen over her face; there is no beauty like a pure soul. Make-up, however, goes a long way in both correcting facial flaws and accentuating one’s assets, and if my cursory inspection was indeed accurate (and I apologize if the girls used such natural make-up that I simply couldn’t tell), barely any of these girls seemed to have made a huge effort to deck themselves out.

Since most of the young women at chasunas seem quite presentable, I couldn’t shake off my sense of disbelief as I looked around now. What were they thinking? How had their mothers allowed them to leave their homes with limp hair and unadorned faces? With just a little blush, eyeliner and lip-gloss, they could have gone from average to pretty. There are very few women who can’t use a little extra help. Even the most celebrated magazine models can look downright plain when stripped of all cosmetics, al achas kamah v’kamah girls who are not born with perfect features. So what was going on? Were they in denial about the qualities young men are seeking in future wives? Yes, it is somewhat disillusioning that men dedicated to full-time Torah learning possess what these girls might perceive are superficial values, but brass tacks: they want a spouse to whom they are attracted. The young men themselves might be too shy or ashamed to admit it, but their mothers won’t hesitate to ask what for some is the deal maker/deal breaker question, namely: “Is she pretty?”

Rav Menashe Klein:Kuntres about Coerced Get

Hebrew Books

Rav Herschel Schacter: Options for Agunot

YU Torah - mp3

printed source material
===============
[updated to link to the following shiur]
See also his "Plight of the Agunah"

Yitzy Hillel: In this shiur, he comes out clearer in his shittas than the other shiur posted on this blog previously. minutes 48-101 is where he talks about the case of Meos Alui in modern times.

Reporting Abuse: Rav M. Klein's rejected view

This is a good example of a posek requiring strict Torah restrictions for reporting a molester to the police. This view is widely criticized by such poskim as Sho'el UMashiv, Rema, Shach, R' Eliashiv, R' Moshe Halberstam, Tzitz Eliezer, R' Ovadiah Yosef, and Minchas Yitzchok. [this was posted 3 years ago  - just updated the formating]
Rav Menashe Klein - 16 58 Abuse
 

Rav Sternbuch: Saving agunos by pressuring husband

See previous post"Rav HershelSchacter -options for Agunot"

See additional teshuva of Rav Sternbuch

תשובות והנהגות כרך ה סימן שמד

תקנה לבנות ישראל שבעליהן מסרבים לתת גט

כשהייתי בדרום אפריקה פנו אלי נשים אשר הבעל שלהם מתאכזר כבר כמה שנים ומסרב לתת להן גט והרי הן עגונות, והן כבר כמעט בנות ארבעים, ואין להם תקוה עוד מעט לשם ושארית, ודיברו הבל נגד תורתה"ק, והסברתי שאנו מאמינים בהשגחת אלוקים בעולמו על הכלל ועל הפרט, וכשם שלפעמים לאחר הנישואין הבעל נעשה חולה ושנים רבות האשה סובלת, גם כאן ע"כ זהו תיקונה, ותעשה השתדלות כמיטב יכולתה שישנה דעתו, ובעד כל צער שסובלת תקבל שכרה, עד שירחם ה' ויתן גט בקרוב. (ועיין היטב ב"תשובות והנהגות" (ח"ג סי' תי"ח) הצעה לתקנה כשהבעל המסרב אינו שומר תורה ומצוות).

וסיפרתי שלפני המלחמה היתה בקאוונא אסיפת משכילים שרצו לעשות תקנות ושינוים בתורה באופן שתתקבל, וצעקו שחייבין לבטל חליצה, שהאשה יורקת בפניו, והדבר לא מתאים לתקופתינו, ופנו לרב העיר שיציע הדבר לחכמי התורה בליטא, והרב דקאוונא (הגאון רבי דובער שפירא זצ"ל) אמר להם: "כשם שרבנים צריכים לבטל חליצה הרופאים צריכים לבטל את המיתה", וענו לו, "הרופאים לא ממיתים ולא יוכלו לבטלה" וע"ז השיב: "גם אנו לא נתנו את התורה הקדושה רק אלקים נתנה ואין בידינו לבטלה".

