Month: July 2012

R’ Nochem Zalman Gurewicz ז’ל

 

This last Shabbos, I was in two minds concerning which Shule to attend. Generally, I daven at Elwood Shule every second week, and the main Chabad Yeshivah Shule in Melbourne on the other week. Recently, I have davened at Elwood more often, feeling the need to show support.

The plan was to daven at Elwood, and like many, follow davening with an in-house Kiddush, Mincha, and eventually to a late lunch leading into the Taanis. After reading Emmanuel Althaus’s excellent e-mail of community events, it was apparent that Shabbos was R’ Nochem’s Yohr Tzeit on Tisha B’Av, and that a Kiddush/Farbrengen would be held at Yeshivah after davening given that the fast was moved to Sunday. R’ Nochem was one of my teachers; I had to attend the Kiddush.

R’ Nochem left an indelible mark on me (and others, of course). In what way does a teacher of year 11 and year 12 do that? Was it just because he was a good teacher? Why indelible? Let me be up front. R’ Nochem was not a Geonic teacher who dazzled the class with exquisitely crafted Pilpulim on the Gemora. He’d usually sit at the front of the class, stroking his beard, while uttering an elongated “Yeh”. We knew that during this time he was dealing with the Pshat in the Gemora or the Pshat in a Tosfos. We saw him struggle with these at times. That’s not to say that he had any unnatural difficulty learning. Rather, what we witnessed was an honest and open interaction between R’ Nochem and the Gemora. He hadn’t spent hours in preparation.

How was this helpful? Surely a student ought to see their teacher in absolute control of their material? Teaching a new subject this semester at University, one of the things terrifying me is not being in “complete” control of the material. Will a student ask a question for which there is no apparent response? Will I become tongue-tied at one of my bullet points because a mental blank clouds the ability to convey meaning and intention adequately? It’s not merely an egotistical fear; subconsciously, as a University professor, we are expected to know what we are talking about. It need not be that way, however. R’ Nochem had no such tickets on himself. His was an exercise: a journey of educational engagement. It was as if he was saying

I’m learning the Gemora and Tosfos, and you will learn it with me. We will make mistakes together, but we will learn and eventually come to an understanding.

Pedagogically, there is nothing second-rate about this mode of learning and teaching. Indeed, provided that a student is mature, some would consider it superior. There was more, however, to R” Nochem’s classes than Gemora and Tosfos.

Reb Nochem Zalman Gurewicz ז’ל

R’ Nochem came across, primarily, as an ordinary human being; a Tomim (simple and humble personage). Whether he did so consciously, I’ll never know, but his stories entranced and regaled. In a moment, we were transported from a difficult piece of Talmudic logic into the world of a Jewish soldier in the Soviet communist army. Pursued by the NKVD or “EnKaVehDeh” as he pronounced it, we were at once in Soviet Russia feeling his challenges, his pain and his hunger. R’ Nochem didn’t talk about himself exclusively by any stretch of the imagination. There were a wide array of personalities that somehow, almost star trek like, entered the door of that simple class room at 92 Hotham Street in Melbourne, Australia.

R’ Nochem’s Lubavitch was somewhat different to the one many of us are exposed to today. His was not a pastuerised and homogenised existence. Like Rabbi Groner ז’ל there was a keen reverence for Rebbes and Tzadikim of other groups. We heard stories about R’ Meir Premishlaner and R’ Zushe extending to contemporaries about whom he conjured an almost personal interaction. He showed great joy when expounding a good vort, even if it wasn’t derived from traditional Lubavitch sources. Yet, he was also a real Chosid. He knew his personal faults and never hid them. He was self-effacing and paradoxically charming at the same time. This contradictory infusion only increased a charismatic magnetism, discussion of which he would find most embarrassing.

As youngsters, we knew he “schnorred” for the Yeshivah. He had worked in knitwear earlier. He mixed with the Smorgons and other paragons of the community. Yet, that job description connoted a pariah-like existence to young teenagers and was considered derogatory. Today, employees are known by the more professional and acceptable title of “fund-raisers”.

R’ Nochem toiled as a worker. Rising well before the crack of dawn, he seemed to be davening in every minyan: from the first through to the last. No word in the siddur escaped his attention, and each was lovingly given due reverence. In R’ Nochem’s “spare” time, and this included his infamous vehicular conveyancing, an undercurrent of Tehillim was murmured in that idiosyncratic tone. Every time his car was fixed by the panel beater, we placed bets on how long it would be before it once more looked like he’d been in a serious accident. Without exaggeration, if you were “lucky” enough to hitch a ride with R’ Nochem, benching Gomel, B’Sheim U’Malchus was assuredly advised.

I remember once when in early high school, he called for volunteers to help on a mission to Carlton. I put my hand up. It was certainly a better proposition than the boring three R’s. The ride took an eternity. R’ Nochem meandered through many wrong turns. Finally we arrived outside an old Edwardian half-house in a quiet Carlton side street. We wondered what our task was to be. The deceased had apparently left his “estate” to the Yeshivah, and our job was to assist in loading a clapped out panel van with anything that appeared to be of value. I don’t remember many things impressing us as being any real value, although we did enjoy an interesting time rummaging through draws, finding ancient writing implements and the like. Of course, we also shlepped. We made it back in one piece, but it wasn’t always clear on that return journey that this would indeed be the case.

