Brooklyn DA responds to attack by Ed Koch

NYTimes    The Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, on Wednesday defended his record in the face of criticism over his handling of accusations of child sexual abuse in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.  

In an op-ed article in The Daily News, Mr. Hynes wrote that it was absurd “to suggest that we cover up, downplay or in any way ‘give a break’ to sex offenders in the Orthodox Jewish community.” 

Mr. Hynes also had a pointed e-mail exchange with former Mayor Edward I. Koch, who questioned the district attorney’s policies in a blog post in The Huffington Post. 

Both men were reacting to an article in The New York Times last week that examined Mr. Hynes’s record in these cases and his relationships with influential rabbis in Brooklyn’s growing ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.

Rally to defend accused child rapist

Fox News

Aleppo Codex - who stole it?

Boston Globe  Friedman’s dogged journalistic curiosity forces him to re-examine every aspect of that shiny heroic narrative. His inquiry yielded “The Aleppo Codex,’’ a thrilling, step-by-step quest to discover what really happened to Judaism’s most important book: who rescued it from the synagogue, how it came to be held by Israel’s Ben-Zvi Institute, and why nearly half of its pages were missing by the time it got there. With the help of a motley crew of Codex enthusiasts, Friedman goes up against a campaign of silence so effective that it is only slightly cracking 50 years later, when all of the major players are dead.

What is all this silence protecting? Nothing less than parts of the founding mythology of the state of Israel. Many of the book’s most astute and well-earned revelations are also its biggest surprises, and it would be unfair to reveal them here. But I will allow myself one spoiler: There was a protracted court battle for ownership of the Codex, between the Israeli state and the Aleppo refugees. In Friedman’s deft characterization: “Ben-Zvi and his comrades had willed a Jewish state into being against impossible odds, almost against the very logic of human events; they had glared at history and watched it bend to their will.” In their eyes, the diaspora Jewish communities had been in exile, and Israel, as the homeland of all Jews, was the rightful heir to their treasures. “The Aleppo Jews, on the other hand, had not subsumed themselves into the Zionist project and its version of history . . . [they] saw the Crown as the symbol of a place almost none of them had ever considered to be exile.’’

Bash victim to support accused child molester

New York Daily News    Yiddish signs posted in Williamsburg asking for contributions for accused child molester Nechemya Weberman.

Posters promoting an upcoming fund-raiser for a rabbi charged with sexually abusing a teenage girl blanketed Jewish shopping strips in Williamsburg Monday - sparking a campaign protesting the charity bash.

Signs supporting Nechemya Weberman, 53, - written in Hebrew and Yiddish mix - promote a Wednesday gathering at the Continental Caterers dining hall at 75 Rutledge Street.

“It is very painful,” said the victim’s mother about the street ads up on poles on Bedford and Lee Avenues. “The community has taken his side.”

At least two styles of posters were spotted. The more cartoonish set shows a missile falling onto a crowd of Orthodox Jewish men announcing a danger hitting the neighborhood.

The ads explain Weberman’s innocence by bashing the victim’s story and questioning why she decided talk to the police.

BatMelech criticizes my approval of discrimination

[guest post] This was a comment on another post - Psak Choosing vs Avoiding error  which clearly crystallizes the divide between us. 


======================
Batmelech  May 16, 2012 11:08 AM wrote:

I think that the blog author is not aware what discrimination means.

Discrimination is when a majority systematically excludes a minority, thereby keeping the minority from participating in the life of the society.

Your screening factors are a typical example of discrimination: As long as the shidduch candidates with divorced parents etc are a minority, it is very easy for the majority to forgo them and keep them from participating in majority culture. Of course, it could be that some majority candidates do not find their best bashert (who has divorced parents and was excluded by "screening", but only the second best (whose parents did not divorce and seemed acceptable). However, this is not a drama, he can live with second best instead of best.

For the excluded minority it is a drama, because they will be systematically rejected for facts that have nothing to do with their person.

You studied psychology, so I suppose it is important to you that Jews not be excluded from the University system as they often were in Europe.

So why do you want to do to your fellow Jew something you would not accept if a non-jew were to do it to you?

N.Y. Sun: Defends rabbis as police gatekeepers

NY Sun  According to the New York Times, the rabbi told the D.A. of the Aguda’s policy that members of the community first consult with a rabbi before going to the secular authorities. The D.A., according to the account in the Times, told the Aguda’s president that he “wouldn’t interfere with someone’s decision to consult with his or her rabbi about allegations of sexual abuse.” But, the Times continued, the district attorney also told the Aguda’s president that he “would expect that these allegations of criminal conduct be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.”

This seems to have driven the Times nearly to distraction. It quotes Rabbi Zwiebel as reckoning that the religious duty first to consult a rabbi “outranks,” as the Times paraphrased the rabbi, “even New York’s mandatory reporting law.” It quotes Rabbi Zwiebel as saying: “The rabbis’ consensus is go to a rabbi, because of the stringency of the matter on both sides of the equation, both the Jewish legal implications and because you can destroy a person’s life with a false report.” The Times reports the sentiment was taken issue with by the leading Democratic candidates for mayor.

“Our first concern is with victims of crime, especially potential victims of child abuse, and the first call should be to the appropriate law enforcement authorities,” Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, was quoted by the Times as saying. What the Times quoted the mayor’s spokesman, Marc LaVorgna, as saying, is “Any abuse allegations,” the mayor said through a spokesman, “should be brought to law enforcement, who are trained to assess their accuracy and act appropriately.”

This strikes us as a conceit. The notion that secular authorities are wiser, or better trained, than religious authorities looks hubristic against the millennia of case law that line the walls of the great rabbinic studies. Within the Jewish communities, if not in City Hall, the rabbis are regarded with enormous respect. No doubt that rabbis can make mistakes. But so can the secular courts and caseworkers. Let us just say that if allegations of assault by Jerry Sandusky of Penn State on a boy in a shower had been reported to a rabbi, his alleged years of predation would have been cut far shorter than they were.