אמנם למעשה הרבה תקלות מצויות היום, ששמענו על נשים ששכרו בריונים לכוף את הבעל לגרש, ונתן בכפיה והגט בטל, ונכשלת באיסור אשת איש והולד ממזר כשלא היה דין כפייה, ועוד ידעתי מכמה מקרים שישנם נשים שלא עומדות בנסיון של חיים לבד, ומזנות ר"ל, וע"כ אמרתי אשנה ענין זה עוד פעם, ואף שמדובר באשת איש החמורה שבחמורות, אני רק מציע הדברים, ומי שדעתו רחבה יבוא ויכריע.

ואציע בזה שיטת הפוסקים, (ומציין אני לעצמי מתוך "קונטרס הבירורים" מידידי הגאון המפורסם הרב אברהם הורביץ זצ"ל שאסף וליקט דברי הקדמונים), והנה הרבה מגדולי הראשונים מתירין לכוף אותו לגרש כשטוענת "מאיס עלי" והם: הרמב"ם, הראב"ד, הסמ"ג, בעל העיטור, רגמ"ה, רבינו שרירא ורבינו האי גאון, תוס' רי"ד, א"ז, הרי"ף ורשב"ם, ומאידך גיסא, ר"ת, הר"ן, הרשב"א, הרא"ש, הריטב"א, הרז"ה והתשב"ץ כולם ס"ל שאין כופין, ובשו"ע (אהע"ז סי' ע"ז) הוכרע בחמורות דאשת איש שאין כופין, וקרוב הדבר שלדידן הולד ממזר, אמנם מצד אחר האוסר רבינו תם מצא תקנה, לגזור באלה חמורה שלא יהיו רשאים לדבר עמו, לישא וליתן עמו, להאכילו, להשקותו, וללוותו ולבקרו, שזאת לא נקראת כפיה מאחר שאין מלקין אותו בגופו, רק אנו נפרדים ממנו, ועיין במהרי"ק (שורש ק"ב), וזאת נקראת הרחקה דרבינו תם, ובלבוש (אהע"ז סי' קל"ד) כתב שיכולים לגזור כן בטוענת "מאיס עלי", שאין זו כפיה שאם ירצה לא יגרש וילך למקום אחר, והרמ"א (אבע"ז סי' קנ"ד סכ"א) הסכים שבית דין יעשו כל מיני הרחקות ממנו ובלבד שלא ינדו אותו, והסכים לרמ"א רבינו הגר"א זצ"ל, ופירש כיון שאין כופין בשוטים, ויכול לינצל ללכת לעיר אחרת, ואין עושים מעשה בגופו מותר, וכן כתבו המהרשד"ם (אהע"ז סי' מ"א) והמהר"א ששון (כ"א) ועוד פוסקים.

אמנם יש מן הפוסקים המעידים שלא נהגו בהרחקות של ר"ת, וכן כותב המהר"י בן לב (ח"ג סי' ק"ב) שלא ראינו ולא שמענו בדורינו זאת הרחקה, ומילתא דפשיטא היא "דבאותם דלא תני כופין אפילו שום הרחקה לא עבדינן ליה", וב"פתחי תשובה" (אבע"ז סי' קנ"ד ס"ק ל') הביא את דברי הש"ך ("גבורת אנשים" ס"ס ע"ב) שאחר שהביא את דברי המהריב"ל כתב שטוב להחמיר, גם רבינו ה"חזון איש" (אבהע"ז סי' ק"ח ס"ק י"ב) מסתייג מגזירת הרחקות ומביא את דברי הרשב"א שכתב שאין לבזותו ולצערו, ומ"מ מבואר שם שמסכים שאם הרחיקו ולא נידו הגט חל.

אמנם יש לדעת שאין לגזור הרחקות דרבינו תם מיד כשטוענת "מאיס עלי", שאם נעשה כן, הרי ריב הוי דבר המצוי בין בעל ואשה, ותמהר האשה ותאמר "מאיס עלי", ובית הדין ירחיקו אותו ויביא הדבר לחורבן חיי המשפחה בישראל, וכל המדובר הוא כשפירשה ממנו כבר תקופה ממושכת ומוכח לבית דין שאין לאישות תקוה, וכבר סבלה תקופה ארוכה, ולכן פוסקים שצריך להוציא את אשתו בלי כפיה, והבעל מסרב, יש לסמוך, עכ"פ בזמנינו, לגזור עליו הרחקות דר"ת, כיון שאינם נחשבות לכפיה והגט חל לכ"ע כמש"כ, ובאופן שיבואר.

