Mesorah - questions that bother a reader

Dear Rabbi,

I like to read your blog and I also use your sefer Das Torah. I would like to ask you a few questions that bother me. They are about our Mesorah.

1) How do we know that the Mesora is True 

 The Rishonim (like Kuzari) bring down the idea of Transmission. And they say that it could not be that millions of people were deceived, and that for sure since they all saw it and heard it, they transmitted it as they saw it and heard it. But what if there was a certain (one or few) person in a certain time (when they were together as a tribe of certain people) that told to their people and convinced them to believe that this is what happened, millions of people were there, and "we got the Torah, and here it is". Like it happened in other religions - one man convincing many people to believe in something, all the more so if people in those times were very receptive to believes of different ideas of religion (for example they were very easily  lured into Avoyda Zora) and obviously (at least for me) since they were not on the same level of rational thinking as in later times (in times of Gaonim, Rishonim or our time). So how we are so convinced that the Mesorah is true?

 2) Accepting that the whole Torah was written by Moshe - except last 8 verses

Another question that bothers me is the assertion "that the Torah is written completely by Moshe Rabeinu", and the only argument is about the last eight psukim. One Tana said that Yehoshua wrote them, and Rabbi Yehoshua (I think it was Rabbi Yehoshua?) said -  "Chas v'sholom,  of course Moshe Rabeinu wrote the whole Torah, just last pesukim he wrote with his tears". But why should I believe in what Rabbi Yehoshua said? At least if he would say that it was his Mesora that Moshe wrote the whole Torah, but Rabbi Yehoshua did not say that. He just based his Pshat on the fact that it is written “that Moshe wrote all this Torah”, which in simple meaning does not prove anything - the words “all this Torah” could simply mean all the commandments. Why should I believe in something that came from human mind as his idea? And all the more so, why should I believe in what he said about this concept, when I know that many Rabbis had the intention of protecting the Torah from heretics, which is very good, but since their minds were constantly in the "protecting mode", they automatically thought in this direction - that of course Moshe wrote the whole Torah, what else is possible?! But as it seems to me, there are many places in the Torah where it seems as if the Torah was not written by one person at one time, but it is more like a collection of a few writings that were put together later on. (For example גיד הנשה - “בראשית לב:לג "על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה", or another place - בראשית לו:לא "ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום לפני מלך לבני ישראל" , and there are many other places that are indicating this.) I understand that this idea is very dangerous, but the truth is more important to me. I grew up in a communists country, with a mindset of being anti-religion, and even thought I am Shomer Torah umitzvos now, I still have this attitude that everything has to make sense, and for me “this Rabbi said this and this Rabbi said that" is like the Pope in church said this and this and this, and everybody answers “oh yes father, whatever you say”. This way of thinking absolutely foreign to me and I only accept something if it makes sense. Of course I understand that a human brain cannot comprehend everything - but that's as long as it is something that it is not possible to understand, for example בחירה. But if something looks that it is possible to understand logically, why shouldn't I attempt to do that  - to the best of my ability? And then when we don't understand, we use Emuna. And that being said, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that Moshe did not write the whole Torah, like Rabbi Yehoshua holds, since it is his personal opinion, and not the mesora, (at least it does not say that). And it is not perfectly logical to say that Moshe wrote the whole Torah, because of all of those allusions to it, like I wrote before. So basically my question to you is - what's wrong with my understanding, since I don't find any Orthodox Rabbi that holds like this? (only conservative) Or maybe this logic is correct, but Orthodox Rabbis would never accept this because it is too dangerous?

Please answer me, if you can. I specifically chose you because of your rational approach to things.

Thank you,

Cherem of R' Gershom - time limited decree?

Pischei Teshuva (Even Ha-Ezer 1:19): Until the end of the 5^th millennium (1240) -  these are the words of the Maharik who cites Rashba that he had heard that Rabbeinu Gershom had not made his decree to be in force after the 5^th millennium... Look at Mishkenos Yaakov (#1) who writes that it seems to him that the reason for the rumor  - even though normally a decree is forever until a beis din arises that is greater in wisdom and number  as is well known – is because all rabbinic decrees need to be a protective fence for Torah laws. This is expressed by Ramban (Eschanon) that one should not create any matter or decree except that which is preventative fence for the Torah. The only exception being that a beis din has the power to make temporary decrees for the needs of the time and generation in order to correct temporary aberrations. Those matters which are for the needs of the time are not made permanent decrees. According this understanding, we can suggest that the ones who said there is a time limitation to the Cherem thought that Rabbeinu Gershom did not make this decree as a protective fence for a halacha. That is because there is absolutely no Torah prohibition which would justify this fence for everyone.  Thus those who make this claim feel that the decree must have been made for some transient problem of those times and that is why it was only for a limited time and not permanent and it wasn’t made in connection with a Torah law. However this view is not unanimously held and there are those who disagree with it.  This issue was raised by a few gedolim cited in a teshuva of the Beis Yosef. Besides this there were also a number of gedolim at the beginning of the 6^th millennium such as the Ran, Mordechai Maharam Ruttenburg and Raviah who discussed the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom and yet did not mention this leniency at all of it only being in force until the end of the 5^th millennium (1240). ... According to all this evidence we must conclude that Rabbeinu Gershom made this decree as a fence to protect Torah prohibitions because of various reasons and therefore this decree must have also been made forever as we find with all decrees that the Sages made. And Maharam Alshakar (#95) writes, Concerning the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom this that it is claimed to be in force only until the beginning of the 6^th millennium – but it is already well known that the majority of the Jews in exile never accepted this decree then or now - for example Spain and the West and the entire East. There are places that did accept it even until today and they conduct themselves in accordance with it. Therefore for all those places which accepted it even until today - it is in force as it was during the 5^th millennium.

Chassidic dynastic battles & political clout

NYTimes There is an enduring belief among some New York political aficionados that Hasidic Jews vote in a bloc. Capture the support of a chief rabbi and you capture the entire Hasidic sect. 

But the divisions in several Hasidic sects have made once-simple calculations far more complicated, as shown by the preliminary results in the recent Democratic primary for the Congressional seat held by Nydia M. Velázquez, a district that embraces Brooklyn’s Hasidic enclave in Williamsburg. 