The Times seems obsessed with the idea that rabbis — and by extension, other clergy — might have a role here. But we don’t know any religious authority — least of all Rabbi Zweibel, himself a lawyer and a veteran of one of the city’s most distinguished law firms — who is suggesting that any Jewish person or anyone else commit misprision of felony,* which is failing to report a crime. Our impression is that the rabbis would dispute the power of the law of misprision to prohibit their right to exercise freely the rabbinical authority that is so basic to the Jewish religion. That right is protected under the same amendment to the Constitution — the First — that protects newspapers like the Times and Mayor Bloomberg’s own private news service from investigating felonious behavior that hasn’t yet been reported to the police.

Harassment of victim in Kolko case

Jewish Week    She and her husband, parents of a now 13-year-old boy who they allege was sexually molested by his Brooklyn yeshiva teacher, were doing the unthinkable in the borough’s ultra-Orthodox community: bucking a system stacked heavily against them and pursuing a civil lawsuit against the Flatbush school that employed the teacher, Rabbi Yehuda Kolko.

The system was pushing back, with a vengeance.

A prominent Brooklyn rabbi and Yaakov Applegrad, an administrator at Yeshiva Torah Temimah, the school parents were suing, asked the parents to a meeting — without their lawyer. After pleading with the couple to drop the suit, Applegrad and the rabbi turned up the heat and played the card they hoped would resonate powerfully with religious Jews: they compared the parents to Nazis for attempting to “bankrupt” the yeshiva. The Nazis, they said, destroyed the yeshiva in Europe built before the war by the father of Rabbi Lipa Margulies, Torah Temimah’s founder and dean. Now, the two suggested, the parents were doing the same with their lawsuit. (It is not clear that Rabbi Margulies’ father actually had a yeshiva in Europe).

Chareidi Sex Abuse Counselors being trained

JPost

A course launched last month to train haredi (ultra- Orthodox) male counselors how to work with sexually abused children in their community indicates a new willingness to address an issue that was once considered taboo.

The course, which is being run by the Jerusalem-based Haruv Institute for some 20 male social workers, therapists and psychologists from the haredi world, teaches participants how to work with ultra- Orthodox children who struggle to speak out about what has happened to them because of the Jewish tenet of lashon hara (the prohibition against speaking badly about others), unconditional respect for their elders and lack of appropriate vocabulary.

“The whole approach to this is different for haredim than for secular people,” said Tali Shlomi, director of Knowledge, Technology and Resources at Haruv, which was established four years ago to provide professionals with the training and tools to deal with sexual abuse and neglect.

R' Bechhofer: Using Secular Courts & Demanding a Get

Guest post: Yitzy Hillel  see also Rav Sternbuch (4:301) moredes who went to court & now wants get

Rabbi Bechhofer Shlitta has publicly come out with tremendous chiddushim in matters of Gitten based on pure svaras and no sources. Everyone must agree that he is a lamdan and can hold his own in svaras, but he can't seem to produce actual sources especially any achronim that hold like him. He has also publicly been m'lamed zchus on woman who run to secular court in order to gain child custody and monetary settlements even if this is against halacha. Check out his blog to see his own words:(RYGB)

Contrast Rabbi Bechhofers approach with the approach of these 70 Rabbonim:http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/KOLKOREH-ERKAOT-70GADOLIM-SEALS.pdf) Look especially at warning Vuv,(6), Zayin (7),ches (8), and tes (9)to see the obvious disagreement between being malemud zchus and demanding teshuva and getting out of secular court or no help at all. I think this is the biggest underlining problem in these cases. Should Rabbonim be malamud zchus on men or woman who sin or should Rabbonim tell them to repent and no GET until repentance and getting out of secular court and having the case tried in beis din (even after the secular courts have awarded one side)? Is it immoral for a Beis din to tell the husband to deposit a GET on condition that the woman drops the secular court case. The above Rabbonim seem not to think this is immoral. However, from the view of Modern Orthodox Rabbonim these Beis Dins are considered criminals. The Modern Orthodox say the case has had a "fair judgement" and now the man must give an unconditional GET or because of chillul hashem the man must give a GET, etc. This seems to be the biggest underlining debate in my eyes. In the end, this blog has hosted a debate about forced gitten in contemporary times, and I am waiting to see in writing from great Rabbis whether or not the actions of the ORA are considered potential problems of forced gitten or not. (L'kavod Rabbi Dr. Eidonsohn: you claimed at the beginning of the debate that you planned on getting in writing the opinions of great Rabbis. Are you attempting to fulfill this statement?) However, one thing is for certain, and that is that running to secular court and demanding an unconditional GET at the same time is certainly not acceptable according to most Rabbonim outside the world of Modern Orthodoxy.

 ====================

[Update regarding his chiddush the following was posted today

 DT wrote:

Rabbi Bechhofer: Please clarify your view. You noted that Rambam(Hilchos Gerushin 2:20) says that a beis din that errs or a beis din of hedyotos that force a get shelo kadin - the get is posul derabbonin. You made the diyuk that therefore if it is not beis din but individuals who force a get shelo kadin it is kosher. Obviously the Rambam was not referring to passive social withdrawal since that is not considered to be kefiya according to the poskim. It can only be dealing with issues such as financial or physical forces - and yet you said from the diyuk that vigilante justice can't posul the get.

Now you are stating that vigilanted justice can in fact produce a get me'usa? So what is your true position.

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote: "Three types of vigilante justice do produce get me'useh. These are specified by the Poskim: Violence, monetary sanctions and niddui. There is no precedent to ban any other form of persuasion, and the Harchokos in fact encourage other forms of persuasion. No one here has brought any definitive legitimate proof that demonstrations, petitions, and ostracism create a situation of get me'useh."

You can't have it both ways. The above statement contradicts the diyuk you made from the Rambam. If you always intended the above then you don't need a diyuk in the Rambam to permit someone not to speak to another person. However the case of the mother in law who yells at her son in law to give a get or the case of the father in law who takes his son in laws money to force him to give a get - you said were valid pressure when not done through beis din. You rejected the Lechem Mishna that rejected your diyuk.