והאמת שרבינו החזו"א זצ"ל שהחמיר חשש לדברי הרשב"א, ויפה העיר הגר"א הורביץ זצ"ל שבתשובות הריב"ש (סי' קכ"ז) כתב בשם הרשב"א: "ובלבד שלא ינדה ולא יכה ולא יצער אותו בגופו", ולא כמו שמביא החזו"א בשמו ש"לא יבזה", ובהצעה דידן אין כאן אלא בזיון ומותר וכמו שיבואר.

והנה קל הדבר להחמיר ולא לעשות מאומה, ויישארו עגונות לעולם, אבל האי חומרא סופה קולא גדולה בזמנינו, ועלולה לקעקע את דיני האישות בישראל, ובדרך שנבאר נמצא בעזהי"ת דרך להציל נשים רבות מעגינותן, ומכוון הדבר ע"פ ההלכה, ובלבד שיקיימו את כל התנאים שנביא להלן, ויהא בס"ד תיקון גדול אם יתקבל, ואף שכפי הנראה בבתי הדין של האשכנזים לא נהגו בדורות האחרונים לגזור הרחקות, מ"מ גם לא היה שכיח שאשה טוענת "מאיס עלי" כמו בזמנינו, ולא היה בזה צורך, אבל היום בעו"ה, העוסק בסכסוכי אישות יודע שנתרבה הדבר מאד, ויש תקלות הרבה, וכיון שמדינא נראה שמותר, החומרא קולא היא, ועלינו לקיים את עיקר הדין, וכפסק הרמ"א והגר"א זצ"ל, וכפי התנאים שנבאר, אם יסכימו לזה גדולי הוראה בס"ד. (וכמדומני שיש מדינות שלא נהגו בהרחקה דר"ת, שפחדו שהעכו"ם יטענו שכיון שאנו מרחקים מי שאינו שומע כדתינו, אף הם יתרחקו מאתנו ממשא ומתן וכדומה, ויצדיקו מעשיהם!).

והנני להציע כמה כללים היאך לנהוג, אף שכמובן בכל כלל יש יוצא מן הכלל, שבית דין צריכים להחליט בו.

א) נראה שאדם המעגן את אשתו ומצערה זמן רב, אף שלא נפסק שחייב לגרש את אשתו, מ"מ הלוא הוא מענה אותה ומתאכזר אליה, ואין זה ראוי לאדם מישראל, שהם בטבעם רחמנים וגומלי חסדים, וע"כ בית הדין יודיע לרב בית כנסת או לרב הקהילה אליה משתייך הבעל, שאדם זה מעגן את אשתו, ואף שאינו חייב לגרשה, מ"מ מותר וראוי לפרסם גנותו מאחר והוא מצער בת ישראל בחנם, ולכן ראוי לאנשי בית הכנסת להתרחק ממנו. ובהודעה לאנשי בית הכנסת לא יוזכר כלל ענין הגירושין אלא רק יוזכרו מידותיו הרעות שבשלהם ראוי להרחיקו (וכן בשו"ת מהרשד"ם (סי' ע"א) מחמיר שלא לומר מפני מה מרחיקים אותו, והביאו מהר"א ששון בתשובותיו (כ"ח) ומסיק כן) ויש לציבור שם לשמוע בקול הרב ולנהוג עמו בהרחקה בשל מידותיו הרעות.

ונראה שאסור לאיים עליו במזונות גבוהים שאינו חייב בהם ואין בידו לשלמם, שאז נעשה כגט מעושה, אבל מאיימים עליו בנזיפה שכולם יתרחקו ממנו, שבאמת, בשל רשעות ואכזריות כזאת ראוי להתרחק ממנו, ואין לחשוש לגט מעושה, ולא יזכירו הגט כלל, וכל הקהילה יתרחקו ממנו אף שלא נידו אותו מדינא, ובטוח אני שבעלים רבים יהרהרו ויכירו חובתם ויתחרטו, ואם ירצה יכול לנדוד למרחקים ולהמשיך בדרכו, ולכן בודאי לא נקרא מעושה.