R’ Nochem was the “pinchy man”. He adored children, and the level of this adoration extended to an often painful pinch of the cheek. Ironically, in our more enlightened society, he would probably have been charged with harassment and battery, but what would they know about genuine affection. At least one of my children, Tzvi Yehuda, experienced this form of “love” and I’m glad he did!

R’ Nochem was spotless. This was a man whose suits, shirts, shoes and ubiquitous beige cardigan were at all times salubrious. His beard was always “clean”, his breath never unpleasant. We took these things for granted but when one looks around today and sees people in respected positions, with their shirts out, tzitzis dangling wildly in unkempt and gay abandon, jackets barely able to enclose an extended girth, pockets filled with the days takings, squished, dusty, off-colour fedoras and more, one comes to appreciate that N’Kiyus, cleanliness, is not anathema to a Chosid. I should add, that both R’ Zalman, R’ Isser and others were also immaculately groomed at all times.

It wasn’t all smooth sailing. At times, R’ Nochem would blow up unceremoniously at a recalcitrant Talmid. These were not “ordinary” Talmidim. They were children of holocaust survivors whose parents essentially “deposited” their sons and daughters at the doors of the Yeshivah, praying that an educational experience be imparted. These parents worked 24/7 and mostly had neither the time, patience or Menuchas HaNefesh to cope or deal with children in a new country, let alone in a more modern era. One colourful character, whose name will remain anonymous, had a tendency to incessantly disturb the pervasively calm class ambience. Enraged, R’ Nochem grabbed his black umbrella hurling it towards the back of the class and almost impaling the said Talmid. Well, it was funny at the time, but yes, we know it could have ended badly. With R’ Nochem, you saw what you got and you got what you saw.

I was rebellious but not in the sense that I didn’t want to learn. Rather, I became somewhat estranged from the curriculum on Fridays. I didn’t have the presence of mind or a mature appreciation of Friday’s chassidic sicha. I used to slink off to the back of the class and learn basic Chumash/Rashi together with a little Sefer written in the style of “Itturei Torah” whose ditties on psukim I quite enjoyed. Determined to “do my own thing”, I put my black bag (“techke”) on the desk in front of me, effectively cutting myself off from what others were learning. Okay, okay, I hear your pseudo-psychological assessment of my behaviour and your assertion that not much has changed since then …. this article isn’t about me, though. R’ Nochem in his wisdom, accepted my position. He said:

As long as you are learning, it’s okay with me

How many teachers, including myself would tolerate such insolence? These days, when I lecture and see a student seemingly not paying attention because they are peering at an open laptop, I gravitate towards their seat and say

If you are looking at my overheads, they are in front of you on the screen, so please close your laptop or you will miss important information

In a word, R’ Nochem was tolerant. He had a clear sense of mission. His mission was simply to build the organisation. He worked tirelessly. He didn’t live in a grandiose setting and was humble until his last days in our world. R’ Nochem was always the first person at someone else’s Minyan when there was a Shivah. He was a source of comfort to so many people. I recall going to his flat in Alexandra Road when he was sitting Shivah—I don’t remember for whom. I was struck by the absolute simplicity of his flat. There were no trappings. This was a humble existence. He wasn’t “Rabbi” Nochem Zalman. Alas, I didn’t know his Rebbetzin. I firmly believe, though, that behind every good man, there is an even better woman.

His son, Mulik, otherwise known as Mr G, in keeping with the education imparted by both of his parents began his delivery at the kiddush by speaking not about his father, but about the other co-sponsor of the Kiddush, who also had a Yohr Tzeit. This struck me at the time as consonant with the example set by his parents. Somebody else always came first. Mulik mentioned (and I’ve heard this from him many times) that his father was very frum and a big medakdek b’mitzvos. I surmise that one of the reasons why Mulik refuses to be called “Rabbi” is because he couldn’t possibly see himself as being seen to be “more” than his father.

In the words of one of R’ Nochem’s grandchildren, as relayed to me yesterday

They don’t make them like that anymore

יהי זכרו ברוך

Brushing teeth on Tisha B’Av

I know that most Poskim forbid it. If my hands are dirty, then I am permitted to remove the dirt with water and soap if necessary, preferably up to the knuckles if possible.

Now that we know that our teeth are actually dirty with plaque.

From Wikipedia

Components of plaque

Plaque consists of microorganisms and extracellular matrix.
The microorganisms that form the biofilm are mainly Streptococcus mutans and anaerobes, with the composition varying by location in the mouth. Examples of such anaerobes include fusobacterium and actinobacteria.
The extracellular matrix contains proteins, long chain polysaccharides and lipids.
The microorganisms present in dental plaque are all naturally present in the oral cavity, and are normally harmless. However, failure to remove plaque by regular tooth brushing means that they are allowed to build up in a thick layer. Those microorganisms nearest the tooth surface convert to anaerobic respiration; it is in this state that they start to produce acids.
Acids released from dental plaque lead to demineralization of the adjacent tooth surface, and consequently to dental caries. Saliva is also unable to penetrate the build-up of plaque and thus cannot act to neutralize the acid produced by the bacteria and remineralize the tooth surface.
They also cause irritation of the gums around the teeth that could lead to gingivitis, periodontal disease and tooth loss.
Plaque build up can also become mineralized and form calculus (tartar).

