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.

Holding onto all of Israel is important, however, in a democracy, one simply must accept the reality. The reality is that certain outposts and mini-towns will become political footballs. It’s tragic. But this, is just not on. It is an outrage.

[Hat tip Abe]

[The following is re-blogged from Rabbi Horowitz’s excellent site. Hat tip to Moshe]

Tuesday evening, a charming and sincere young man who is a survivor of childhood abuse shared with me that he had driven seven hours each way in order to attend a protest at the “Internet Asifa” in CitiField. He mentioned how gratifying it was and how pleased he was to have made the trip. This was the second rally recently organized by abuse victims – the first was held at a Williamsburg fundraiser for an individual who is under indictment for allegedly molesting a child over a period of 4 years.

These protests have elicited a wide range of emotions among members of our community along a continuum ranging from sorrow and sympathy to bewilderment and bemusement and even to hostility and anger.

Moreover, many members of our community have been asking those of us who are advocates for abuse survivors, “What’s the deal with these protests? What exactly do they [the survivors] want?

Others are asking more basic questions, like, “Why can’t they just move on with their lives?” or “Someone messed around with a friend of mine, and he got over it. Why can’t they?”

Well, my friends, it will serve us well to better understand the survivors and what exactly it is they want. We ought to because this conversation is very long overdue. But in a practical sense, it is imperative that we do because in all likelihood these protests will grow and intensify in the weeks and months ahead. The survivors are finding their voices and they will only gain traction now that the national and even international media is covering the abuse matter as it relates to our community.

To begin with, one needs to really understand why abuse is so destructive to its victims. For that, a careful and thorough review of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs might be a good place to start.

In a nutshell, Maslow divided all human needs into 5 groups and suggests that they are sequential in nature — meaning that until all Level 1 needs are met, it is impossible to move on to Level 2 needs, and that Level 3 needs cannot be realized until Level 2 needs are met.

Here are the groups of needs as Maslow sees things:

Level 1 – [The Most] Basic Needs (such the need for food, water and shelter)
Level 2 – Safety and Security (the need to feel protected from danger)
Level 3 – Socialization (the need to bond with family and friends)
Level 4 – Self Esteem (the need to feel self-confident and respected)
Level 5 – Self Actualization (the need to “be all you can be.”)
For a practical example of Maslow’s theory in action; just imagine that your car breaks down on the wrong side of the tracks and you are fearful for your safety. Just then a childhood friend calls and says, “Hi, Yankie, I’m in town for the week. Can we get together and catch up on things?” However, much as you would love to enjoy the Level 3 need of socialization under regular conditions, your brain quite literally cannot even contemplate engaging in that pleasure when your life is in danger.

Child abuse destroys innocent children’s lives in so many ways. But perhaps the most damaging component of all, is the fact that is that it totally destroys their Level 2 security — without which it is quite literally impossible for them to rebuild their lives. How can they ever feel safe again after they were violated? Just imagine what it would be like having a childhood where you were living 24/7 like that fellow in the dangerous neighborhood who had a broken-down car noted above? And this is all the more damaging when it is perpetrated by a family member, friend, or educator whom the children were depending on to keep them safe. For if the adults in whose care they rely on are hurting them, who in the world can they ever fully trust again?

It is also important to note that just like people celebrate sports victories and/or losses in diverse manners, so too do they have different time frames in which they can successfully recover from the incredible trauma of childhood abuse.

All of this is exacerbated when the children come forward and are not believed, or worse yet punished or threatened for reporting their molester. It is quite literally a second round of abuse and it just reinforces their feeling of being rootless and wind-driven. In fact, so many victims report that they were more devastated by not being believed than they were from the original abuse.

Speaking of not believing the victim, research indicates that the overwhelming majority of children who come forward with abuse allegations were telling the truth. Think about it. Why would anyone in their right mind come forward with a claim of being abused if it didn’t happen? (The exception to this rule is in messy custody battles where one party clearly stands to gain if the other is maligned.) All the more so in our community where there is unfortunately a stigma attached to those who do so and to their families. Going public and helping to get the perpetrator apprehended, in order to protect the lives of other innocent children, often comes at great personal cost to the survivors and their families.