וכעין זה מצינו ב"שערי ציון" מהגאון מבילסק זצ"ל, לענין מכירת חמץ, שזמן מה קודם מודיעים לגוי שזהו טקס דתי אבל חוקי, ויקנו ממנו בחזרה אחר הפסח, אבל בשעת מכירה אסור להזכיר מזה כלל, ומוכיח כן מסוגית הש"ס בנדרים ומפסקי הרמב"ם והשו"ע, ואף כאן הכל יודעין את הכוונה, אבל אין להזכירה במפורש, רק לפרש שראוי להתרחק ממנו מפני התנהגותו וכמ"ש, ובס"ד, בדברינו אלו נמצאת תקנה גדולה לנשים אומללות רבות הסובלות ומצטערות, ודרכי תורתינו הקדושה דרכי נועם, אבל ראוי להתיר רק בתנאים שהבאנו.

ב) נראה שאין לבית דין לאסור כלל, רק להודיע לרב בית הכנסת או לרב הקהילה שהבעל קשור אליה שבדקו את הענין והבעל ראוי להרחקה, ורב המקום יודיע שמאחר שקיבל הודעה מבית דין על התנהגות הבעל ושראוי הוא להרחקה, ולכן מבקש הוא מכל בני הקהילה שלא יהא להם שום עסק עמו, ויתלה הודעה כן, אבל בית דין לא יפרסמו חיוב להתרחק, מאחר שדומה הדבר לנידוי, ויש מהפוסקים שהזכרנו, שחששו לזה טובא.

ג) אין לבית דין למהר ולסדר הרחקות, שכן הרבה זוגות אינם מאושרים ומ"מ מחזיקים, שלא בקלות מנתקים אישות אף שאין ילדים, וכ"ש עם ילדים, רק יש להמתין תקופה, ורק במקרים מיוחדים שהוכח לבית דין שאי אפשר לה לגור עמו מקדימים, אבל יש לבית דין ליזהר מאד לא לזלזל ולמהר בהרחקות, ורק לאחר שנעשו השתדלויות לשלום בית והשתכנעו שאין לאישות תקנה, ועברה תקופה ראויה לפי ראות עיני בית הדין, רק אז יורו הרחקה, ובס"ד אם ינהגו כן, לאחר זמן יסכים הבעל לשאת ולתת, ויתן גט.

כל הדברים הנ"ל הם הצעה שלע"ד ראויה להתקבל היום כצורך השעה, ותציל בס"ד עגונות הרבה, שבעל לא ירצה לאורך זמן להיות מוקצה ומאוס לכל הציבור, ועל הקיר תלוי שמו לבזיון שהוא אכזרי, וכבר כתב בב"ח שהמתיר עגונה כבונה אחת מחרבות ירושלם, אבל אין אני אומר קבלו דעתי, וההכרעה מסורה לגדולי הוראה דוקא, ואף שהבאנו את דברי רבינו החזו"א זצ"ל שמחמיר מאד בחשש מעושה, וכן הבאתי במק"א את דברי הגאון מבריסק זצ"ל בענין, מ"מ בדרך שהבאנו שאין מזכירים שחייב לגרשה רק מפרסמים מידותיו, אין חשש פסול, והרבה גדולים הסכימו ונהגו באופן זה, ואני הנלע"ד ביארתי, ומצפה אני להכרעת גדולי ההוראה, והקב"ה יציל אותנו משגיאות, וכן יהי רצון! 

Agunah, Facebook, & Mediation/R' Martin Rosenfeld

Rabbi Martin Rosenfeld
[see previous post Previous post "Why Aharon Friedman hasn't given a get"

My interest in volunteering to mediate the matter of the Epstein/Friedman divorce was based on a feeling that this matter has gotten to the point where there are only losers and no winners. I count among the losers, the Jewish community, as our controversies do not belong in cyberspace or on Facebook campaigns. The fact that Mr. Friedman was the only party to agree to mediation is not something from which I choose to draw any conclusion. A party does not need to mediate a dispute, and certainly does not need to be bound by an unknown mediator’s offer.to assist. However, the entree to Mr. Friedman has given me the opportunity to spend close to 30 hours looking into this matter. I have spoken to parties on both sides of the controversy. I have read much and done some due diligence. What I will say is meant to lead to a possible resolution. It may offer some insights into the need for mediation in highly contested matters, but more importantly it is a plea for constructive action in one divorce matter.