I understand that on Yom Kippur we have an additional issue of Inuy, afflicting oneself.

ילמדינו רבינו
Why isn’t plaque considered like “dirt” that may be removed?
It could be argued that nobody, even a dog, would swallow tooth paste let alone listerine.
Why not allow brushing with a half a cupful of listerine or similar?

They did not understand Rav Elyashiv

Yitzy Sprung referred to this nice article in context of my earlier article.

Rav Elyashiv retired from the Rabbanut, as mentioned. He had only one interest after that: to learn Torah. As R Schachter explains, when you are a Dayan for the State, your context is as wide as your constituency. You will necessarily consider certain leniencies in keeping with the audience of your opinion. The decisions back then are published by Heichal Shlomo.

Once he retired, he didn’t put out an advertisement which said “Psaks-R-us” or seek a new appointment. Rather, because of his reputable erudition, people gravitated to him. His home became a magnet over time for major questions, and eventually the not so major. His audience was now very different and the strictness in his approach consistent with that.

In that context it made absolutely no sense to appoint a “successor”
He knew there were other Poskim that people could and did turn to. He chose not to impose a successor.

I would argue that this might have been one of the most profound Psak/legacy that he left us!

To meat or meet?

What would or should you do?
You are one of a bunch of madrichim/counsellors at an American style summer camp for young primary age kids, many of whom have limited exposure to Judaism.
To show their gratitude and hospitality, the parents of one child, who keep a kosher home, invited the counsellors to dinner, during the nine days.
Unfortunately, they didn’t consider the need for milchigs, and a nice meat meal was served.

Do you politely decline, and all claim to be vegetarians?
Can attending a Siyum after the event help?
Should you consider that embarrassing the hostess is worse than keeping one part of Minhag Aveylus?
I’m aware that there are leniencies when one encounters royalty and the like during the nine days; does this count?

I hear some of you quoting the “fifth” chelek of Shulchan Aruch which encourages you to be a mensch at all times.

I haven’t looked into this. Any insights?

Petira of Rav Elyashiv צ״ל

It was a sad day, indeed, when I read about this event. I had two occasions where I turned to him to answer Shaylos that I had. Both times my letters were passed on by Rav Yossi Efrati, who is a tremendous and fiery Gaon, and who delivered a Thursday night Halacha Shiur to ‘Chutznikim’ at Kerem B’Yavneh. In both cases, I received detailed answers with sources.

This occurred well before he became the leader of Lithuanian style Charedim in Israel.

There is no Rabbi or human being who has not had their share of controversy. Rav Elyashiv famously split from the Rabbanut as a senior Dayan, when he vigorously opposed Rav Goren’s solution to the Langer case. Ironically, it would seem that Rav Elyashiv, or at least his minions also engaged in attempts to anul some conversions; eg. The view of Rav Avraham Sherman.

He also paskened that where there was a reasonable suspicion of abuse one should go directly to the authorities. Aguda twisted his words, and sadly in the last ten years many of his words were twisted and he was drip fed information by ‘Askanim’.

He didn’t write much, sadly, although I do have his Kovetz Tshuvos at home.

I don’t think he will be remembered in the same light as Reb Moshe or Reb Shlomo Zalman or Rav Waldenburg, however, If there is one thing that we can inspirationally derive from his life, it would have to be his incredible continuous learning of Torah. He could be described as a conservative Posek. Im not familiar with all his Psakim of course, but i cant recall a big noted Heter. Whether it was 16 hours a day or slightly different is immaterial. What is known is that he simply learned almost all day, and lived a humble life in a tiny apartment in Meah Shearim. It is said that he knew all four sections of shulchan aruch with all the commentaries, by heart.

He was an admirer of his shadchan, Rav Kook ז״ל and was not afraid to defend Rav Kook. See here for example.

יהי זכרו ברוך

20120720-143617.jpg

Most Brooklyn Abuse Cases Involve Kin

[Hat tip to Dad]

The following is by Paul Berger of the forward.

Recent media accounts of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox community have highlighted the threat victims face from teachers, rabbis and yeshiva staff as perpetrators, and the special pressures — even intimidation — they face from community leaders not to report such cases to secular law enforcement.

But a list of child sexual abuse cases in that community suggests that another source of pressure, even closer to home, may be at least as important.

The list, released by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes earlier this year, describes 97 abuse cases that Hynes says he prosecuted over the last three years. According to the data, 20% of these cases involved family members — usually fathers, brothers or uncles — and another 37% involved a perpetrator who was a friend or acquaintance.

By contrast, only about 12% of the cases appeared to involve rabbis, bar mitzvah tutors, counselors or yeshiva employees, including janitors and security guards. The next largest group of perpetrators consisted of strangers, who accounted for about 17% of Hynes’s Orthodox-related prosecutions.

The information from Hynes’s list must be treated with caution for a number of reasons. Some cases — Hynes’s office won’t say which — include adult victims while others involved non-Jewish perpetrators or victims. But according to Rhonnie Jaus, the head of Hynes’s sex crimes division, the “vast majority” of cases described are those of Orthodox children.