About five years ago, as awareness in our community about the matter of child abuse began to rise, many of the long-suffering victims began to hope against hope that things would finally change. People would finally “get it” they believed, and they would once again feel welcome and nurtured instead of being treated as pariahs who ruined the sterling reputations of their abusers. Who knows, they might even get their Level 2 security back again.

Then they pick up a charedi publication one weekend and see a picture of a group of distinguished rabbis visiting a monster in a Virginia jail cell, who was serving a 31-year prison sentence for raping his daughter in three continents over a period of many years. More than 10 survivors contacted me as soon as that picture ran in the paper. “How could they do that to us?” they asked me. “Don’t they know that by supporting the molestor they are stabbing us in the heart?” they cried. Well, they are. They really are.

And what in the world should survivors in our community think when they see a huge fundraiser for someone accused of molesting a child? Many of them viewed the very public nature of this effort as clear warning of what is in store in the future for anyone else who might dare report a predator to the authorities.

For many of the survivors, though, the final straw was the Internet Asifa. Why were they so upset? Let me count the ways for them.

To begin with, the kids in the street know the truth — that the Internet is a firecracker compared to the atom bomb of abuse as far as going off the derech is concerned. Just ask any of them — or any of the adults in our community who work with the at-risk teen population, what the main reason is for children leaving Yiddishkeit.

Moreover, many of these kids credit the connectivity of the Internet for finally raising awareness of abuse in our community, and as we all know, there is more than a kernel of truth there. “Why are the people running the Asifa blaming the Internet for causing children to go off the derech and saying nothing about the matter of child safety?” they wonder.

Bottom line, there are hundreds and hundreds of abuse victims and survivors who were once part of our kehilos. Some left completely while others exist on the fringes – misunderstood, marginalized, and hurting.

Trust me, the vast, overwhelming majority of them are nice kids who want neither vengeance nor revenge. They do, however, want to see that today’s children don’t suffer the way they did and they desperately want to see that things are changing as it relates to child safety.

Now that the lid has blown off, these young men and women, who had their innocent childhoods stolen from them, by vicious predators masquerading as upstanding members of the community, will have their voices heard and their stories told. We have two stark choices. We can reach out, engage them and really listen to what they have to say. Or we can continue to give them the back of our hands, and then we will hear their tortured messages through the front pages of the newspapers and under the glaring lights of television cameras.

Recommended reading:

L’maan Hashem – What Will It Take? Let’s start protecting our children

See this article.

I have to admit that I have had the odd phantom vibration only to find it was a figment of my imagination.

It has been claimed in various quarters that R’ Schachter has no issue in principle with “soft” matza. His name has been used, making such claims, and through a long bow, trying to associate R’ Schachter with the acceptability of particular types of ashkenazi machine made soft laffa style matza.

I heard R’ Schachter speak on this topic, and I came away with the distinct understanding that

1. Soft Matza was certainly used in the past by Ashkenazim
2. There are some Sephardim who have maintained their Mesora on how to make the traditional soft matza
3. An Ashkenazi who wishes to eat from a Sephardi Soft Matza and rely on a particular  Sephardi Mesora on how to make these matzos may do so if they wish, but they are relying on that well-known and accepted Sephardi hechsher.
4. R’ Schachter in no way endorses any particular Matzos (hard or soft)
5. Ashkenazim over the last 200 years have reverted to thin hard matzos. (R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disagrees with R’ Schachter and says that an Ashkenazi should therefore only ever have hard matzos)
6. R’ Schachter had absolutely nothing to say about new laffa style, some of which has also found its way into Melbourne, Australia, under R’ Rabi, and in no way should R’ Schachter’s comments be used to ascribe any acceptability to the kashrus thereof.

I understand that R’ Schachter has very recently made the above views known explicitly in response to queries about the use of his name on R’ Meir Rabi’s Kosher Business/Hechsher, which promotes Rabi’s soft laffa style product. I also understand that R’ Rabi is now aware of these clarifying comments.