Mr. Friedman has been accused of many matters. He has been called an abuser in a published statement that has likely been seen by Jews world-over. Nothing I have come across helps me understand how this libelous charge can be made. Mr. Friedman, like all of us, is an imperfect being. He has made, in my opinion, errors along the way. That can be said of probably most who go through a difficult divorce. Is he an abuser? Not that I know. If any organization feels that he is indeed an abuser, I would suggest they produce the documentation to us all. There are strict libel laws in this country. Words do matter. Is anybody who does not give a Get an abuser de facto? If that is so, who will decide the matter?. The Talmud calls one who publicly embarrasses someone, a murderer. Would that entitle an organization, which advocates that such a person give a Get  to put that person’s picture on-line with the caption: This murderer refuses to give his wife a Get? I think not.

What’s the point of having a bat mitzvah?

Tablet Magazine

These days, I’m often gobsmacked by girls’ outfits at their parties—and sometimes in shul, as well: gynecologically short skirts, bustier tops cantilevered over barely developed curves, nosebleed-inducing stratospheric heels. The bat mitzvah girl’s friends teeter into the party like a herd of newborn foals. Some hostesses provide baskets of ankle socks so that the girls can dance more comfortably after they take off their foot-bindings.

But I am a little concerned about the big picture. What’s the point of having a bat mitzvah—a symbolic ceremony marking the time when a girl becomes a Jewish adult, fully responsible for her own actions and choices—if she’s going to focus more on the clothes and the party than the ritual? Why choose to do exactly what everyone else does, with the only individualization being the theme colors, the degree of showiness, and the amount of pupik shown by both the bat mitzvah girl and her mother? The ungapatchka same-sameness seems particularly sad when you consider how hard individual girls and women worked to win the right to celebrate this milestone at all.

Private Schools Mine Parents’ Data, & Wallets

NYTimes

Relentless fund-raising, be it for the annual fund, the spring benefit or the latest capital campaign, is as much a feature of private schools as small classes and diverse offerings. But with schools hitting the upper limits of what they can charge for tuition, consultants, parents and school heads say the race for donations has become notably more intense and aggressive. 

Schools are mining online data for details about parents’ homes, luxury cars, private planes, stock holdings and donations to other charities. So-called development offices, once the domain of part-time administrators and school volunteers, have been elevated along with the titles of those running them, who are now known as chief advancement officers, directors of philanthropy and heads of strategic initiatives. Heads of school report spending much of their time in search of money, according to surveys. 

The biggest change is the sophistication of the data available, and how schools can use it. Before a campaign begins, consultants interview 40 to 50 of the school’s top prospects to determine their level of interest in a campaign and how much they might give (a “feasibility study”). The consultants also try to measure a school’s philanthropic capacity (a “capacity analysis”).

Milestone:Senior priest on trial for protecting child molesters

NYTimes

The landmark trial of a senior official of the Philadelphia Archdiocese who is accused of shielding priests who sexually abused children and reassigning them to unwary parishes began on Monday with prosecutors charging that the official “paid lip service to child protection and protected the church at all costs.” 

The defendant, Msgr. William J. Lynn, 61, is the first Roman Catholic supervisor in the country to be tried on felony charges of endangering children and conspiracy — not on allegations that he molested children himself, but that he protected suspect priests and reassigned them to jobs where they continued to rape, grope or otherwise abuse boys and girls.

Birchas Hailanos:Dispute regarding correct Beracha

VIN by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

There is a great debate that has gone on in Torah circles for almost three centuries now.  The debate centers upon the following question:  What texts we should be following?  Do we follow the Shulchan Aruch and Talmud or do we follow the Siddur?  This debate centers around one particular bracha – one that occurs in Nissan.

The Talmud (Brachos 43b) tells us that during the month of Nissan, when one goes out and sees trees blossoming recites the blessing, “Who has not left lacking in His world etc.”

The wording is either “shelo chiser beolamo klum” or “shelo chiser beolamo davar.” The Talmud uses the word “Klum” which means nothing.  The version in the current editions of the Siddur have the word “Davar” meaning “something.” 

9.5 years for sodomizing 11 year old chareidi boy

JPost

The Tel Aviv District Court sentenced a man to nine and a half years in prison on Sunday for raping and indecently assaulting an 11-year-old boy eleven years ago.