The Satmar are the largest Hasidic sect in the United States, with its stronghold in Williamsburg, but with the death of Moses Teitelbaum, the Satmar grand rabbi, in 2006, their ranks have been sundered by a dynastic battle between two of his sons, Aaron and Zalman. And politics has become a favored way for each side to demonstrate its ascendancy.

Gra's failed attempt to restore daily Birkas Kohanim

Rabbi Daniel Travis  During the time of the Rishonim, a group of prominent Ashkenazic rabbis decreed that Birkas Kohanim should be recited only during Yamim Tovim (Responsa Beis Ephraim 6). The exact reasons for this decision are not known, but it is likely that it was connected to the intense hardships that their communities were experiencing at that time, which did not allow for them to feel joy. This ruling is upheld until this day and, outside of Israel, Ashkenazim recite Birkas Kohanim only on Yom Tov (Rema 128,44).

The Vilna Gaon and his students tried very hard to reinstate the daily Birkas Kohanim, but many obstacles blocked their efforts. In one instance the Vilna Gaon was arrested on false charges the day before a public Birkas Kohanim was planned. Rav Chaim of Volozhin, the Gaon’s closest disciple, once tried as well. The night before the planned event, fire razed half the town of Volozhin, including the shul where Birkas Kohanim was planned (as cited in Responsa Mashiv Davar 2,104 and Aruch Hashulchan 128,64). Eventually these attempts were abandoned.

ערוך השולחן אורח חיים הלכות תפילה סימן קכח

סעיף סד

והנה ודאי אין שום טעם נכון למנהגינו לבטל מצות עשה דברכת כהנים כל השנה כולה וכתבו דמנהג גרוע הוא אבל מה נעשה וכאלו בת קול יצא שלא להניח לנו לישא כפים בכל השנה כולה ומקובלני ששני גדולי הדור בדורות שלפנינו כל אחד במקומו רצה להנהיג נשיאת כפים בכל יום וכשהגבילו יום המוגבל לזה נתבלבל הענין ולא עלה להם ואמרו שרואים כי מן השמים נגזרה כן ומצד הדין י"ל ע"פ מ"ש בסעיף מ"ט ע"פ הזוהר דבעינן שמחה דומיא דאהרן ובניו בשמיני למילואים ולזה נאמר כה תברכו אמנם זה שהיה מנהג מקדם דיו"ט שחל בשבת לא היו נושאים כפיהם כבר נתבטל בימינו כי אין במנהג זה טעם וריח כמו שהאריכו מפרשי הש"ע בזה [ט"ז סקל"ז ומג"א סק"ע] ובעל קרי מותר בנשיאת כפים [ב"י] והמחמיר לטבול תבא עליו ברכה אמנם בא"י ובמצרים ובכל אזיא נושאים הכהנים כפיהם בכל יום: 

Shulchan Aruch, Polygamy & Rabbeinu Gershom

See full discussion in Otzer haPoskim volume I from Hebrew Books pages 21 -94

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 1:9): A man is allowed to marry a number of wives as long is he can afford them. Nevetheless the Sages gave good advice that one should not marry more than four wives in order that each one would have sexual relations at least once each month. In communities where the practice is to have only one wife it is not appropriate to marry an additional wife.

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 1:10): Rabbeinu Gershom made a cherem against those who married an additional wife. In contrast he didn’t make a ban against those who married their brother’s widow (yevama) who was childless nor an arusa. Rema: If he didn’t want to marry her but to exempt her (Maharik 101). He also didn’t apply it in a case where a mitzva was not being done for example his first wife had no children after 10 years... However others disagree and they assert that the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom applies even when it intereferes with doing a mitzvs and even in the case of yebom. Therefore in a case of a married yevam he would be required to do chalitza rather than marrying his brother’s widow (yevama). In a case that she can not be divorced such as she is insane or she refuses to accept the Get from him – then there is reason to be lenient for him to marry someone else. And surely if the first one is only betrothed but doesn’t want to get married or breakup with him. This decree of Rabbeinu Gershom was not universally accepted in all places. Rema:  It doesn’t apply only in those places where it is known not to have been adopted but otherwise it is to assumed that a particular place did accept it. Look at Y.D. 228 concerning a person who travels from a place where it is accepted to one where it was not accepted. Furthermore the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom was only decreed until the end of the 5^th milenia. Rema: Nevertheless in all the Ashkenaz lands it was decreed and this practice still applies today and therefore one should not marry two women. And we force with cherem and nidoi anyone who transgressed and married two women – that he should divorce one of them. And some say that today we don’t force someone who has transgressed the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom since we already have passed the  5^th milenia but that view is not accepted. There are some who say if his wife becomes an apostate that she is given a get through another party and that is the practice in a number of places. In a place where it is not the practice, there is no need to be strict and it is permitted to marry another woman without divorcing the first.

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 1:11): It is a good idea to make decrees and bans and shunnings against someone who marries an additional wife.

Rav Nachman Bulman zt"l: Erev Iyun on 10th Yahrtzeit

Who will comfort us now? by Toby Katz

Rav Sternbuch: Can a talmid chachom serve his son?

Rav Sternbuch (4:209): In Kiddushin (31b) it mentions that R’ Yaakov’s father and mother both poured him a drink. The gemora concludes that he should take the drink from his mother but not from his father since his father is a talmid chachom he will be insulted if his son accepts the drink from him. In other words, since his father is a talmid chachom who wants to serve his son and the son agrees to accept his service – it will make his father feel insulted. These words are astounding! We have a case where the father wants to do something for his son so why would he be insulted if his son accepted his offer? Was his father just trying to test his son to see whether he would accept? Consequently this halachic conclusion must only be in the case where the mother is there and wants to help and but the son would rather accept it from his father. In such a case it would appear that since his father is a talmid chachom it would be degrading for him because the father is being treated as equivalent to his mother. That is why he should take the drink from his father but rather he should take it from his mother. It would follow from this analysis that if only the father was offering a drink then it would be permitted to take the drink. With this explanation, all the questions of the Maharsha on the gemora later regarding where the father is not concerned about his honor that it is not a concern and that the son is permitted to take it. However there is a problem with this answer since Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 240:25) doesn’t make this distinction and simply says that if the father is a talmid chachom that it is prohibited for the son to accept the drink. That is because if he allows his father to serve him it seems that he is insulting the father’s Torah. Thus it seems according to the Shulchan Aruch that even if the father is forgiving of his honor and really wants to serve his son, even so if the son accepts the drink the father would be insulted. This is in according with the text of the gemora here. This matter in my opinion requires great study and it is an astounding innovation. (Look at the Birchei Yosef in the name of the Pri Chodosh that he should not accept even if the father is very insistent). Perhaps this is true only if this is done on a regular basis then we should be concerned that once in a while he might be insulted. It would follow that it is always prohibited to accept service from a talmid chachom because of the possibility that he would be insulted when someone accepts his offer. In other words even if the talmid chachom really wants to be of serve it would be prohibited to accept the offer just as it is here concerning a father who wants to provide service. Nevertheless the Shulchan Aruch rules that it is prohibited unless you want to conclude that it is only prohibited if it is done on a regular basis. This matter requires further thought. That is of course referring to any Torah scholar who wants to serve others but a student who wants to serve – it a is mitzva to accept as in mentioned in Chazal.