Rabbi Bechhofer replied:

It is not a retraction. I believe that my pshat in the Rambam is emes. Nevertheless, since it is clear that many Gedolei HaPoskim either do not accept my pshat, or do not rule like the Rambam, I go on to clarify that my position stands independently of the Rambam, the distinction being that according to the Rambam any form of persuasion not initiated by BD would be valid, while the consensus of the Poskim (which I, of course, accept) is to exclude three forms of persuasion as kinds of Kefi'ah no matter how they are initiated. I believe this is pashut k'bei'ah b'kutcha.

ORA: "Passive Pressure" of Rabbeinu Tam?! - Aharon's home

Ultra-Orthodox Jews Hide Child Sex Abuses

ORA: "Passive Pressure" of Rabbeinu Tam?! - Uncle's home

Stupidity is not a disability

Mayor criticizes DA for Rabbi abuse-gatekeepers

NYTimes   Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Friday sharply criticized the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, over his handling of child sexual abuse cases among the borough’s large ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Mr. Bloomberg said through a spokesman that he “completely disagrees” with Mr. Hynes’s decision to not object to the position of an influential ultra-Orthodox advocacy group on reporting allegations of child sexual abuse. The group announced last year that adherent Jews must obtain permission from a rabbi before reporting such allegations to district attorneys or the police.

Being a parent to a sex offender

CNN   Christine Smith will never forget the moment she watched her 21-year-old son being led out of a Florida courtroom in handcuffs.

"This is not happening, this is not happening, this is not happening," she recalls thinking at the time. "Take me instead."

She sobbed because there was nothing she could do. Matthew, the second of her three children, was going to prison after pleading guilty to 10 counts of possession of child pornography. A judge in Duval County sentenced him in April 2010 to 18 months in state prison and one year of probation, with the requirement that he register as a sex offender.

What's the "Torah" in "Torah miSinai"?

Guest post: by Rabbi Raffi Bilek a social worker and rabbi living in Passaic, NJ. who wrote a chapter in my Child &Domestic Abuse Vol 1

I am writing a chapter about Orthodox Judaism in a book that will be read primarily by non-Jews.  Right at the beginning I wanted to put down "Torah miSinai" as one of its defining characteristics.  Then I realized I had to define what "Torah" means in this context, since it is not merely referring to the Chumash or the Tanach, which is probably what most people would assume (if they have any familiarity with the word "Torah" in the first place). THEN I realized that defining it here is not such an easy task at all!  Torah can also refer to the entire corpus of Jewish law and thinking - but that can't be said to have been given over at Sinai.  And it also doesn't seem correct to say that Torah miSinai is referring to whatever portion of the written Torah was actually handed down at that time.  So what is it?

R' Eidensohn was gracious enough to let me turn it over to the klal to see what others think. It's an interesting question, at any rate.

[update] I put a number of translations of the classic seforim in the comments section that deal with the issue. They are part of a future volume of Daas Torah which discusses the nature of Torah and the Revelation at Sinai

Does ORA want halacha changed?

*Do ORA and its supporters believe that halacha should be changed so that a get can be given or received with the consent of only one spouse?* [guest post]

Asked whether rabbis could just agree to permit a religious divorce without the man's consent, [Rabbi Shmuel] Herzfeld said, "It's very complicated."

...

He [ORA’s Rabbi Jeremy Stern] said the Jewish community certainly has started to discuss whether a rabbi should be able to officiate a divorce without one party's permission -- but said the community "is not at a point right now where they're willing to fundamentally change how Jewish marriage

and divorce works."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/29/congressman-facing-pressure-from-jewish-groups-on-advisers-religious-divorce/#ixzz1uYp26Mpq

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

Rachel Levmore’s May 11 op-ed, “Should the Government ‘Get’ Involved,” raises a multitude of questions.

Let me address just two points. Levmore errs in stating that the proposed Maryland “barriers to remarriage” law would have protected Tamar Epstein from becoming an agunah. Epstein filed for the civil divorce and has done all she can to remove barriers to her ex-husband Aharon Friedman’s remarriage. Thus even if Maryland had passed the proposed law, Epstein would rightly have been awarded the civil divorce she sought but remained an agunah. [Rabbi Jeremy Stern has repeatedly and falsely claimed (although not on ORA's website) that it was Friedman who filed for divorce.] Maryland’s proposed “barriers to remarriage” law, similar to the first New York State “Get Law,” only helps if the husband is the plaintiff in the civil divorce suit. In 99% of agunah cases, the wife, not the husband, is the plaintiff. The second NYS Get law, which allows the judge to give the agunah a larger financial award, has some teeth, but the Maryland law was not patterned on this second law.

Levmore also states that Aharon Friedman, exercising his constitutional right, has turned Epstein into an agunah, but it is the Orthodox rabbinate’s refusal to embrace available halachic remedies to the agunah problem and the communtiy that keeps these rabbis in leadership positions and adheres to their decrees who have turned Epstein into an agunah. Susan Aranoff Director, Agunah International  http://forward.com/articles/156105/getting-a-get/#ixzz1uYpX92cp

Psak: Choosing vs avoiding error - consequences

Amongst the heated debate that has been going on regarding get me'usa - more subtle issues have been ignored. We addressed the issue of whether we posken like the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 14:8), that a husband can be forced to give a get in a case of ma'us alei or like Rabbeinu Tam, that force can't be used and if it is used you have a problem of mamzerim. While it is clear that we don't posken like Rambam - there are a number of unclear areas. For example what happens if the husband were forced to give a get and then his wife remarried? If the get was invalid she shouldn't be allowed to remarry and if she does  - the marriage would not be valid and future children would be mamzerim. One of the sources that is cited in this question is the following Rosh.

Rosh(43:6):  Question:  A woman has been married for many year and has children. Now she is saying that he disgusts her (ma’us alei). Do we force the husband to give a get? Answer:  Even though the Rambam writes, When the wife says ma’us alei we force the husband to give her a get – but Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri disagree. Since this is a dispute amongst rabbinic authorities why should we stick our heads amongst the great mountains and to make a forced get which is not required by the halacha and to permit a married woman to remarry? Furthermore due to our sins, Jewish women today have loose morality. Therefore there is concern that the wife might be interested in another man. Whoever forces a husband to give a get when the wife says ma’us alei is simply multiplying mamzerim. All of this is in regard to what to do if asked. However if the get has been forced already – if they relied on the view of the Rambam – what has been done has been done.