Hynes has also refused to release the names of the perpetrators, making an assessment of the professional positions of those described as family members impossible. Also, rabbis and other authority figures may make up a larger proportion of offenders than the list indicates, but not be present on it simply because people are too scared to report them.

Nevertheless, according to specialists in the field of child abuse, the data are consistent with what is known about such abuse more broadly. Cases involving ultra-Orthodox authority figures dominate headlines, as do those involving clergy members, football coaches and schoolteachers, because they often tend to have large numbers of victims. In terms of victims per perpetrator, such figures constitute concentrated sources of threat to children. But Hynes’s chart indicates that the general threat from family members cannot be ignored.

“You tend to expect that the majority of offenders are not people in a high-profile position,” said David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. “They are brothers and uncles, fathers and neighbors.”

Just as secular victims often struggle to bring charges against people close to them, ultra-Orthodox families also grapple with the implications of accusing friends and relatives, these experts say.

“The family doesn’t want the breadwinner to be jailed and the income cut off,” Finkelhor said of secular victims’ families. “They don’t want the rest of the family turning against them because the kid’s fingered the grandparent.”

While the incidence of child sexual abuse within the circle of family and close acquaintances may be no greater than in secular society, ultra-Orthodox families do face special issues when wrestling with the challenge of reporting such people to the police.

Judy Braun, an author who was raised in the ultra-Orthodox community, said the distinction between family and non-family cases may be only partially useful when examining the ultra-Orthodox community. Braun, whose recent novel, “Hush,” is based on her experience of witnessing a friend being abused by a family member, said that because the community is like an extended family, there is often little perceived difference between family members and non-family members. “The [perpetrator] is a third cousin, or a friend of the family, or a son-in-law of a [family member],” Braun said. “It’s like a spider web.”

Further, even without direct and explicit interference from rabbinic authorities or the pressure of ruining a relative’s life, Braun said, parents are under intense pressure not to risk their children being tarnished as impure. “The attitude is a bit like Muslims,” Braun said. “It’s a stain on the [victims] themselves.”

Mesirah — a religious prohibition against informing on a fellow Jew to the secular authorities — is often blamed for dissuading victims from reporting abusers to the police. But there is anecdotal evidence that even in cases where the perpetrator is a non-Jew, ultra-Orthodox families struggle to go to police.

According to Jaus, in one recent case two ultra-Orthodox girls were separately abducted and sexually assaulted. A DNA sample linked a non-Jewish man to the crimes. But both families refused to cooperate, in part, said Jaus, because they feared that an investigation could tarnish the girls’ marriage chances as well as their siblings’ ability to get into school and get married. (Law enforcement sources confirmed that an indictment has finally been filed after one of the families agreed to cooperate.)

Such cases stand or fall on fears of stigma and shame, rather than intimidation. Marci Hamilton, a law professor at Yeshiva University, said victims who cooperate with police risk their future on the hope that they will not be identified. “I’ve heard a number of victims who told me that their lives are literally destroyed, ruined,” Hamilton said. “They will never marry if anyone finds out they were assaulted.”

Even in cases not involving rabbis or other respected community figures, leaders within Brooklyn’s ultra-Orthodox community still often pressure families, according to Jaus. “It’s not just well respected rabbis or someone from school” acting as a perpetrator that sparks community pressure, she said.

Teresa Huizar, executive director of the National Children’s Alliance, said such concerns are typical of conservative religious communities. “The shame created around abuse ought to be exclusively carried on the shoulders of the abuser,” Huizar said. Instead, shame is displaced onto victims and their families, representing “a shifting of moral responsibility and weight from the offender to the victim.”

Hannah Rubin contributed reporting for this story.

After 28 Years in Tulkarm, Dina Is Rescued With Her Children

A good news story from matzav.

She was born 48 years ago to a traditional Jewish family in Lod, a poor city near Tel Aviv where Jews and Arabs mix easily. Severe emotional distress led her to sever ties with her family and, at the age of 20, to make a hasty decision that condemned her to a life of severe abuse and unbearable suffering.

For the past 28 years, Dina bat Leah lived in an Arab village on the outskirts of Tulkarm, a Palestinian city located in northern Samaria. In Israel, she was listed as “missing.” At one point, her parents were summoned to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute to identify what was believed to be her body. They were of course unable to do so and the mystery surrounding their daughter’s whereabouts continued.

Three weeks ago, in a stunning development, Dina contacted a relative in Israel. It was the first sign of life from her in 28 years. The relative called Yad L’Achim’s hotline and provided operators with Dina’s phone number and whatever information she had gleaned from her conversation with her.

Yad L’Achim wasted no time in setting up a team to plan her rescue. The sense of urgency, and emotion, was particularly strong in light of this poor woman’s name: Dina bat Leah, whose biblical namesake had been held captive by Arabs in Shechem (Nablus), and who was ultimately rescued by her two brothers Shimon and Levi.

The team gathered evidence that shook even veteran social workers who had seen it all. Dina was being subjected to horrific abuse, to the point where, recently, her husband tied her to a tree for 13 hours, during which he forbade anyone from offering her even a glass of water.

“Everyone should see what will happen to you if you dare leave again without permission,” he spat at her.

Yad L’Achim succeeded in contacting her directly, and heard a desperate plea help. “I can’t take it anymore,” she cried. “Please rescue me from this place. I beg of you: Return me to my people.”