There is a solution to this conundrum. R’ Rabi should open himself up to an overseas kashrus expert, such as Rav Moshe Heineman or indeed the OU or similar to come and oversee his laffa production before next Pesach, and formally put their imprimatur on his production. Heck, if it’s good, he can export it too, presumably.

Software has bugs. That’s a given unless you have a formal proof of correctness with respect to specifications, something that doesn’t happen except in some areas of defence and health.

Facebook had a bug which allowed you to pretend that you were reporting inappropriate pictures and thereby gain access to a person’s private pictures. It’s a story, yes. It should be reported, yes, again. But, someone exploited this bug and then sequestered Mark Zuckerberg’s pictures. Zuckerberg is the man behind Facebook. Okay, that’s also a story. But, pray tell, what right does the newspaper have to print these pictures (even if they aren’t offensive)? Quite apart from legal consideration, is there any morality that deems it proper to publish someone’s pictures without their permission?

I find this repugnant. Who gives the press the moral right to (further) publish private pictures? Linking to the pictures as opposed to housing and publishing them is no better. It stinks.

Within יהדות there are probably four major groups:

• Chassidim
• Misnagdim
• Sefardim
• Centrist

Each of these groups are broad and have sub-groups with their own nuanced approach.

Chassidim

Originally, Chassidism was an approach that courageously and creatively enfranchised the high numbers of uneducated and simple folk through a growing set of charismatic, often brilliant leaders, who had ostensibly embraced a more metaphysical understanding of תורה and מצוות laced with שמחה. The hierarchical strata existent in other groups, was disposed of. There was only a binary system: the Rebbe and Chassidim. Chassidim were guided by their Rebbe and he acted as a chosen mediator between them and הקדוש ברוך הוא on matters of grave importance and direction. Within Chassidism there were different approaches: from the uplifting שמחה of Breslav, to the admirable concentration on חסד from Satmar, the focus on תפילה by a range of groups, to the intellectual, inclusivist and non judgemental approach of חבד.

Misnagdim

Probably an outgrowth of Ashkenazi ascetic Chassidim (not to be confused with commonly understood Chassidim) this group focussed on the study of Ethical texts (מוסר). There are many approaches within this group ranging from the ‘you are just a nothing’ to ‘the world was created just for you’ psychology. The texts are supported by Torah verses and sayings of חז”ל. The percentage of מוסר studied during a day depended on the sub-group. Led by charismatic mentors, the Mussar Shmuess became an important session where chosen students were cajoled into refining their moral and ethical behaviour. Unlike Chassidism, this group was mainly located amongst the intellectual élite, although its Charismatic leaders had a wider universal impact.

Sefaradim

They share at least  one common element with Chassidim in that they were greatly influenced by the Zohar, Kabbala and the Ari. The so-called man in the street wasn’t necessarily a Talmudic Scholar but knew much more Torah than his or her common Ashkenazi counterpart: they could often recite Nach by heart. Reverence for the Chacham (Chief Rabbi) was, and remains, indelibly strong. With a proud heritage of luminaries such as the Rambam, they are a dignified group who have now embraced Western Society, for better and, sometimes, for worse.

Centrist

This is a group which had roots in German Orthodoxy where Torah and the modern western world were not seen as antithetical. It has been called Torah Im Derech Eretz or Torah uMaddah. Having a stronger link with more rationalist approaches to Judaism, this group were not aligned with Kabbala or Mussar. Ostensibly they was ready to face the changing requirements of the world front on through Torah and Halacha without viewing the world as an evil force that is to be distanced from at all times. It is perhaps the most free of the groups in that individualism and personal choice is not contraindicated. As such, it also presents perhaps the most risk. Adherents can sometimes become over-influenced by non Halachic values and as a result other groups triumphally decry this approach as too dangerous.

Being a Mentch

Whatever approach is taken, ultimately they all endeavour to grow people in the צלם אלוקים. A person for whom שויתי ה’ לנגדי תמיד is more than a fleeting moment, is motivated and empowered to act like a Mentch. Theologically, and consonant with the human psyche, most groups tend to not only follow their path but also delegitimise the approach of other groups. This notion presents a constant challenge to Jewish unity. It can be constructive and sometimes destructive.