Question: What is the Rosh doing here in regards to deciding between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam? 

Answer: In fact  he isn't deciding between them and doesn't want to. It seems therefore he is following the assertion found in the introduction to Ohr LeTzion of Rav Bentzion Abba Shaul that psak is a not a clear categorization of what is true and what is false but rather it is a strategy to minimize error and harm. He says only in the case of the Shulchan Aruch because it was accepted by clall Yisroel and the Arizal because he spoke with ruach hakodesh - are their rulings absolute decisions of truth. While it seems clear that the Rosh is doing a cost benefits analysis - other poskim such as Rabbeinu Tam, Ramban Shulchan Aruch etc are clearly rejecting the Rambam and saying that he is wrong!

It would seem that in our time - after the Rambam has been rejected and Rabbeinu Tam accepted - that the ambivalent view of the Rosh would not be relevant. However it is cited by contemporary poskim such as Rav Ovadia Yosef  to explain why the wife can remain married to her second husband - despite receiving an inappropriately forced get from the first.

An explanation might be that contemporary poskim are also doing a cost benefits analysis rather than deciding what is true. Thus they take the conservative approach of Rabbeinu Tam and don't allow the husband to be forced because they are worried about the possibility of mamzerim if Rambam is wrong. They would also say that a wife divorced by a forced get could not get married with that get.

 However if she does get married we have a different problem. There is now a marriage and possibly children. Thus we would definitely have adultery and mamzerim if we had absolutely rejected the Rambam. Therefore we turn around and say - we didn't absolutely reject the Rambam but that he is not the normative lchatchila position.  However when faced with the disaster of adultery and mamzerim we say the Rambam can be relied upon bedieved.

To get back to our problem of using force in ma'us alei. The guiding principle that we seem to be using is that we need to avoid the possibility of an invalid get and thus mamzerim if Rambam is wrong. Therefore all our actions need to be based on the rejection of the Rambam and thus we avoid any appearance of forcing the get. However if there is a forced get  - then bedieved we would rely on the Rambam that there is no problem of aishis ish and mamzerim - because there is no other way.

Assuming that is really the halachic dynamic - what would be the practical status of children resulting from remarriage? If you had a choice between a possible zivug with a person for whom there was never a question of yichus versus one for whom the valid is solely because there was a pesak that bedieved the child is kosher - which would you chose? In other words which would you chose - glatt kosher in which there has never been a sofek or regular kosher which had a number of questions that were resolved by a rabbi's heter that took 10 pages of reasoning to justify and that other rabbis don't accept?

This issue of perceived quality of yichus is also a consideration - at least l'chatchila - in how we conduct ourselves. In other words we should avoid doing anything which raises halachic questions of yichus - unless there are other issues which are more important.

In addition there are contemporary poskim who view the Rambam has rejected totally and they problably would require that the wife not only not remarry after a forced get but that if she did then she could not stay in the marriage and that children from the second marriage would be mamzerim. 

Abuse:Falsely arrested & smeared

NYTimes    “Cops Nab the Grope Sicko,” the headline in The Daily News announced, and The New York Post described him as the “dapper fiend.” The Web site Jezebel posted an article about his arrest that drew lacerating comments on how Mr. Vanderwoude was possessed of a sense of entitlement that went with his job in private finance.

But Karl Vanderwoude wasn’t on 67th Street when one of the attacks took place; he was at his desk, sending e-mails, and seen on video opening a door for lunch deliveries. He wasn’t behind City Hall another time, but out to dinner with two people in Greenwich Village, and they had receipts from the cab and restaurant to back it up. 

All charges were dropped this week, and prosecutors announced that Mr. Vanderwoude could not have been the attacker. “The Police Department agrees,” Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said Thursday.

This was the criminal justice equivalent of a plane crashing, brought down in a publicity hurricane. Wrong man arrested and smeared; right man still out there. Could it have been prevented?

Chareidi Abuse: D.A. has different rules

NYTimes    Marci A. Hamilton, a professor of constitutional law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, blamed Mr. Hynes for not speaking out against the ultra-Orthodox position that mandates that allegations must be first reported to rabbis. The position potentially flouts a state law that requires teachers, social workers and others to report allegations of sexual abuse immediately to the authorities.

She said Mr. Hynes was essentially allowing rabbis to act as gatekeepers. 

“That’s exactly what the Catholic Church did, what the Latter-day Saints did, what the Jehovah’s Witnesses did,” said Ms. Hamilton, author of “Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children.”

 

Victims’ rights groups say Mr. Hynes has also failed to take a strong stand against rabbis and institutions that have covered up abuse, and has not brought charges recently against community members who have sometimes pressed victims’ families not to testify. 

Ms. White, his liaison to the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, said the district attorney had few options, in part because some victims declined to implicate those who threatened them, fearful that if they did, they would face even more pressure. 

“I always feel so bad for those parents, because you watch the shock on their face when they find out that their child has been abused, and then they get all of the pressure,” Ms. White said.

Head of massive prostitution ring gets 18 years in prison

YNET   "We've yet to see a case that compares in its severity to Rami Saban's activity," Tel Aviv District Court Judge Khaled Kabub said Thursday before sentencing the head of a massive human-trafficking ring to 18 years and seven months in prison.

Justice Kaboub called the operation “one of the most complex and extensive human-trafficking affairs to be uncovered in recent years, if not ever."

According to the indictment, the defendants smuggled hundreds of women into Israel through the border with Egypt. They used a network which located hundreds of young women in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and Uzbekistan.

Judge M. Elon: Harchakos are passive sanctions

Justice Menachem Elon (Status of Women page 349): The parameters of the harchokos of Rabbeinu Tam are accurately described by Ariel Rozen-Tzvi: “The sanction of harchokos - whose source is in the teshuvos of Rabbeinu Tam – is separation, distancing and withholding. In other words, they are passive activities involving not doing something (shev v’ahl ta’aseh). In contrast kefiya (force) and also nidoi (shunning) require active steps. According to Rabbeinu Tam the harchokos are not considered force. Rabbeinu Tam chose an indirect path in circumstances where beis din preferred to avoid force. The harchokos are a withholding of the benefits of society. It is directed to the actions of the community and not the husband. Many other poskim followed in the footsteps of Rabbeinu Tam. However there were other poskim who viewed the haricots as also a type of force and therefore they should only be applied when force is permitted.”