Yad L’Achim completed its rescue plan for Dina and her two young children, an eight-year-old son and a 10-year-old daughter. Her older children would have to remain behind, for now. Contact was made with a senior official in the office of the IDF’s Coordinator of Government Activities in Yehudah and Shomron, who agreed to issue Dina and her children a special visa to enter Israel. Soldiers at the border crossing were given instructions to open the gates to the rescue car.

The opportunity for rescue came this week, on Monday morning. The night before, Dina received a valuable gift from her Arab husband: NIS 12, to be used to take with her two children by cab to Tulkarm for a doctor’s visit (Yad L’Achim had instructed her to use the doctor visit as a pretext for leaving).

Acting according to the plan drawn up by Yad L’Achim, Dina boarded the cab with her children and left the village. Two minutes later, long before she reached Tulkarm, she ordered the cab to stop and got out. After he drove away, she boarded a rescue car driven by a “collaborator” that was waiting for her on the side of the road. The car sped off toward the border crossing, for a trip that seemed to take an eternity.

In keeping with a tradition begun by Yad L’Achim’s legendary founder, Hagaon Harav Shalom Dovber Lifschitz, zt”l, the moment Dina called to say she was in the rescue car, all of Yad L’Achim activists stopped what they were doing to recite Tehillim on behalf of Dina bat Leah and her two children, who were in desperate need of a yeshuah (salvation).

When the call came from the soldiers at the border crossing – “We see her with the children!” – a weight was lifted from the shoulders of those manning the command room at Yad L’Achim.

After the car crossed into Israel and came to a stop, Dina emerged with her children. She burst into tears at the realization that her nightmare of 28 years was finally over. She and her children were home and could begin the journey back to their people.

They were welcomed at the checkpoint by social workers from Yad L’Achim, headed by S, who was Dina’s liaison in the weeks prior to the rescue. The two maintained ties under the nose of the hostile Arab husband.

Dina related that during their drive in the rescue car, when she revealed to her children that they were on a one-way trip to Israel, the children, who had themselves suffered from their father’s abuse, shouted in excitement: “Promise us that we won’t ever go back there!”

At the checkpoint, while they sipped from glasses of cold water and calmed down from their stress of recent weeks, Dina removed her jalabiya and scarf and asked a Yad L’Achim staffer to “thrown it in the garbage.”

In that moment, she shed her Arab dress and took on the appearance of a Jewish woman taking her first steps back to her people and birthplace. There wasn’t a dry eye at the checkpoint; even hardened soldiers cried unashamedly.

Dina was taken to the police to file a complaint against her abusive Arab husband. The Israel Police sent the information to the Tulkarm Police, not in the expectation that the Palestinian police would act on it, but because an official report would make it possible for them to arrest him if he infiltrated into Israel in pursuit of his wife and children.

Dina and her children are now living in a safe house in the center of Israel. “Our professionals have a long way to go before Dina bat Leah and her children are on the road to success,” a Yad L’Achim official said this week. “Meanwhile, we are giving them lots of love and providing them with everything they need to live. We’re helping them make their way back to Am Yisrael gradually.”

Yad L’Achim hailed the efforts of Interior Minister Rabbi Eli Yishai who got involved and cut through the bureaucracy to help facilitate the rescue.

“This week’s emotional rescue is a reminder that there are thousands of Jewish girls who are at this very moment being held captive in Arab villages and who are desperate to be rescued,” said one Yad L’Achim official. “We will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to redeem them. At the same time, we will continue with our PR campaign to educate the public and uproot the phenomenon.”

Is this how respected Poskim decide Halacha

In the comments section on a rather bizarre post on another blog, Rabbi Meir Rabi made the following statement:

 I suspect that erudition is important, but not as important as the Posek’s mental posture, the landscape he sees himself operating in. If the Posek has already made up his mind about the style of Pesak that he is inclined to follow, the erudition will select those perspectives that suit and block out those that do not. It is the Talmid Chacham’s Placebo effect.”

All I can add is that if Rabbi Rabi paskens according to his self-declared “placebo effect”, he certainly need not explain his decisions to anybody.

I wonder if he’d pass this theory of Psak to the great Poskim of our generation for their הסכמה.

The latest chumra for Shidduchim

[Hat tip to my ex-room mate at Kerem B’Yavneh]

There will be other developments, no doubt, which include an opaque perspex divider when these seats become part of the norm in parks and gardens. There will also be super bus terminals built around this design in certain neighbourhoods, where the Yetzer Hora is too powerful. I’d insert a smiley in this post, except that it might be misplaced.

The Shidduch Bench (c)

A clear Psak requiring Reporting is needed to stop Abuse

I am reblogging  this one from Daas Torah, as it’s important, and yet another tragic story.

I just finished a long trans-Atlantic call with an American rav whose grandson was recently abused in a shul in Europe during davening. He was distressed by a number of developments besides the fact that his grandson had been abused. 1) the community rav who had been consulted said that the perpetrator had suffered enough embarrassment already and thus nothing more should be done. The rav stated clearly that the matter should be dropped and if the police were involved it would be mesira. He was clearly ignorant of the rulings of Rav Eliashiv and other gedolim on the matter. 2) Despite this the parents reported the abuse  the police  – but they didn’t seem interested in getting involved either.  3) To make the matter more distressing the family has been informed that the alleged abuser has been observed  in the past – touching kids inappropriately in the mikveh – but nothing was done. 4) The parents of the child are now being harassed and threatened by the community as trouble makers and informants.