My mantra has always been “nobody has a mortgage on the truth”. Call it שבעים פנים לתורה or י’ב שערים. I have always felt that we ought to learn from each group. At the same time, especially over the last 20 years, I’m probably most aligned with Centrist Orthodoxy, as reflected particularly through the Brisker cum Halachic Man tinge of the Rav ז’ל.

Yet despite the differences in syllabi amongst each group, and their insistence that this syllabus or approach will transform people into Mentchen, we find that within each group whilst there are many who are fulfilling the syllabus, yet they are far from being considered Mentchen. How can this be? We could conclude that only the real adherents of a given approach are reflective of the efficacy of that approach. While this may be true, for an approach to יהדות to be considered as effective, my point in this post is that at least today, there is something over-arching and even more important than the nuanced differences of the various approaches loosely outlined above. In a word, that is the דוגמה חיה, the living personification of any of the above approaches. We need, yes each of us, to strive to become the personification of imitatio dei, a concept whose roots are in the מצווה of והלכת בדרכיו and something the Rav stressed over and over. It is why the חסיד who has a Rebbe, a Rebbe they respect not for social for familial reasons, but for genuine spiritual reasons, is inspired to be a better person—a mentch—a צלם דמות תבניתו. It is this, in my opinion, which precedes and is the motivating factor before a syllabus or weltanschauung. It is why the מתנגד who may say they reject the potentially antinomian tendencies displayed by some Chassidim, now also attach themselves to the ’פוסק הדור’ or the ‘זקן ראשי הישיבות’ or to their ראש כולל. It is why the Sefardim revered the Baba Sali and other מקובלים and drank every spoken and unspoken word. It is why many Centrists, after the passing of the Rav, are searching and seeking senior figures after whom they can model their lives. In my life, on a more personal level, Rav Abaranok ז’ל was a person I could only describe by the abstraction that ‘the שכינה reflected from his forehead’ in a way that we know Moshe Rabbenu appeared after he came down from Har Sinai.

We lead busy lives. We have incessant interruption. It’s harder to know what our children do and what they don’t do without proverbially locking them up. The cocoon is not a long-term or viable approach for many of us. What we can do, is seek out the real Mentchen, be inspired by them, whether they are female or male, and try to harness that inspiration so that we can also become Mentchen.

Use your particular syllabus or pathway by all means. My main contention is that the particular syllabus is not as important as the true and real motivation behind its manifestation in how we play out our lives, and that motivation must only be והלכת בדרכיו, to go in His ways.

This question occupied the minds of some in England in 1890. You might wish to look at this beautifully entertaining post, which I hope you will enjoy as much as I did.

אין חדש תחת השמש

PS. I’ve always known (from my father) that a Peruke (Peh-roo-keh) is another name for a wig, although I’ve only ever heard him use it in the context of a toupee for a male.

Regrettably, I’ve attended a number of funerals of late. It would seem to be common place for one person to wish the other person

“אויף שמחות’’ “oif simches”

This is a Yiddish phrase designed to express a wish that people next meet at Simches (or שמחות in Hebrew).  It is also customary for a male whose ציצית are worn outside his pants to conceal these when visiting the בית החיים because it is considered somewhat mocking of the dead when one shows that they are able to openly keep מצוות as in וראיתם אותם.

I’ve wondered whether it’s perhaps inappropriate to be saying אויף שמחות at the בית החיים for a similar reason. In the midst of performing the sombre מצווה of לויית המת about which we say אין לה שיעור isn’t it inappropriate to be wishing each other opportunities to see each other at שמחות?