Cherem R Gershom & Remarriage - Rav Sternbuch 3:416

 Rav Sternbuch 3 416

Dor Yeshorim - Wall Street Journal interview

Wall Street Journal             Dor Yeshorim Web site

Rabbi Josef Ekstein, who had four children die of Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal neurodegenerative condition, founded a program called Dor Yeshorim to screen people and create a database with the test results while providing participants with anonymity. Young people—typically from age 17 to their early 20s—who get tested are assigned a personal identification number and birth date without the year. The program screens for nine conditions common among Ashkenazi Jews—those who can trace ancestry to Central and Eastern Europe—and the information is kept in a database by Dor Yeshorim, which means "upright generation" in Hebrew.

How much to reveal to people remains a contentious issue in the gene-testing field. Some geneticists argue that scientists still have no grasp of most gene mutations' relevance, and that sharing information whose meaning is uncertain is potentially harmful. In some cases, people might endlessly worry or alter their lives because of a mutation for which there is no effective treatment or that turns out to be benign; others may ignore medical advice because genes show they aren't predisposed to a particular condition, even though screening can't rule out the possibility a disease will develop.

Yaniv Erlich, a geneticist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., who works with Dor Yeshorim on research projects, says the group's decision to share only what it considers "actionable information" is a stance taken by many geneticists. What's unusual is that, in this case, "the marriage is the actionable information," he says.

Still, researchers believe that while risk can be lowered, it can never be completely eliminated. In genetics and love, says Edwin Kolodny, professor emeritus in neurology at New York University Medical Center and chairman of Dor Yeshorim's medical advisory board, "Marriage in most situations remains a lottery where we just take our chances."

Rav Gestetner to Rav Miller - Remarry without heter 100 Rabbonim?

Rav Gestetner to Rav Miller

Sarah Schenirer: Lecture by Dr. Hillel Abramson

Classical example of false ma'us ali claims

False ma'us ali claims against the husband

Higgs Boson - who cares?

Alleged rapist working in Brooklyn Yeshiva - Background check?

NY Daily News   Moshe Pinter, 28, was arrested and charged with a trying to molest a 13-year old boy in 2007, but pled down the top felony charge to a misdemeanor child endangerment offense after the victim declined to testify against him, according to court records and sources.

Pinter was sentenced to three years of probation, but was not barred from working with minors.

For the past year Pinter has been working at Ohr Hameir Yeshiva in Borough Park chaperoning Hasidic teens on weekend getaways while parents had no idea of his criminal past - which also includes two theft convictions.

Child victim advocates said the case highlights the need for private schools to be legally obligated to run fingerprint and background checks on employees and for Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes to publicize the names of convicted perpetrators in the Jewish community.

Debate over drafting Chareidim & Arabs

NY Times  On one level, the questions shaking the Israeli political system this week are pragmatic: how many ultra-Orthodox men and Arab citizens should be drafted into the military or national service, over how many years and how should those who resist be penalized? 

But the debate over these details masks a more fundamental and fractious one about evolving identity in this still-young state, where a “people’s army” has long been a defining principle, and about the growing cleavage among its tribes. 

That is what has brought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s broad unity coalition to the brink of collapse in recent days, with an Aug. 1 deadline looming to replace a law providing draft exemptions to thousands of men studying in yeshivas that the Supreme Court deemed illegal in February. 

“What’s at stake is two cultures, two civilizations,” Professor Stern added, referring to the ultra-Orthodox, known as Haredim, and other Jews here. “These two civilizations used to live in some kind of peace because each one thought that the other is going to disappear eventually. Nowadays I think everybody realizes that the two camps are here to stay, and we have to decide what will be the identity in the public sphere.”

Victim who Assaulted Molester Priest - Acquitted

CNN A California jury Thursday acquitted a man charged with assaulting a retired Catholic priest, in a case that prosecutors had described as a vigilante attack.

Weiss Family Statement & Supporting Documents

Weiss Family Statement

Nachlaot: An anonymous letter objecting to a post

I just received this letter today. It is a demand that I remove a post regarding an article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post about the child abuse scandal in Nachlaot.  This is an example of the pressure that happens in the Orthodox community regarding discussing of child abuse. Anonymous letters,  anonymous phone calls etc. 

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

He masterminded systematic rape of over 100 kids :The nightmare of Nachlaot

JPost

Dear Rabbi,

I recently went through your blogs on  Nachlaot and see that you are not one of the people who have been irrationally pushing the witch hunt that has been going on in Nachlaot.  Since your blog comes up every time a search is done on Nachlaot abuse, I assumed you were one of the many inciters.  In this I apologize.  However, I will take you to task on the article you did print from the Jerusalem Post.  I am not sure for what purpose you posted it.   Perhaps you didn't have any better thing to post that day.  In any case, the fact that you took the effort to give validity to an article from the JP that is based on lies and contains mostly lies is not forgivable.  (Every one is judged according to who they are.)  Therefore, since you have involved yourself in outright Motzie Shem Ra(everyone knows who S is), and chose to give the validity of the Torah to these lies by posting them on your blog as a truth, it is only right that you should want to correct the ill truths that you presented as truth. 

There is several reasons why you would want to do this.  A. Many innocent lives have been destroyed.  The only way to correct that is to expose the lies and establish the truth.  B.  As long as the children are being treated based on lies, they will never get better.  1. Many of the children that are in treatment may not have been abused. 2. And if they were abused, it is not by the people they are claiming to have abused them.  3.  The people that are abusing them are still getting away with it,  i.e. brothers,  Rebbis or whoever might actually have access to them.  C.  Several people that are in jail very well may be innocent.  D. All the other reasons stated in the letters of the Rabbis that say it much more eloquently than I do.