This American rav is well aware of the halachic and psychological issues and suggested something which is very simple – but should be very effective in changing the dynamics of the situation. Most people would have no problem of reporting if they witnessed a child being raped or severely beaten. In fact they probably would physically intervene to stop the abuse. The events of Penn State have hopefully taught us that good people don’t act unless they know that they must act and are informed in advance what constitutes abuse. Similarly most rabbonim today acknowledge the importance of reporting abuse – to the local rabbi or police – but they would not necessarily recognize that inappropriate touching or fondling is abuse

Therefore the American rav suggested that the community needs that important poskim publicly proclaim in a written declaration what actions constitute abuse that we need to report. The  proclamation must state clearly and unambiguously that abuse is wrong – even if it doesn’t involve rape. It must list the halachic requirements to prevent harm by reporting. And finally it needs a clear and unambiguous list of specific actions that constitute abuse that need to be reported.

Here is a tentative text regarding what is abuse:

You must report the following to your rav and/or police department. If you see a child being touched  inappropriately in the mikveh, playground, summer camp or school or neighbor’s home. Not only must you report inappropriate adult fondling of a child – but also such actions between  children – even if they are the same age. You must report not only what you yourself observe but also when you hear rumors or your children tell you – it needs to be reported in order to verify and stop it. In sum – all awareness of abuse that you know about –  must be reported to someone. However it is not enough to just report that you witnessed or heard about abuse. If the person you report to doesn’t follow through – whether it is a parent, teacher, principal, rav or police – you must persist either with that authority or find someone else who will listen and act. It is clear that a child’s well being is not to be sacrificed to avoid chilul hashem, financial loss to a yeshiva or synagogue, or the embarrassment to the family of the abuser or even a prison sentence for the perpetrator. There is no prohibition of lashon harah to report these issues, nor is there a prohibition of mesira. A Rav or community leader is obligated to listen to any and all alleged incidents of abuse. Every member of the community is obligated to make sure that children are protected and that perpetrators are stopped.

ה’ ירחם

Sad turn of events

This person, used to have a grocery shop in Carlisle Street, Melbourne. Always seemed an affable and likeable person. Money is a Tayva that’s difficult to control, even for the best of us.

Guest counsellor in Melbourne

The Australian Jewish News included an advertisement from Kollel Beth HaTalmud featuring Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser. Rabbi Goldwasser is described as an expert in matters of addiction and is widely respected as a counsellor. I do not know if Rabbi Goldwasser has any formal qualifications. Certainly in Australia, you can be an accountant, and advertise and perform the role of counsellor and not have your advice or counsel subject to any peer review or peer oversight. My view is that all counsellors should not only have formal training, but that they should be answerable to a counselling peer body if there are complaints about their para-professional counsel. A psychologist can lose their registration if they are found to be guilty of breaching the standards expected of their peer body. It seems that counsellors, for some reason, are not bound by peer based standards because they do not need formal qualifications.

I guess it’s buyer beware. There is advice, and there is counselling. They are two different things. Rabbonim have long given advice. Some of them are also incredibly good counsellors and possess the “wisdom of Solomon” by virtue of their acumen and life experience, laced with the values of Halacha. Rabbis Chaim Gutnick ז’ל and Yitzchok Dovid Groner ז’ל were both revered as advisers and counsellors in Melbourne, and rightly so.

A Rabbi with requisite wisdom will also know when something is outside their range of expertise and refer a congregant to professionals when that appears to be warranted.

This is not to cast any aspersions on Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser. He is highly visible on the internet, and would seem to have a very good reputation achieving lots of good.

That being said, he is also someone who was issued with a Ksav Siruv by Chabad on account of allegations that he wilfully mistranslated the memoirs of an elderly paragon of Russian Jewry by omitting all and every reference to Chabad! I’m not breaking any new story here. The issue is well documented here and here

Thank God, apart from my addiction to Herring, Tzibbeles, and Bromfen on Shabbos, I have no need to see the good Rabbi; although if he can tell me how to lose some of my tummy I’d be obliged. If someone does attend, it might be interesting to ask why he chose not to appear before Rav Osdoba to answer the complaints directed against him about the book.

Why is this alleged child abuser running free?

We live in a strange world. Sometimes, stupid laws get in the way of good sense. Here we have a so-called “Rabbi” and “Dr” who has been shown to be a fraud, and is accused of the heinous crime of sodomising children and young adults, and he lives in Nachlaot, Jerusalem, as if nothing has every happened, and he has nothing to account for. Nachlaot is not a religious bastion. It is overwhelmingly secular. This episode is a scar on the pursuit of Justice. The story appears here