Judge M. Elon: Prison to force a Get

Judge Menachem Elon (The Status of Women  2005 page 299-301): [translated by Daniel Eidensohn] In Israel there is a legal procedure which had been ratified by Kenesset in 1953 which is a potential solution [to the case of Aguna where the husband refuses to give a get]. According to section 6 of the law concerning rabbinic courts dealing with marriage and divorce of 1953 – “A rabbinic court can rule that a husband can be forced to give his wife or the wife can be ordered to accept a get from her husband. After 6 months the district secular court has the ability - with the request of the legal adviser of the government - to use imprisonment as a means of getting the husband to comply with the beis din’s ruling.” Without question this seems to be a very powerful tool that the secular government has given to the rabbinic courts in order to solve the problem of a husband refusing to give his wife a get – after the beis din issues a ruling requiring him to do so.

In reality however this almost never happens. Let me explain my words. According to the section of the law, it is possible to imprison the husband in a case where the beis din has ordered that the husband be forced to give a get. However if the beis din only issues a ruling that the husband is obligated to give a get - and sometimes the language is even weaker and they simply say that it is a mitzva to give a get or that it is proper to give a get – then it is not allowed to imprison the recalcitrant husband. The reason that the law requires that the beis din specifies that the husband is to be forced before he can be imprisonedis in order to avoid the possibility of a get me’usa. A get me’usa is a get which is coerced against the will of the husband and is thus invalid. There are only a limited number of cases where force can used in giving a get according to the halacha. Thus it is understandable why the secular law included a clause that a husband can not be imprisoned when he refuses to give a get except when the rabbinic court rules that it is necessary to force him to give a get.

In fact the rabbinic courts very rarely issue a psak which says to force get. In the overwhelming majority of cases it simply says that there is an obligation to give the get or languae which is even milder. That is consistent with the view of those religious authorities that one does not psaken to force a get except in a small number of rare cases which are explicitly mentioned in the Talmud.

This issue is in fact a dispute amongst halachic authorities. According to the Rambam and those authorities who agree with him – not only can a get be forced in the cases in the Talmud and other classic sources – but also in the case where the wife claims “ma’us alei” - that she says he disgusts her and therefore she can not have sexual relations with him. Therefore the husband can be forced to divorce her because “she is not like a captive who is forced to have sexual relations with somone she despises.” However many halachic authorities – led by Rabbeinu Tam- disagree with the Rambam. According to their view when the wife claims “ma’us alei” this is not a justification to force the husband to give his wife a get. The acceptance of the view of the Rambam as the normative halacha – which in fact happened amongst certain Sefardic poskim and the Yeminite community – has the potential to be a major solution to the issue of aguna which results when the husband refuses to give a get. It enables the utilization of prison which was established as law for the rabbinic courts.

However the refusal of the rabbinic courts to utilize the view of the Rambam and because of that the refusal to write in their rulings that the husband is to be forced - causes at times a difficult tragedy for the wife. She remains an aguna for many years and she is vulnerable to extortion and revenge from the husband. It is important to note that this tragic suffering is basically only for the wife when the husband refuses to give a get. The cases where the wife refuses to accept the get to extort money from the husband or for revenge can be solved by the procedure called heter me’ah rabbonim. Upon receiving this heter the husband is able to remarry even if the wife hasn’t accepted the get. However as is well known, such a solution doesn’t exist to free the wife when the husband refuses to give a get.

Shunning those who report abuse

NYTimes   By cooperating with the police, and speaking out about his son’s abuse, Mr. Jungreis, 38, found himself at the painful forefront of an issue roiling his insular Hasidic community. There have been glimmers of change as a small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, taking on longstanding religious and cultural norms, have begun to report child sexual abuse accusations against members of their own communities. But those who come forward often encounter intense intimidation from their neighbors and from rabbinical authorities, aimed at pressuring them to drop their cases. 

Abuse victims and their families have been expelled from religious schools and synagogues, shunned by fellow ultra-Orthodox Jews and targeted for harassment intended to destroy their businesses. Some victims’ families have been offered money, ostensibly to help pay for therapy for the victims, but also to stop pursuing charges, victims and victims’ advocates said.

“Try living for one day with all the pain I am living with,” Mr. Jungreis, spent and distraught, said recently outside his new apartment on Williamsburg’s outskirts. “Did anybody in the Hasidic community in these two years, in Borough Park, in Flatbush, ever come up and look my son in the eye and tell him a good word? Did anybody take the courage to show him mercy in the street?”

Bare-bones Jewish marriage

In the course of our discussion of divorce - the question was raised as to what are the bare minimum requirements for a Jewish marriage. This is not the ideal or nor is it likely to be a pleasant relationship The Rambam lists them as follows [the translation is that of Rabbi Eliyahu Tougher which is available on the Chabad webpage]

Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 12:1-3): 1) When a man marries a woman, whether she is a virgin or a non-virgin, whether she is above the age of majority or a minor, and whether she was born Jewish, is a convert or a freed slave, he incurs ten responsibilities toward her and receives four privileges 2)With regard to his ten responsibilities: three stem from the Torah. They include sha'arah, kesutah v'onatah. Sha'arah means providing her with subsistence; Kesutah means supplying her with garments, and onatah refers to conjugal rights. The seven responsibilities ordained by the Rabbis are all conditions [of the marriage contract] established by the court. The first is the fundamental requirement of the marriage contract. The others are referred to as t'na'ei , the conditions of the marriage contract. They are:a) to provide medical treatment if she becomes sick; b) to redeem her if she is held captive:c) to bury her if she dies;d) the right for her to continue living in his home after his death as long as she remains a widow;e) the right for her daughters to receive their subsistence from his estate after his death until they become consecrated;f) the right for her sons to inherit her ketubah in addition to their share in her husband's estate together with their brothers [borne by other wives, if she dies before her husband does].3) The four privileges that the husband is granted are all Rabbinic in origin. They are: a) the right to the fruits of her labor; b) the right to any ownerless object she discovers; c) the right to benefit from the profits of her property during her lifetime; d) the right to inherit her [property] if she dies during his lifetime. His rights to her property supersede [the rights of] all others.