Therefore, it is imperative that you do what you can do to straighten out this situation.  To stand up in the name of truth. 

Having been falsely accused,  basically ostracized from the Jewish community, the Shechina cries.  

One of the MANY falsely accused of Nachlaot. 

http://nachlaotchildabuse.blogspot.com/2012/07/moral-panic-or-modern-day-witch-hunt.html

http://nachlaotchildabuse.blogspot.com/2012/06/english-translation-of-letters-written.html

Chazon Ish: "Die rather than Transgress" - Literally?

There are three sins which a person must die rather than transgress, murder, idolatry and sexual immorality (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 157:1). The Chazon Ish pronounced that drafting women was included and that a woman should resist even if it meant death (See the below excerpt). The Chazon Ish also said the same applied to shaking hands with women. My question is whether he meant that literally? In other words should a man faced with the choice of being killed or shaking hands with a woman - should allow himself to be killed?

[Just added the original report in Moadim u'Zemanim where it is clear that the Chazon Ish meant it literally.]

תשובות והנהגות כרך ד סימן ש    נישוק ונתינת יד לאמו החורגת  

נדרשתי מבחור ירא שמים, שנודע לו רק עכשיו שאמו מתה בילדותו, ואביו התחתן עם אשה שניה שגידלה אותו כבן ממש, ועכשיו כשנודע להבחור ממאן לנשק ולתת יד לאמו החורגת, ואביו כועס עליו מאד ואומר שזה לא הכרת הטוב לנהוג כן באשה שגדלתו במסירות, עד שרוצה לגרש את הבן מהבית. וכעין שאלה זו הבאתי ב"מועדים וזמנים" (ח"ד סימן שט"ז בהג"ה) ששאלתי למרן החזון איש זצ"ל והשיב שאין להתיר אפילו נתינת יד מפני שדרך חיבה היא ויהרג ואל יעבור. וסיפר לי השואל שאח"כ הלך לשאול גם את הגאון רבי משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל, והשיב שאם מדקדק לעשות בצורה ובאופן שניכר שאין זה דרך חיבה מותר, ואין בזה משום אביזרייהו, והביא לזה דברי הרמב"ם בהלכותיו שעיקר האיסור הוא דרך תאוה דוקא, ולדבריו התיר באופן שהבאנו

מועדים וזמנים (חלק ד' סי' שט"ז):

...הבן ביקש ממני ליכנס לרבינו ה"חזון איש" זצ"ל לשאול פיו לשמוע עצתו, נכנסתי וסיפרתי לו הדברים כהויתן, והשיב מיד "לתת יד לאשה קריבה לעירות, ומאביזרייהו דגלוי עריות שיהרג ואל יעבור, ואין שום היתר בזה מפני דרכי שלום או רגילה עמה כאמו", אבל סיים דבשמירת התורה לא יבוא לידי היזק, ושהבן יתעקש ויצליח בע"ה, ואודיע לו דבר זה בשמו והבחור באמת התעקש ומיאן לתת יד עד שלבסוף האשה גופא השפיעה על הבעל לעזוב אותו למנהגו אם מתעקש  כ"כ ושלום בבית והבחור זכה ב"ה לבית נאמן בישראל והוא תלמיד חכם שזכה לשלום בית ומשפחה וחיים מאושרים!

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

RJJ Halacha Journal  Rav Yaakov Koniefsky reported that the Chazon Ish had declared that if the law were indeed passed, it was the duty of every Jew to resist unto death - literally.s For him it represented an encroachment upon the prohibition of "Arayot" - immorality and licentiousness - which is one of the three mitzyot for which a Jew must choose death rather than transgress. Rav Koniefsky also writes that the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, and the Tchebiner Rav all concurred that if the measure became law, every family with·a draft-age daughter would have to leave the country! So strong were they in opposing the danger that they equally opposed a similar plan to draft girls not for the army but for some alternate National Service.

They left no doubt as to the cause for their opposition - the army in any country. and Israel is no different, is a place where moral standards are relaxed. to say the least, and it was just not the proper environment for a Jewish daughter, Against their will, the girls would be affected by the atmosphere and the environment to which they would be exposed, a milieu which would replace the positive reinforcement they would have gotten at home from parents and family.

Rabbis Isser Zalman Meltzer and Tzvi Pesach Frank also issued pronouncements that a person must choose death rather than accede to the government decree, as did the Steipler Rav and Rav Shach. When another rabbi suggested that perhaps it would not be so terrible if the girls served under carefully supervised conditions, the Chazon Ish retorted that the rabbi's opinion was totally worthless and, had he had any children, he would not have been able to say something like that The Chazon Ish actually ruled that the Sabbath should be desecrated to avoid compliance with a draft order and urged parents and teachers to inculcate young women with the laws of dying "al kiddush Hashem;' in sanctification of the Name

Dr. Benny Brown's Biography of Chazon Ish

Haaretz   It is to Brown’s credit that he has rescued the Hazon Ish from ultra-Orthodox hagiography. Brown treats his subject with the respect he deserves and with more than a little empathy. At the same time, he views him as flesh and blood, and does not refrain from disclosing moments of weakness in his life. One mark of Brown’s success is the sharpness of the Haredi response to his book. It seems that more than anything else, the ultra-Orthodox cannot forgive Brown for saying the Hazon Ish − whom they consider one of the inspirations for the creation of a “learning society” in which Haredi men learn Torah all day instead of working, regardless of their scholarly aptitude − never believed that men must do nothing but study Torah, and that he was not opposed to army service or participation in the workforce.

While it may seem that it’s the gedolim who shaped the Haredi ethos as we know it today, the society is influenced by many more dynamics and constraints than the greats could have foreseen. The object of the hagiography, then, is to reinvent the images of the greats to suit the needs of the ultra-Orthodox ethos as it stands today. And woe is the critical scholar who reveals the gap between myth and reality.

In response to Brown’s book, Rabbi Abraham Isaiah Bergman wrote in the Haredi newspaper Yated Neeman: “These people [critical scholars] who have not ever read and have not studied and have never gotten close to Torah scholars, and think that they have touched an angel of God even though they have not come close at all ... I say to them: You who are coming to trample my courts, who are you to come here with donkeys [which can never become kosher animals]? ... Let the source of living water [a reference to God and the Torah] be.