If there’s any story inside the Jewish community that closely parallels the sexual abuse cover-up inside the Catholic Church, it’s the story of Avrohom Mondrowitz. Posing as both a rabbi and a therapist, Mondrowitz was accused of molesting several boys in his Brooklyn neighborhood in the mid-1980’s. The listed victims were all non-Jewish, mostly because Mondrowitz’s alleged Jewish victims, estimated to be between 100-300 never came forward. Mondrowitz was charged with eight counts of child abuse and five counts of sodomy. Hours before he was arrested he fled the country, first to Canada and then to Israel. He was rumored to have been tipped off about his pending arrests by local rabbis. He was not extradited since homosexual rape, strangely, was not an extraditable offense in Israel. When the extradition treaty was altered, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that too much time had elapsed for Mondrowitz to receive a fair trial. The New York Times, in a series of articles on the Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes’ cozy relationship with the Haredi establishment in his district, last week published the results of a FOIL request by activist Michael Lesher. Lesher has been attempting to find out what happened in the intervening years and whether Hynes did everything in his power to bring Mondrowitz to justice. The answer, according to the Times, seems to be, No. “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,” Lesher told the Times. “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.” Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesperson for the Brooklyn DA, told the Jewish Press: “Over all these years, we worked tirelessly with the US Department of Justice and the Israeli Ministry of Justice to get Mondrowitz extradited back to Brooklyn. We were prepared to prosecute him and it was only a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court which ordered that he would not be extradited.” Rhonnie Jaus, chief of the DA’s sex crime unit, claims that there are more documents that show the DA’s efforts, though the Times says that those were “mainly internal agency documents.” Schmetterer also acknowledged the 300 documents that were not turned over to Lesher. “It was always in the front of our minds and we made many many phone calls to the State Department about it,” he told the Jewish Press. “A local prosecutor does not have the power to get a treaty changed.” It is clear by now that Mondrowitz will not be brought to justice in the U.S. . In the last few years he was even involved in teaching children-at-risk. He lives in the Nachlaot neighborhood in Jerusalem and davens in a posh shul. Reportedly, his neighbors like him and are unaware or deny the allegations about his past. Despite some up-coming high profile cases inside the Haredi community, such as the arrest of four Haredi menfor allegedly offering a $500,000 bribe to a sexually abused teenager to get her to drop charges against a popular community counselor, or the case of Nechemya Weberman, a Haredi rabbi charged with molesting a 12-year old girl over three years, the legacy of the 77-year-old Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes will be one of enabling the tendency of some Haredim to blame the victim in sexual abuse cases, and failing, in the end, to bring Avrohom Mondrowitz to justice.

Save the holy herring

There are some things that are above politics. Tree huggers and gun toters are able to unite in a communion for the sake of mankind. The sustenance of the Messianic Leviathan is at stake here. Thankfully, at times like these, when the good oil, the Omega 3, is in danger, humanity has arisen from its slumber and exclaimed “enough is enough”

What would Shabbos be without Eyeh Kichel and Bromfen, suitably set off by that salubrious, smelly, soul of the sea, species?

Read on and rejoice. Salvation is near.

20120704-203953.jpg

Science only strengthens belief

The world is abuzz with the implications of supersymmetry and Physics. Scientists continually seek to model the observable so that they can predict the observed. The uneducated or challenged see Science and Physics as a big bad rodent that diminishes belief in God. It is to be avoided at all costs, and only Sifrei Kodesh are relevant to the Jew. If and when Science fails to predict or fails to model faithfully, then the triumphalists claim that this is proof that Hashem exists. I’ve never seen it this way. I’ve always viewed such proofs as dangerous because they raise the pedestal of man, by according man with an axiomatic ability to actually fathom such issues. Judaism teaches us that Man is limited. That is the axiom. Watching man struggle to understand Creation is not a cause célèbre.

Man has done a pretty good job to date. The world we live in has been advanced incredibly by the imperfect models put forward by Science. Religion has benefited, as has one’s ability to keep Torah and Mitzvos! Your roof didn’t fall on you last night, and the addition of a second to the time, only caused momentary chaos on the internet. Life goes on.

Those who were blessed with the type of mind that is suited to the Scientific pursuit, have been blessed by God himself. They should not abandon such a blessing anymore that R’ Chaim Brisker should have abandoned his delicious categorical modelling of Halachic concepts.

For the religious Jew, Science brings him or her closer to Hashem through a deeper understanding of His majesty and impenetrable divinity.

In January of 1936, a young girl named Phyllis wrote to Albert Einstein on behalf of her Sunday school class, and asked, “Do scientists pray?” Her letter, and Einstein’s reply, can be read below.  (Source: Dear Professor Einstein; via Letters of Note)

The Riverside Church
January 19, 1936

My Dear Dr. Einstein,
We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered. We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?
We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis’s class.
Respectfully yours, Phyllis

Einstein replied:

January 24, 1936
Dear Phyllis, I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer: Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.
However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science. But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
With cordial greetings,
yours A. Einstein

Uniforms are everything (part 2)

[Sheitel tip to the anonymous one]

This is too funny not to post. Enjoy!

 

and the obligatory response

Uniforms are everything

See this article.

I’m waiting for a Chassidic Machon for Textile Research where clothes are crafted in a way to provide a cooling experience, like an ice vest and thereby preserve the look, but not the feel, of the mandated uniform.

As time goes by, and we over-focus on form, content seems to suffer. When I was a boy, R’ Zalman Serebryanski ז’ל used to wear a mid-grey Kapoteh. Yes, it wasn’t black. His hat had a very short upturned brim. But then, again, he was a Chassid in content and seemingly less troubled by form.