In addition because she is acquired by her husband in the marriage process she is subservient to him and she is required to provide sexual relations to him. Rashi(Nedarim 15b): Rav Kahana said that a wife who takes an oath to prohibit sexual relations with her husband – she is forced and has sexual relations with him because she has no ability to prohibit herself since she is subservient to his pleasure. While she can not be forced to have sexual intercourse with him a wife who refuses to have sexual intercourse with her husband is labeled a moredes and it is grounds for divorce. Likewise if he refuses to fulfill his Torah obligation to have sexual intercourse it is also grounds for divorce.

This subservience of the woman to the man is reflected in the following:

(Hilchos Ishus 13:11): …A woman should be given proper clothing to go the house of her father or to the house of mourning or to a banquet. That is because every woman should visit her father’s house or visit the house of mourning or a banquet as well as show kindness to her friends and relatives in order that they should reciprocate with her. She is not a prisoner in her house that she is not free to come and go. However it is a degrading thing if she is always going outside - sometimes just outside and at other times into the streets. It is necessary that the husband restrains his wife from this and not let his wife go out except once a month or perhaps twice a month according to need. That is because the beauty of a woman is to sit in the corner of her house as it says in Tehilim (45:14): All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside.

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 15:18): Similarly, our Sages commanded a woman to conduct herself modestly at home, not to proliferate levity or frivolity before her husband, not to request intimacy verbally, nor to speak about this matter. She should not deny her husband [intimacy] to cause him anguish, so that he should increase his love for her. Instead, she should oblige him whenever he desires. She should keep her distance from his relatives and the members of his household so that he will not be provoked by jealousy and should avoid scandalous situations - indeed, any trace of scandal.

Rambam( Hilchos Ishus 15:20): And similarly, they commanded a woman to honor her husband exceedingly and to be in awe of him. She should carry out all her deeds according to his directives, considering him to be an officer or a king. She should follow the desires of his heart and shun everything that he disdains.This is the custom of holy and pure Jewish women and men in their marriages. And these ways will make their marriage pleasant and praiseworthy.
==============
however the man has obligations to her

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 15:19): Similarly, our Sages commanded that a man honor his wife more than his own person, and love her as he loves his own person. If he has financial resources, he should offer her benefits in accordance with his resources. He should not cast a superfluous measure of fear over her. He should talk with her gently, being neither sad nor angry.

Rav Steinman:Reject kids who are wrong type?!

Rema (E.H. 154:21) Harchakos Rabbeinu Tam

שולחן ערוך (אבן העזר הלכות גיטין סימן קנד סעיף כא)

 כל אלו שאמרו להוציא, כופין אפי' בשוטים. וי"א שכל מי שלא נאמר בו בגמרא בפירוש כופין להוציא, אלא יוציא בלבד, אין כופין בשוטים אלא אומרים לו: חכמים חייבוך להוציא, ואם לא תוציא מותר לקרותך עבריין. הגה: וכיון דאיכא פלוגתא דרבוותא, ראוי להחמיר שלא לכוף בשוטים, שלא יהא הגט מעושה (טור בשם הרא"ש). אבל אם יש לו אשה בעבירה, לכ"ע כופין בשוטים.  וכל מקום שאין כופין בשוטים, אין מנדין אותו ג"כ (מרדכי ריש המדיר). ומכל מקום יכולין ליגזור על כל ישראל שלא לעשות לו שום טובה או לישא וליתן עמו (שערי דורא בשם ר"ת ובמהרי"ק), או למול בניו או לקברו, עד שיגרש (בנימן זאב פ"ח /רפ"ט/). ובכל חומרא שירצו ב"ד יכולין להחמיר בכהאי גוונא, ומלבד שלא ינדו אותו. אבל מי שאינו מקיים עונה, יכולין לנדותו ולהחרימו שיקיים עונה או שיגרש, כי אין זה כפייה, רק לקיים עונתו, וכן כל כיוצא בזה (ריב"ש סימן קכ"ז) וכן מי שגירש אשתו בגט כשר, ויצא קצת לעז על הגט, מותר לכופו לתת גט אחר. ובכל מקום דאיכא פלוגתא אם כופין או לא, אף על גב דאין כופין לגרש, מכל מקום כופין אותו ליתן כתובה מיד, וכן הנדוניא דאנעלת ליה (מרדכי ריש המדיר).

Rav Ovadia Yosef - Harchakos Rabbeinu Tam 7:23

Yabia Omer EH 7 23 Harchakos Rabbeinu Tam

Rabbeinu Tam - Harchakos/ Sefer HaYashar #24

Harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam

$2 Million fine for Sexually Harassing Tenants

NYTimes    Three men who operated Upper West Side apartment buildings, one of them a building superintendent who was also a convicted sex offender, have agreed to pay more than $2 million in fines to tenants who were sexually harassed by the superintendent, the United States attorney’s office said Tuesday. 

Under the agreement, the landlord, Stanley Katz of Manhattan, is also prohibited from managing properties, and the former superintendent, William Barnason, is barred from maintaining or managing occupied properties. 

According to the complaint, Mr. Barnason, who had been convicted of molesting or raping three girls and a woman in Suffolk County, would try to enter women’s apartments while drunk and demand sex, engage in “unwelcome groping and fondling” and demand sexual favors in return for rent reductions. Officials said he would retaliate against tenants who refused to comply.

Obama's "evolving" gay marriage position

Time Magazine   Officially, Obama’s position on marriage equality is “evolving”–a stock phrase intended to buy time until a hypothetical second term. By backing gay marriage, Obama would risk alienating a range of potential supporters — including older, rural populists and conservative black Christians — as well as motivating Evangelicals who remain unenthusiastic about Mitt Romney. As it stands, Obama has the support of same-sex marriage advocates even as his fuzziness frustrates them. Planting himself in the muddled middle may be an optimal political tactic.