Benjamin Brown’s book on the Hazon Ish is an impressive scholarly achievement, an important signpost in the study of ultra-Orthodox society. Anyone who wants to understand the Haredi world, with its obvious implications for Israeli society in general, must not miss this book.

Moser - Shulchan Aruch/Rema C.M. 388:5

Guest Post by Stan   Shulchan Oruch/ Rema Choshen Mishpot 388:5

Litigants who have a disagreement over land or over movable objects, this one says it is mine and this one says it is mine and one of them got up and informed (to the secular/ non Jewish authorities) then Bais Din (is obligated to) puts the one who forces (i.e. the informant) in cheirem until it reverts to how it was before and the hand of the forcer (through secular court) is removed between them and they have a Din Torah.

The Rema adds that the informant does not have the din of a moyser even though he made his "friend" have a very big loss because this is not called mesirah unless he intended to cause his friend damage but it is not mesirah where he (only) intends to retrieve what belonged to him (and there are those who disagree etc).

Please explain how we see from this Rema that a woman who goes to arko'oys for a divorce is not a moyser?

a) This case is talking about monetary matters, not other matters.
b) Even if you want to argue that it applies to non-monetary matters as well, merely by simply asking for a divorce the woman is almost inevitably harming the man unless he does not mind.
c) If the woman asks for anything that she is not entitled to al pi halocho, she is most definitely a moyser from this Rema e.g. alimony, equitable distribution etc.
d) If the children are boys and if she asks for custody and the halocho is that the boys go with the father, she is a moyser.
e) If she says anything bad whatsoever about the father to the courts, she is damaging the father and so is oyver mesirah.
f) If she asks for child support from the courts in the US, which many poskim including Rav Sternbuch hold is awarded excessively relative to the halochoh, she is a moyser.

So please explain to us, how unless in an extremely rare case, a woman going to arko'oys in the US is not a moyser?

Please explain to us why you conclude that such a woman in not a moyser? Who are you kidding?

Abuse viewed differently 30 years ago?

NYTimes This year, Lisa M. Friel, the former Manhattan prosecutor who has helped Poly Prep bolster its sexual-abuse-prevention program, angered plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the school when she said in an interview that “people had very different understandings of what sexual abuse was in the ’60s and ’70s and what a pedophile was.” 

 One problem with an argument like Mr. Lin’s is the extent to which it belies the secrecy surrounding the kind of encounters he describes. If things had, in fact, been as open, freewheeling and inoculated from reproof as he and others might have chosen to believe, then the sex that transpired between teachers and students would not have happened so clandestinely, with wrenching admissions and discussions arriving only 20 and 30 years later.  

 Times are different, in that more children who have been abused say so. In his research, David Finkelhor, a leading expert on sexual abuse who wrote one of the 1980 books, has found that now, in 50 percent of sexual abuse cases, the child’s victimization had been reported to an authority, compared with 25 percent in 1992. Dr. Finkelhor has also found that the number of substantiated cases of abuse has dropped 62 percent from 1990 to 2010. 

While it is true that the world of parental vigilance we inhabit now was not yet manifest in the ’70s or even the ’80s, when much of the abuse at Horace Mann is said to have happened, it skews reality to imagine that the sexual abuse of children is an issue that only recently has seen the rays of the sun. By 1974, years before the arrival of Lifetime television and its relentless airing of crisis dramas, ABC offered an hour of the series “Marcus Welby, M.D.” devoted to the case of a 14-year-old boy who had been raped by a science teacher during a field trip.

Military Conscription for Ultra-Orthodox Jews & Arabs

NYTimes  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s supersize coalition was showing its first serious signs of stress on Friday in its quest for a more universal draft system in Israel. 

An effort that has so far focused on phasing out mass army exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Jews suddenly became more charged as right-wing nationalist parties decided to press the equally — if not more — contentious issue of national or civilian service for Israel’s Arab citizens.  

The issue is highly provocative. While most Jewish Israelis, and Druze men, are conscripted at 18, Israeli Arabs are generally not required to perform mandatory military service, though they may volunteer. 

Recent polls have shown that despite a rise in the number of Arabs volunteering for civilian community service, a growing majority of Arab youth are opposed.  A survey published in May by Haifa University found that 40 percent of Arab youths in Israel were willing to volunteer for civil service in 2011, compared with 53 percent in 2009. The Haifa University study also found that 90 percent of the Arab volunteers were girls providing educational and welfare services in their communities. 

Mondrowitz with D.A. Hynes in hot pursuit?!

NYTimes  For years, Avrohom Mondrowitz counseled children out of his home in the Borough Park neighborhood of Brooklyn. He was host of a call-in radio show popular among ultra-Orthodox Jewish listeners, claiming to be a rabbi and psychologist. But law enforcement officials say Mr. Mondrowitz, who fled to Israel in 1984 to avoid arrest, was also something else: “a compulsive pedophile.” 

The Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, has repeatedly said that since taking office in 1990, he has vigorously tried to extradite Mr. Mondrowitz. Mr. Hynes has said his office was instrumental in bringing about a change in a treaty between the United States and Israel in 2007 that had thwarted early extradition efforts.  

But newly disclosed documents from Mr. Hynes’s office cast doubts on his accounts of his role in the case, suggesting that for many years, the office paid little attention to it. 

“There isn’t a single e-mail, a single letter, a single memo, either originating from the D.A.’s office or addressed to it, that so much as mentions any attempt by the D.A. to seek a change in the extradition treaty,” Mr. Lesher said. “It’s just inconceivable that such important negotiation on such a detailed issue could have taken place and not left a trace in the documentary record.”

Keeping cool in modest clothing

NYTimes  When the mercury passes 90, most New Yorkers start to wilt. Many resort to shorts and tank tops, even in the office. More than a few bankers and lawyers reach for their seersuckers. 

Yet amid all the casual summer wear, in some neighborhoods more than others, Hasidic men wear dark three-piece suits crowned by black hats made of rabbit fur, and Hasidic women outfit themselves in long-sleeved blouses and nearly ankle-length skirts. To visibly cooler New Yorkers, they can look painfully overdressed.