As part of a plea bargain, the defendant, Nahman Nohi, had previously agreed to plead guilty to multiple counts of indecent assault and one charge of sodomy under circumstances of rape. However, the plea bargain did not include any arrangement regarding punishment. [....]

Shabbat Lunch is a Country Song.Who knew?

Forward

Yesterday, I listened to a country song on the radio, a lyrical lament of a time gone by, as country songs often are. But one line made me laugh: “sittin’ around the table don’t happen much anymore.” It doesn’t, at least not at my house Sunday through Thursday. Though my kids are still small, we are already scheduled within an inch of our lives, my husband and I are attached to our oh-so-smartphones, and dinner is usually in shifts of macaroni and cheese.

And then comes Friday night, the beginning of Shabbat. The wind up to observing the Sabbath is at times chaotic, because while that sun sets Friday night, no matter what, Shabbat doesn’t make itself. In Hebrew, to observe Shabbat is to be shomer Shabbat, a “guardian” of the Sabbath. I always thought it sounded like Shabbat was prone to attack, or would wander off alone if not for your protective skills. Not so far from the reality. [....]

I haven’t always done this, been shomer Shabbat. I’d been told about it, had watched it from afar. And then someone invited me into her very traditional Jewish home for Shabbat lunch. I once could not imagine observing Shabbat in the most traditional of senses. No cooking, no driving, no television or internet, no shopping, no catching up on laundry. And if there had been texting twelve years ago, I probably couldn’t have imagined giving it up for an entire twenty-four hour period (never mind that Shabbat is actually twenty-five hours!). It seemed so extreme. And yet, when I was first invited to a family’s home for Shabbat lunch, I was intrigued, amazed, curious and eventually, hooked. There was something so calm, in spite of the six kids in the family and all their friends running around. There was so much food. So much talk. So much time around the table. I would climb back into my car after a very long lunch, not so much feeling guilty, as wondering, “How do I make that happen in my own life?” The answer was, incrementally.

Europe's blind spot on anti-Semitism

CNN

It is time to stop excusing anti-Semitic calls for the murder of Jews as an acceptable outgrowth of the Palestinian cause.

A couple of years ago, I was in the Netherlands when a pro-Palestinian demonstration broke into a familiar chant: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas." The "Jews to the gas" is a common cheer at Dutch soccer games. This was nothing new.

What was new is that this demonstration included a Dutch member of Parliament, Harry van Bommel of the Socialist Party, who continued along as his comrades called for a repeat of the Holocaust.

Political leaders and government authorities often act dismissively when Jews are the target of violence, particularly from Arabs. When a Jewish girl was beaten at school by five Muslim girls who called her a "dirty Jew" and shouted that she should "return to your country," community leaders said they were "exasperated" by the endless attacks on Belgian Jews and asked the government to take action. Viviane Teitelbaum, a Jewish member of Parliament, condemned the failure of the Belgian media and the political establishment to speak out.

Stereotyping of a hoodie caused Trayvon's death?

Chareidim & seat switching for gender separation

Haaretz

El Al passengers are noting a recent phenomenon involving clusters of ultra-Orthodox men approaching female passengers prior to take-off and requesting to switch seats, according to El Al customers and tour operators. 

While the phenomenon of lone Haredi men approaching female passengers is not new, and has in fact gone on for years, large groups of Haredim - upwards of 15-20 people in some instances - are reportedly attempting to secure blocs of seats for themselves. Their persistence is causing consternation and friction, while setting off a host of logistical problems during the course of some flights, according to a number of sources interviewed by Haaretz.

Post traumatic growth: Benefiting from severe hardships

NYTimes

Slowly, though, Beltran began noticing surprising changes. Before the blast, he drifted. He spent a lot of his free time playing video games. Like many soldiers, he was more concerned with figuring out how to cope from one deployment to the next than with finding a direction. He is different now. The bombing, the P.T.S.D. and the challenges he faced changed him. And he thinks he has changed for the better. “This whole experience has helped me to be more open, more flexible,” he told me. “I am branching out to activities that I was once uncomfortable with.” Beltran has taken rigorous tests in pursuit of a promotion. He’s taking online courses toward a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice. He discovered a sense of spirituality, and although he and his first wife divorced, he has remarried and reconnected with his parents, from whom he distanced himself after the explosion. 