As Obama’s advisers point out, the President has done more to promote equal rights for gays than any of his predecessors. He instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. He backed the reversal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He has opposed discriminatory practices. “We wouldn’t be removing every federal barrier we can, on our own, to ensure gay and lesbian couples have the same rights and protections as other couples” if Obama did not support equal legal rights for gay couples, said Stephanie Cutter, the president’s deputy campaign manager, in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “There are significant accomplishments in this Administration to ensuring equality for everybody.”

True. But gays have done a lot for Obama as well. Reviewing Obama’s donor lists, the Washington Post notes that about one-in-six of Obama’s top campaign bundlers is gay. Same-sex marriage advocates, who are working to make their cause part of the Democratic party’s platform at this summer’s convention (in North Carolina), grasp that Obama is hemmed in by the looming election. But they also say the right moral stance happens to be smart politics. Young voters, including many of those whose enthusiasm for Obama has dimmed, overwhelmingly support gay marriage. In a new Gallup poll released today, 57% of independents say they support legalizing same-sex marriage. Some of the rumored contenders for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016 also happen to be governors who backed same-sex marriage in their state — including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, with whom Obama appears today in Albany.

Real meaning of LaG BaOmar - Rabbi Hoffman

The Real Meaning of LaG BaOmer By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
The Ramah Shulchan Aruch (OC 493:2) that on LaG BaOmer we engage slightly in Simcha – joy. Commemorating LaG BaOmer is a serious matter. The Mogen Avrohom cites the Kavanos HaArizal that discusses a certain individual who had the habit of reciting Nachem every day. He continued to do so on LaG BaOmer as well. For doing so he was punished. We see, therefore, that one should take the words of the Ramah quite seriously. A number of reasons are cited by Torah authorities for commemorating Lag BaOmer: • It commemorates the students of Rabbi Akiva who ceased dying during this day – although the deaths persisted between Pesach and Shavuos. (Shla Psachim 525). • This day is the Yartzeit of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who revealed the inner secrets of the Torah (Chayei Adam Moadim 131:11) • This is the day that Rabbi Akiva granted ordination to his five students – among them Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai – they did not die in the plague that struck Rabbi Akiva’s other students (Pri Chadash OC 493) • It also commemorates the Manna which began to fall on this day after the Bnei Yisroel left Egypt (Responsa Chsam Sofer YD #233 “Amnam Yadati”). In this short essay, we will attempt to discuss each of the four reasons mentioned above. The Students of Rabbi Akiva The Talmud (Yevamos 62b) tells us that 12,000 pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students died on account of the fact that they did not extend honor to one another. Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zatzal asks how it could be that the great students of Rabbi Akiva neglected this most basic of principles? His answer is most illuminating. Our Rabbis teach us that Kinah, Kavod and Taavah – jealousy, the pursuit of honor, and the pursuit of desires take one out of this world. “If so,” Rabbi Akiva’s students reasoned, “how can we accord each other this spiritual poison?” Rabbi Levenstein explains that they were unaware that, in fact, honor is only poisonous when one seeks it – but when one extends it to another it is not poisonous at all. When we build the self-esteem of others, it is actually quite healthy. Rav Levenstein explains that this notion is very subtle and nuanced and it could well be that the notion itself was only revealed in the world at that time. Why then were they punished? They were smart enough to have been able to figure out and contemplate this issue by themselves. Having neglected to delve into this psychological insight was their error. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai Rashbi, whose Yartzeit we commemorate on this day, merited to compose two extraordinary books that form part of the Zohar. They are the Adara Rabbah and the Adarah Zutah. Rav Yoseph Chaim in his Responsa (Rav Pe’alim YD #156) explains why it was that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, above and beyond his masters the Tannaim, merited to write these extraordinary books. He explains that although his teachers and masters were greater than he was, he had the ability of couching these teachings in esoteric terms. Indeed, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was so adept at obscuring the true understanding of these thoughts, that they could even be expounded upon publically – and only those that truly merit understanding it would be able to figure out the true inner meaning and import. According to this, we commemorate the fact that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai not only transmitted these remarkable teachings, but vouchsafed them in such a manner that they not be abused or taught to those who are unworthy. Jewish Continuity The ordination that Rabbi Akiva conducted on his five students was a heroic event that changed the course of Jewish history, and that of the world. These students were Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yossi, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar Ben Shamoa. Under the pressure of the dark forces of Roman tyranny and religious oppression, these valiant scholars, who were privy to the noblest ideals of the Bible, its teachings and oral traditions, knew that no matter what the cost – they must ensure the continuity of these teachings. They were the future educators of us all. It was a point in time where the forces of evil and darkness were pitted against goodness and light. The light of Torah ultimately won out and Torah Judaism was to effect and alter the world. We commemorate this remarkable event on this day of LaG BaOmer. The words of the Mogen Avrohom concerning the man who was punished for not commemorating this day are, therefore, well understood. The Manna The Manna represents the spiritual nourishment that G-d granted the Jewish people upon their departure from Egypt. Manna allowed us, the Jewish people, to develop a close bond, a Dveikus, with the Creator – that has defined who we are as a nation. Although the Manna no longer falls, the admonition that the Jewish people have to continue that bond, to continue imitating G-d and attempting to be like Him has never ceased. The Talmud (Shabbos 133b) tells us Mah Hu Rachum af attah Rachum veChanun – just as He is Merciful, so should you be merciful. Just as He is kind so too must you be kind. Just as He clothes the poor - so should you clothe the poor. Just as He buries the dead, so should you buy the dead. This is the message of the Manna that still exists to this day, and this is what LaG BaOmer commemorates. Nonetheless, perhaps due to the deaths of so many of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Minhag is to celebrate a little bit and not to make it into a full-fledged holiday. The Chsam Sofer points out that our Talmud does not mention it as a holiday at all. So how do we commemorate this day? The Bnei Yissasschar states that the custom is to light a number of candles in Shul on this day. We do not fast on this day – even for a Yahrtzeit, except for a fast of a bad dream. We do not recite Tachanun on this day, nor the Mincha before it. We get married and attend weddings. We join in with singing and dancing, and we listen to music (See Pri Magadim Aishel Avrohom 493:1). So as we hear the song and dance of the Jewish weddings and the words, “Od Yeshamah, let it still be heard in the cities of Yehudah and in the outskirts of Jerusalem, the sound of joy and the sound of happiness, the sound of the groom and the sound of the bride” let us think of these four reasons: Building the self-esteem of others and according others due honor is of utmost importance; vouchsafing the teachings of the Torah is paramount; Jewish continuity and education is key; and the spiritual bond and Dveikus that we have with Hashem should be central to our lives. May Hashem bring the Geulah Shleimah speedily in our days! The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