In the Hasidic world, the traditional fashion code and interpretations of ancient Jewish law dictate modesty for a woman — a concept known as tzniut — so even on sizzling days women conceal their necks, arms and legs, and married women don wigs, head scarves or turbans to hide their real hair. While Hasidic men do not feel the modesty obligation to the same degree, they believe that it is a mark of humility and respect for others to dress formally when encountering the world.

In Borough Park, women snatch up neckline-hugging shells that allow them to wear thin, long-sleeved and open-necked blouses from, say, Macy’s. Hasidic men seek a frock coat made of lighter-weight, drip-dry polyester, without a shape-holding canvas lining, and lightweight weaves in the fringed, four-cornered, woolen poncho known as tzitzit, a daily version of the prayer shawl that is worn over a white shirt. Also, men will go jacketless when working or driving, though any substantial stroll along a public sidewalk requires a suit jacket or frock coat, known in Yiddish as a rekel or in its longer and fancier Sabbath version as a bekishe. 

Child abuse rates higher in Israel

JPost   Reports of child abuse in Israel have steadily grown over the past three years, as the number of reported cases in the US is decreasing, according to recent data the Jerusalem-based Haruv Institute collected and provided to The Jerusalem Post this week.

The data presented by the institute, which not only researches the phenomenon but also provides training to professionals working in the medical, educational and community fields, shows that in Israel in 2010 the number of reported child abuse cases was 18.9 for every 1,000 children, compared to 8.7 for every 1,000 children in 1995. The US figures for 2010 were 10 reports for every 1,000 children, compared to 14.7 reports for every 1,000 children in 1995.

While part of the rise in reporting of child abuse cases in Israel stems from greater awareness among professionals and society as to what constitutes abuse and how to report it, Haruv Institute director Prof. Asher Ben-Arieh said it has more to do with an alarming increase in violence throughout Israeli society in general.

Not to call wife by her name?

The following are sources which deal with the fact that a wife's name is often not used by her husband [ and also a husband's name is not used by the wife]. Various reasons are given from 1) the wife is the foundation of the home and thus it is a praise to refer to her as "my home" 2) A wife belongs in the home and not outside  so saying "my home" is a reminder of her place 3) It is a lack of modesty to for spouses to use first names - especially before others 4) It is a way of preventing the children from calling their parents by their first names. 5) Rav Yosse's wife was bad so he didn't want to mention that she was his wife. 6) Wife should not use husband's name out of respect for his authority while husband may use her name. 7) This is done to praise and motivate the wife to do her housework 8) this practice applied only to Rabbi Yosse because the wife was a yevama and he was establishing a house for his brother.

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

Shabbos(118b): R’ Yossi said, I have never called my wife “my wife” or my ox “my ox”, but rather I called my wife “my home” and my ox “ I called “my field.”

Rashi(Gittin 52a): I called my wife my home – that is because all the necessities of the home are done through her and thus she is the main entity of the home. Similarly the ox is the main part of the field.

Meiri(Shabbos 118b): A person should always  use refined language. An example is that one talmid chachom said, “I nevr call my wife “my wife” nor my ox “my ox”. Rather I call my wife “my home” and my ox “my field.”

Megila(13a): And with the death of her father and mother, Mordechai took her as his own daughter. A Tanna taught in the name of R’ Meir, Don’t read for a daughter (l’bas) but for a house (l’bayis). Similarly it says (Shmuel 2 12:3), And  the poor  man had nothing  except one lamb which he had bought and raised together with him and his children. From his own bread it ate and it drank out of his own cup and it lay in his bosom and it was like a daughter to him. But why did lying in his bosom make it like a daughter (bas) to him? Rather what is meant it was like a wife (bayis) so here also it means a wife (bayis).

Maharasha(Megila 13a): Don’t read it that Mordechai took Esther as a daughter but rather for his home... In other word he tooks her for his wife as they say in general (Shabbos 118b), “I  called my wife my home.”

Shabbos shel Mi(Shabbos 118b): I have never called my wife “my wife” or my ox “my ox” but I called by wife “my home” and my ox I called “my field.” Rashi explains that he was saying that, “even from my mundane talk one can learn wisdom.” The Maharal asks in Chidushei Agados, how can he rejoice and praise himself in the manner? He give an alternative explanation that he was attempting to motivate his wife and his slaves in doing their jobs.

Daf ahl Daf(Shabbos 118b): ... The reason why he always referred to his wife  as “my home” is because all the honor of the woman is to be inside (Tehilim 45) and it is not the manner for a woman to go out of the house. Therefore she is the principle member of the home and that is why he called her “my home.”

Daf ahl Daf(Berachos 27b): In Minhag Yisroel Torah (O.C. 240:1) he notes that the Minhagei Maharil states, “That when Mahari Segel spoke about his wife with other he would say in German, ‘Mein hoiz frau’ (my house wife) as we see in Shabbos (118b) that he never called his wife ‘my wife’ but rather said ‘my home’). Rashi there says it was because she was the principle member of the home. When he would call her he would say in German ‘hert ihr nit’, which is the accepted practice in the world that husband and wife don’t mention their spouses name.”  This that the  Maharil did not say “my wife” when speaking in the presence of others or use her name, see Magid Ta’aluma, “Regarding Berachos (27b) where R’ Eliezar ben Azarya said, ‘I will go and consult with the members of my household’ and he went and consulted with his wife. This informs us that it is not correct to mention his wife’s name before others and therefore he referred to as “my household” when he meant his wife.” However this that the Maharil was careful not to call his wife at all by her name, see Redak (Lech Lecha) who notes the change in description. For Avraham it says, Your name will no longer be called Avraham while for Sarah it says, “You should no longer call her name Sarai.” That is because a man calls his wife by her name but the wife doesn’t call her husband by his name but rather in a respectful manner that reflects authority. (See Toldos Kol Aryeh who brings many sources for this).

Daf ahl Daf(Gittin 52a): Maharam Shif explains that it was specifically R’ Yosse who did call his wife “my wife” because she was a bad woman as it mentioned  in Bereishis Rabba (17:3), I will make for him a help-mate  - If he merits she will be a helper and if not she will be against him. Rabbi Yehoshua said that if he merits to have a wife like the wife of Rabbi Chanina but if not he will have a wife like Rabbi Yosse. We thus see that Rabbi Yosse had a bad wife.