Beltran spent years in therapy and read many books about people who surmounted adversity, all of which, he says, helped him change. More recently, through classes and group therapy at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, he was introduced to the science and thinking behind this psychological change. “It’s given it a name,” Beltran said, “and has enhanced my personal development.” The name for Beltran’s change is post-traumatic growth. And the classes he takes are part of a $125 million Army-wide program called Comprehensive Soldier Fitness, which is intended to help soldiers become more resilient and to help them recognize how the trauma of combat can change them for the better. For years, Beltran carried photos of the explosion to remind himself of what he overcame. Now, he says, he carries those pictures to show to others. “I want to share my experience,” he told me. “Whatever knowledge or wisdom I have.”

The idea that people grow in positive ways from hardship is so embedded in our culture that few researchers even noticed that it was there to be studied. Richard Tedeschi, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, who is both a researcher and a clinician, discovered it in a roundabout way, while he was looking for a new research project. “I thought, Who do I want to know the most about, distressed or violent or crazy people?” he told me. “Instead, I think I want to know about wise people. Perhaps I’ll learn something myself.” He and Lawrence Calhoun, who is also a psychologist at U.N.C., started their research by interviewing survivors of severe injuries. He then went on to survey older people who had lost their spouses. Person after person told them the same thing: they wished deeply that they had not lost a spouse or been paralyzed, but nonetheless, the experience changed them for the better.

Czech railways rolls Out female only compartments

Time

According to the New York Times, the new compartments installed on about 30 trains were instantly met with some disapproval. Opponents argued the cabins discriminate against men, but rail spokesman Petr Stahlavsky told the Times the changes are based on “Western European and Christian traditions.” He added, “This is not any discrimination but social and cultural tradition.”

As it turns out, these types of cabins are not so uncommon. The company said it was modeling its new compartments after the Austrian system, but women-only cabins have already taken off in at least a half-dozen countries including Japan, Egypt, Iran, Brazil and India.[...]

Though men aren’t banned from sitting in the new the six-seater Ladies Compartments on Prague’s trains, women will have priority seating and can ask men to leave if they don’t want to share the space with a Y chromosome. If successful, Czech Railways hopes to continue with plans to roll out 80 more similar compartments by the summer.

Fraud discovered in rabbinic ordination tests

YNet

Five men are suspected for fraud and impersonation after attempting to take a rabbinic qualification exam instead of their classmates on Wednesday. They admitted they were paid thousands of shekels by Yeshiva students to take the exam in their place, since they were not properly prepared. Following the complaint, the police suspects a larger network of fraudulent Yeshiva students is behind the scenes.

The fraud was discovered during a concentrated Halacha exam to 2,500 students. Test supervisors noticed suspected identification cards and after questioning the students they confessed to the fraud and signed affidavits declaring they were paid between 3,000-6,000 NIS for their service. One of the students said this is the second exam he is taking in place of the same Yeshiva student.[...]

Dutch Church castrated victims who reported child abuse & homosexuals

Time Magazine

It not only sounds ludicrous as a medical procedure, but in moral terms it's downright barbarous: castrating young men to "cure" them of their homosexuality. Yet this was how the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands treated gays in the 1950s, according to a Dutch newspaper, which claims at least 10 men were forced to go under the knife at the church's behest. The extraordinary allegations, which were published last weekend in the NRC Handelsblad newspaper, have prompted Dutch parliamentarians to demand an inquiry into the issue, raising questions about whether the church received political cover to take such extreme measures.

The newspaper said the castrations were regarded both as a treatment for homosexuality, as well as a punishment for those who accused clergy of sexual abuse. The newspaper said 20-year-old Henk Hethuis had been surgically castrated on the instructions of Catholic priests in 1956 after he told police he was being abused at the Harreveld boarding school in Gelderland. Although the monks were convicted of the abuse, Heithuis was nonetheless sent to a Catholic psychiatric hospital and then castrated. He died two years later in a car crash. The newspaper adds there are strong indications that at least nine other young men were castrated around the same time, either for whistle-blowing or for supposed homosexuality.

Sexual harassment case against MK Kara dropped

YNet

The sexual harassment complaint filed against MK Ayoob Kara (Likud) in September was dismissed by the police Wednesday.

The police found that the complaint – alleging that MK Kara harassed a female subordinate in his office – was without merit. The recommendation to close the case was referred to the State Prosecutor's office.