It’s interesting to note that during the weekdays, other Chassidim, such as Ger, often don a standard fedora. Unless I’m mistaken, in the days of yore, they wore a Poilishe Hittel-one of those Donny Osmond style caps. I’m also skeptical whether the standard Chosid always wore a white shirt during the week. Did they?

Curiously, the Sefardim (at least those of them that don’t try to emulate Ashkenazim) didn’t have a dress code that required them to either all dress the same, or wear something akin to the Chacham.

And finally, we did change our names, clothes and language after we left Mitzrayim. Maybe that’s the answer: let’s go back to what Moshe Rabbenu wore?

Staying grounded in Halacha

I’m a big fan of Professor Marc Shapiro. I have some of his books, and enjoy his online Torah in Motion lectures, as well as his semi-regular posts on the Seforim blog. Marc’s erudition and clear thinking are exemplary. He is a controversial figure, to be sure. Some consider him to be on the left of the Modern Orthodox continuum. His first claim to fame was his PhD thesis on the famed R’ Yechiel Ya’akov Weinberg ז’ל, the Sridei Aish, which was subsequently published as a book.

In a recent post on the Seforim blog where he discusses “The Future of Israeli Haredi Society”, he states:

On p. 406 Adler tells us that one cannot sell or rent an apartment in a religious neighborhood to a non-religious person. Will the author then complain when the non-religious don’t want to sell or rent to haredim (especially if they think that these haredim might hold the same views as Adler)? If it is OK for haredim not to want to live together with secular Jews because of  the “atmosphere” the latter bring, why have the haredi Knesset members cried racism when secular residents don’t want an influx of haredim for exactly the same reason? In a democracy one can’t have it both ways.
Adler is part of a growing trend in haredi writings not to see the secularists as tinok she-nishbah, with all the halakhic implications this entails. While Adler acknowledges the existence of tinok she-nishbah as a category, note what he puts in brackets which pretty much empties the category of any meaning (p. 31):
ולענין הלכה, מכיון שאין בנו כח להכריע, במחלוקות אלו, וגם אין כל הענינים שוים, מתי נקרא בשם “תנוק שנשבה” ומתי לא, ובפרט קשה ההכרעה המציאותית של “שיעור ידיעת כל אחד ואחד” בזמנינו, לכן, בכל הנוגע לדיני תורה, יש להחמיר ולנהוג כלפי מחלל שבת בפרהסיא [שלא ידוע ככופר] ככל דיני “אחיך”, כגון לענין דיני גמילות חסד, לבקרו בחוליו, לתת לו צדקה, להלוות לו, להשיא לו עצה טובה. וכן יש להצילו ולהחיותו.
But when it comes to Shabbat, Adler states that it is absolutely forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save a non-religious person, even if he is a tinok she-nishbah! (p. 556).
I realize that, with only some exceptions, Adler hasn’t made up any of the material in his book, and even the most extreme rulings can be found in earlier traditional sources. So what does it say about so much of contemporary Orthodoxy, be it haredi, Habad, or Modern Orthodox, that its adherents would never dream of relating to the non-Orthodox the way Adler prescribes?
[Emphasis below is from me]
The reason they wouldn’t dream of relating to the non-Orthodox this way is not because they can point to other halakhic sources that disagree with the ones Adler cites (although the scholars among them can indeed point to these sources). There is something much more basic at work, namely, the moral intuition of people which even when it comes into conflict with what appears in halakhic texts does not agree to simply be pushed aside. Most Orthodox Jews of all stripes refuse to believe that what Adler is advocating is what God wants. It is impossible for them to accept that the Judaism they know and cherish, which has been taught to them by great figures, would have such a negative outlook, and all the halakhic texts in the world won’t be able to change their minds.
While I have sympathy for the attitude underpinning these statements, it troubles me that there can be something other than the vehicle of Halacha that dictates “what God wants”. It troubles me that there can be something more “basic” possessing a “moral intuition” that seemingly orients direction.
It comes down to this, and herein I believe is the essential difference between the left and right-wing among modern orthodoxy.
  • The more left-wing variety have a view and they seek to buttress that view with Halachic sources. At times, when their view cannot be reconciled with credible Halachic sources, they submit to Halacha.
  • The more right-wing variety begin with halachic sources and not some “moral intuition”. They will, however, include the realities of the modern world as a vital halachic ingredient in coming to their eventual conclusion. In the end, however, they recognise that they may become the lonely man of faith, possibly at odds with their moral intuition.

A novel approach to shadchanus

On Wednesday nights, the Rav ז’ל used to give a Chumash Shiur. How did this Shiur originate? R’ Ari Kahn relates that one evening the Rav looked around his apartment and asked his Shamoshim (an entourage who assisted the Rav with his needs) why they were there: didn’t they have families, and if they didn’t why weren’t they looking. Some of the Shamoshim responded that life was not easy. They didn’t feel at ease interacting with the Shadchanim industry; equally, they were loath to “hang out” in the front of the Stern College for Women as if they were “on the prowl”.

The Rav responded that he would begin a Shiur for both young ladies and young men. He, the Rav, would make sure that the young ladies would attend; he’d leave the rest up to them. With that, the new Shiur commenced.

Of course, the right-wing would only see a “mixed” Shiur, so to speak, and condemn.