However the Netzutzei Ohr expresses surprise at his words since the one who says that he didn’t call his wife “my wife” was Rabbi Yosse bar Chalafta who is cited in Rus Rabba (2:8). However the Rabbi Yosse who had a bad wife was Rabbi Yosse haGalili. Therefore the Netzutzei Ohr gives a different explanation as to why Rabbi Yosse called his wife “my home.” This is based on Shabbos (118b), Rabbi Yosse said that he had sexual intercourse five times and he planted 5 cedars in Israel. He cites Tosfos in the name of the Yerushalmi that these were Yevamos and therefore he called them “my home” since with each one he established the house of his brother [and he only had intercourse once with each of them – Tosfos]

Child Sexual Abuse Rate Declining

NYTimes   Anyone reading the headlines in recent weeks has come away with an unsettling message: Sexual predators seem to lurk everywhere.

In a single day last week, juries deliberating 200 miles apart in Pennsylvania delivered guilty verdicts against Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State, for sexually molesting boys, and against Msgr. William J. Lynn, a clergy secretary, for shielding predatory priests. In New York, accusations of sexual abuse at Horace Mann, an exclusive preparatory school in the Bronx, recently spurred two law enforcement agencies to open hot lines and an 88-year-old former teacher at the school to admit to having had sexual interactions with students decades ago

But if the convictions of Mr. Sandusky and Monsignor Lynn represent a success story, the furor surrounding them tends to obscure what may be an even more significant achievement, albeit one that receives little publicity: The rates of child sexual abuse in the United States, while still significant and troubling, have been decreasing steadily over the last two decades by several critical measures. 

Overall cases of child sexual abuse fell more than 60 percent from 1992 to 2010, according to David Finkelhor, a leading expert on sexual abuse who, with a colleague, Lisa Jones, has tracked the trend. The evidence for this decline comes from a variety of indicators, including national surveys of child abuse and crime victimization, crime statistics compiled by the F.B.I., analyses of data from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect and annual surveys of grade school students in Minnesota, all pointing in the same direction.

Abuse:Beware of men in costumes

NYTimes   The man in the red Elmo costume was back to work in Central Park on Tuesday, but under the mask, he was not smiling. He was behind in tips he earns by posing for photographs with tourists. He said he had gotten a late start because he was not released from a psychiatric evaluation at a nearby hospital until midmorning. 

The man, who said his legal name, if not an original one, is Adam Sandler, was handcuffed by the police and escorted from the park on Sunday afternoon after he was heard — and videotaped, by an English tourist — shouting anti-Semitic remarks outside the Central Park Zoo. 

The police put him into an ambulance bound for Metropolitan Hospital Center, but he was not arrested. The video spread quickly on the Internet, bringing out the dark humor, to some, of a cuddly children’s character engaging in a violent-sounding rant. Others thought it was just plain scary.

He said the doctors at Metropolitan told him he was “a little paranoid.” It was obvious from talking to him that he is troubled. But he told a lucid and detailed account of his life, and he told of his own dark past, one that might alarm parents whose children have posed with him. The tale he told underscored just how little is known about the men and women who dress as various children’s characters in tourist-clogged areas, looking for small tips. This tiny industry is unregulated.

Stand-your-ground defense falls short in Texas

CSMonitor  A man who claimed Texas' version of a stand-your-ground law allowed him to fatally shoot a neighbor after an argument about a noisy party was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years for murder.

Rodriguez, a retired Houston-area firefighter, was angry about the noise coming from a birthday party at his neighbor's home. He went over and got into an argument with 36-year-old elementary school teacher Danaher and two other men at the party.

In a 22-minute video he recorded on the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher "my life is in danger now" and "these people are going to go try and kill me." He then said, "I'm standing my ground here," and fatally shot Danaher and wounded the other two men. 

Chareidim & Democarcy by Dr. Marc Shapiro

Seforim Blog   From the haredi leadership’s perspective, while at the present time the haredi world is forced to take part in the democratic process, they assume that if haredim ever became a majority they would dismantle Israel’s democracy and institute a Torah state (i.e., a theocracy led by the haredi gedolim).[2] Since that is their goal, stated explicitly, we have to wonder what such a society would look like. To begin with, if haredim were ever the majority, funding for non-Orthodox (and perhaps even Religious Zionist/Modern Orthodox) schools would be halted. There would be massive decreases of funding for universities, with the humanities taking the biggest cuts, and money for the arts, culture, and institutions connected to Zionism would dry up. Freedom of the press would be abolished, artistic freedoms would be curbed, and organ transplants would almost entirely vanish. Public Shabbat observance and separate-sex public transportation would likely be required. There would also be restrictions on what forms of public entertainment and media are permissible and on public roles for women. Of course, women’s sporting events would no longer be televised and men would not be permitted to attend them. From the haredi perspective, these steps are all halakhic requirements, and no one who reads haredi literature can have any doubt that these sorts of things are intended when haredi writers refer to the time when it will be possible להעמיד הדת על תלה. How many non-haredim will be affected by this is questionable, because as soon as the haredi numbers come close to a majority, the non-religious and non-haredi Orthodox emigration will begin (followed no doubt by the yeridah of some haredim as well). No one who has lived in a Western style democracy will want to live in a society where cherished freedoms are taken away.

Defending Rav Gestetner's bitul seruv

t Rav Gestetner wrote in his nullification of the seruv   where he  strongly attacks the language of the fourth paragraph for too strongly criticizing the beis din of Machon l'Hora'ah and by inference - the gedolim who agreed with the seruv.