Secular look at Chareidim #2: Amnon Levi

Secular look at Chareidim #1: Amnon Levi

Abuse: Brooklyn man sentenced to 20 years

NY Daily News  

A perverted Brooklyn father who admitted Monday to sexually abusing two young children over several years will be sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.

The surprise plea deal for Michael Sabo, 38, came just as his abuse and child pornography trial was set to start in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

He pleaded guilty to molesting a 5-year-old boy for five years starting in 2001 and to repeatedly forcing a little girl to engage in sex acts when she was between the ages 6 and 9.

Abuse: Shame of Catholic Church by BBC

Time Magazine

"Immorality, liberality leads to murders": Chief Rabbi

YNet     Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar said that the recent wave of murders is the result of lax education and promiscuity. "A person who is allowed (to do) anything doesn't respect boundaries," the rabbi told Ynet.

"And so we've reached a situation in which young people – who aren't bad or criminals – murder someone who criticizes them; (a situation) in which women murder, children kill their parents and parents kill their children. I've heard about it and I'm frightened." 

Amar said that there is a "terrible crisis in the education of the (young) generation," mainly a lack of boundaries. "Today, people think that anyone who wants to maintain minimal modesty is primitive and belongs to a different generation. Things that were condemned by every other generation, considered abhorrent by the Torah, have become legitimate."

Abuse: More time for Justice

NYTimes Hawaii significantly strengthened its protections against child sexual abuse last month when Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a measure extending the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits filed by child victims. At least as important, it opens a one-time two-year window to allow victims to file suits against their abusers even if the time limit had expired under the old law. 

Like similar laws in California and Delaware, the Hawaii measure recognizes some wrenching realities. It can take many years, even decades, before child abuse victims are emotionally ready to come forward and tell their stories in court. But by then, they may be barred from suing by the statute of limitations. For example, many suits against the Catholic Church have been blocked because the church’s covering up for pedophile priests made it hard for victims to come forward until long past the time limit for bringing civil claims. 

Hawaii’s new law allows child victims to bring suits up to the age of 26 (it was 20), or three years from the time the victim realizes the abuse caused injury. The law’s leading opponent was the Roman Catholic Church, which has been working hard to defeat statute of limitations reform across the country.

Lag B'Omer is dangerous!

JPost

As Lag Ba’omer approaches, a released survey states that nearly 25 percent of parents disregard their children’s safety by not supervising dangerous bonfires.  [...]

Beterem, the National Center for Child Safety and Health, said that most people understand where to initiate bonfires – in an open area without telephone and electricity wires, trees, traffic and combustible products. But many parents are unaware and fail to prevent young children from approaching the bonfire, especially in windy weather.

ORA - "beis din should give authorization"

guest post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern admits (at 58:00) that public pressure on a husband for not giving a get is inappropriate halachically absent a ruling from a beis din that a get be given.  Nonetheless, Ora was publicly demonstrating against Friedman and his family for over a year before any beis din had called on him to give a get.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEi4SXT_fCA

ORA: 1 Million dollars vs 1 child

Guest Post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern acknowledges that if a wife steals a million dollars from the husband and runs away, "she acted completely inappropriately."  He also acknowledges that in such a case the husband is not required give a get absent the husband having a "fair day in court."  [starting at 58:47]

Apparently,for Rabbi Stern (and presumably Ora's rabbinical advisers such as Rabbi Schachter) one million dollars are far more important than a mere child.  Tamar Epstein abducted the child she had with Aharon Friedman, but instead of labeling Epstein's abduction of the child as completely inappropriate, Rabbi Stern calls Epstein's actions kedas ukedin.  And while Rabbi Stern acknowledges that a wife's stealing a million dollars from a husband is (absent the "husband's having a fair day in court") grounds for not giving a get, Rabbi Stern maintains that Epstein's abduction of the child is not grounds for withholding a get.

And if the husband were to agree to postpone adjudication in civil court to bring the matter to BD, but then the wife were to violate the BD's orders so that the case is heard by the civil court at a much later date, and the court were to rule (at the wife's request) that the wife can keep the money or the child because the husband had waived his right to recover the money or the child as a result of delaying the court trial in order to have the matter decided in Beis Din, the husband would hardly have had a "fair day in court."

Ma'us alei: Husband disgusting/wife sensitive?

We have been discussing the issue of what to do when the wife declares ma'us alei to beis din primarily as to whether the husband is forced in some to give a divorce. Rambam(Ishus 14:8) says she can not be forced to live with him because she is not a captive who can be forced to be with someone she hates.   We have this teshuva of  Rav Ovadiya Yosef which indicates we have to see that she really views him as disgusting or repellant and not that she is interested in another man.There are clearly cases such as a wife beater or psychopath where there is no need to explain ma'us since any intelligent adult would also find him disgusting.

 But what if we see that the husband is not terrible - but she says she can't stand him. Do we insist that she has to put up with her dislike of her husband for the sake of the family? Or does ma'us alei simply mean - he is not my cup of tea and I want out. What is she could deal with him - if she was on psychiatric medication - does she need to take medication to preserve the marriage? What if he is not frum enough and it grates on her nerves how insensitive he is to Torah - is that considered ma'us alei. What if he is too frum and is machmir on everything - she can't stand it - is that ma'us alei.

In sum, does ma'us alei mean merely she personally can't stand him or does it mean that objectively this person has to be disgusting? Does she have to work on herself not to find him disgusting?