In fact this fourth paragraph makes little sense taken in isolation from the context of the rest of the letter. Consequently because ignored the context of the rest of the document he ended up mistranslating "gate of fraud" rather than "gate for those who are tormented by the words of others." In fact the fourth paragraph follows logically from the preceding paragraphs

Let's go back to the beginning paragraphs. First paragraph: Rav Weiss (the husband) received a summons from Machon l'Hora'ah at the instigation of his wife who is in the middle of a suit in secular court against him. Rav Gestetner explains that according to the halacha the husband is not required to go at the same time to beis din until she pays him for the expenses incurred in secular court... Nevertheless the husband acted beyond what he was required to do and responded to the summons and informed Machon l'Hora'ah that he was prepared to participate in a din Torah with his wife and specified two dayanim who were prepared to judge for his side[and thus he responded correctly according to halacha]. Second Paragraph:In spite of this compliance ,Machon  l'Hora'ah responded as if he had ignored their summons and reversed what Rav Gestetner understood to be the facts of the case and claimed that the husband - and not the wife had initiated the lawsuit in secular court. Based on what Rav Gestetner claims were these false claims the beis din issued an invalid seruv which publicly slandered Rav Weiss - despite his total innocence of these claims and he had fully complied with every halachic requirement of the original summons. Rav Gestetner lamented the injustice done to the husband. Third paragraph: Rav Gestetner states that he has the obligation from lo ta'amod" to forcefully defend Rav Weiss and declare that he is a kosher Jew who has in fact complied with the demands of the beis din - beyond that required by the halacha. Consequently Rav Gestetner asserted that there is absolutely no basis for issuing a seruv - which by definition is an assertion that there was a failure to comply with beis din. Thus the issuing of the seruv constitutes slander and therefore the seruv by definition can have absolutely no validity and is null and void.

It is in this context of declaring that Rav Weiss  has been unjustly subjected to public disgrace and ridicule based on false charges that Rav Gestetener wrote the fourth paragraph. It is simply a collection of statements of Chazal regarding the consequence of those who embarrass and torment other Jews with words. This includes 1) malbin pnei chaveiro - extreme embarrassment, 2) slander which Chazal say causes loss of Olam HaBah. 3) that they are deserving of nidoi since they are placing an innocent man in nidoi (seruv). 5) He notes that Chazal also say that all gates to Heaven are blocked except from those who cry out because of being tormented by words and these victims are answered immediately.

In sum - there really isn't anything unusual about Rav Gestetner's nullification of the seruv issued by Machon l'Hora'ah.  The seruv is issued for failure to comply with beis din's summons - and in fact Rav Gestetner says that there was more than full compliance. The language that is upset about - are  simply citation from Chazal. An additional point is that Rav Gestetner - despite  claims - is not a one man beis din. There are in fact other dayanim.

ORA rally against Weiss - Chareidi attendees?

Assuming the following report of last Sunday's rally is true - this seems to represents a major change in the debate of Get Me'usa and what is permitted by Rabbeinu Tam's harchakos. It is the first time of claims of support for ORA's from the yeshiva world. As I have noted before - there is no statement of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav Yisroel Belsky or Rav Aryeh Ralbag supporting public demonstrations or ORA. ORA's list of supporters does not include a single chareidi rav.
It also remains to be clarified whether this is a simple case of ma'os alei like the Friedman-Epstein case or whether it is one of those cases where force is in fact permitted by everyone?

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

You Cant Handle The Truth has left a new comment on your post "Rav Gestetner: Bitul Seruv or Nidui?":

Emes, that's a great answer to my challenge. But regardless, I was told that The Lakewood Roshei Yeshiva were asked by the family not to attend so as not to overshadow the purpose of the rally. Rabbi Kotler's mother attended as did his brothers in law, Rabbi Krupenia, the rosh kollel of lakewood & Rabbi Reich. As for Rabbi Schustal, his oldest son, a Shoel Umashiv in BMG, was the one who led the tehillim, and another son was more or less directing the rally. So if that's all the egg I have on my face, I'm cool.

Now how about you stop distracting from the issues we are discussing and answer a single challenge put before you?

Yehuda Kolko aquitted of violating Order of Protection

NYPost  Eight minutes!

That's all the time a Brooklyn jury needed to acquit a notorious ultra-Orthodox rabbi today of charges that he leered at a boy who years earlier had accused him of being a pervert.

Joel Kolko was looking at two years behind bars if convicted of violating an order of protection by eyeballing the boy and his dad twice as they walked past his Flatbush home in 2010.

"We believe justice was served," said Jeffrey Schwartz, a defense lawyer for Kolko. "Really, there was no evidence to support anything."

The boy had accused Kolko of molesting him in 2006, when he was a first grader - but the rabbi dodged sex-offender status by pleading guilty two years later to misdemeanor child endangerment.

Camp Safety - Potential Molestation in Camp

Supreme Court: No mandatory life sentence for Juveniles

NYTimes The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that states may not impose mandatory life sentences without parole on juveniles, even if they have been convicted of taking part in a murder. 

The justices ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that such sentencing for those under 18 violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling left open the possibility of judges’ sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without parole in individual circumstances but said state laws could not automatically impose such sentences.  

Nearly 2,500 juvenile offenders are serving life sentences without parole in the United States. Human rights groups say there are almost no other countries that put teenagers in prison and keep them there to die without the possibility of parole. 

That number was at the core of an angry dissent written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who asserted that if something was common it could not, by definition, be “cruel and unusual.” He wrote: “Put simply, if a 17-year-old is convicted of deliberately murdering an innocent victim, it is not ‘unusual’ for the murderer to receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole. That reality should preclude finding that mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile killers violated the Eighth Amendment.”

New Leadership at Yated

JPost   Recent upheavals at the influential haredi newspaper Yated Ne’eman, official mouthpiece of the Degel Hatorah faction of the ultra-Orthodox community, appear to have been consolidated with new management taking control of the paper.

Although the old management team took legal steps to prevent their ouster, haredi public opinion and the rabbinic leadership seems to be shoring up the new administration.

Ten days ago, the newspaper’s outgoing director Rabbi Yaakov Labin and incoming director Shimon Glick filed mutual complaints in the Ramat Gan police station, accusing each other of assault during an incident at Yated Ne’eman’s offices on Jabotinsky Street in Bnei Brak.

The details of the confrontation are disputed, but center around the fight for control of the newspaper.

Yehuda Kolko faces 13 year old accuser

Jewish week  A 13-year-old boy who alleges he was molested by Rabbi Yehuda Kolko told a Brooklyn jury on Thursday that he felt “scared” when the rabbi -- whom he identified from the stand -- stared at him on the street on two occasions in late 2010.

Rabbi Kolko is currently on trial for violating an order of protection requiring him to refrain from having any contact with the boy. The order was part of a 2008 plea deal stemming from charges that Rabbi Kolko sexually abused the boy when he was a first grader in Kolko’s class (charges were also brought against the rabbi for allegedly abusing another boy).

Rabbi Kolko -- who has been dogged by child molestation allegations for over 30 years -- ultimately pleaded to lesser charges of child endangerment and received probation; he was not required to register as a sex offender.