Indeed, is this said in other countries? What is the source for this practice? I haven’t looked it up, as I avoid such topics. I think it’s fine to say it at one of the מניינים to one another, although I think it’s perhaps not right to say that in earshot of the אבלים

Another מנהג which is common is the one to learn some משניות for the deceased after which a קדיש דרבנן is recited. It is known that an אבל (may none of us experience this, and בלע המוות לנצח) is not permitted to learn Torah since Torah makes one potentially happy. I’ve not understood why we publicly learn משניות given that in doing so, we force the אבל to hear Torah. I do know that the Rav was against this practice, and he also felt that it is a דין for the actual house of the אבל and not just the אבל. Not withstanding that, what is the common reason for this ruling? I am pretty sure this one is discussed by Poskim, but again, I have no wish to learn those הלכות, so if anyone can enlighten me, I’d be obliged.

Hello from Jakarta. I gave a lecture today at the University of Indonesia. In my introduction, I was talking about  Australian multiculturalism and how there isn’t a “typical look” for an Australian. I slipped in one of my favourite questions: “So, where do you all think I was born?” They looked at me in bewilderment. My accent is clearly Aussie (although not as ‘strain as our Julia Gillard) but my Yarmulke will confuse. Usually, they think I’m some sort of special muslim, a mufti of sorts who wears a black and not white cap. Wait for it, after a period of indeterminate silence, a fellow up the back says

Are you from Libya, sir?

Oy vey. Conclusion: there is no anti-semitism here. They wouldn’t know what a Jew was in a pink fit.

I guess when Moshiach does come, he’s gonna have a decent job first convincing:

1. some that he isn’t yoshke
2. other that he isn’t mohammed, and
3. others why he doesn’t wear a Shtreimel and white socks

Anyway, there aren’t any problems with Kashrus here. There is no kashrus 🙂

Regards

I work in a University environment at RMIT. I’ve noticed over the last few years an increasing number of Jewish students. Traditionally, Jews populate Melbourne and Monash Universities because of their stature and that they house both Law and Medicine. Jewish kids are diversifying now. It’s no longer the case that parents kvell solely when they can say “my son is doing medicine” or “my daughter is doing law”.  The modern parent knows that the age-old dictum of חנוך על פי דרכו — educate according to the needs/capabilities of the student/child — is critical. Furthermore, the old notion of one degree, one profession is stale. Commonly, people move not only from one employer to another, but often from one profession to another. Generic skills and capabilities, such as clear thinking, problem solving and social aptitude are important.

RMIT has world-class strength in Design (Art, Architecture, etc), Computer Science & IT and Engineering so I am not surprised that we are now seeing more Jews at RMIT. But how do I know there are Jews? Sure, I could fool myself that nobody will notice me and stand near a Chabad student stand, or an AUJS stand or similar, but hey, I’m more likely to be accused of being a schnorrer or pervert at my age if I hang out over there! No, the reason I know there are Jews relates to my office door. This story has happened more than once; especially over the last few years.

Many years ago, I wrote to R’ Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (through his right hand man R’ Yossi Efrati, and this was well before he assumed the Litvish mantle of Posek or Gadol HaDor) and asked whether my office door needed to have a מזוזה. I argued that I basically “lived” in my office from the early morning, till the evening. I ate there, I davened there, and sometimes I even learned Torah there. It wasn’t my office per se in the sense that I was the only person who had a key (there always being a master-key, as in any organisation) but I was the only person with a personal key. I can go through all the reasoning upon request, together with R’ Elyashiv’s answer. Let me know. R’ Elyashiv replied that I should affix a מזוזה but that I should do so without making a ברכה because of the doubt.

It’s 10am on a Friday morning and I am coming and going through my office door, and notice a curly-haired, blue-eyed, student who is sort of hanging around. I don’t think anything of it. There is a lecture theatre near my office and students often meander the corridor waiting for a lecture. I enter my office and leave the door ajar. I often do that, especially on a Friday, when traditionally there aren’t as many students and it is quieter. After a few moments he appears in the doorway and says:

“Excuse me, I couldn’t help but notice your מזוזה, do you mind if I come in”

He asked where there was a Shule nearby for Shabbos! I informed him that East Melbourne was the closest but that I’d put him in contact with Rabbi Daniel Ravin (the Chabad Shaliach on campus). Ha! The student was from Venezuela, and had been to Rabbi Ravin’s house for lunch the previous Shabbos. Anyway, I looked up and found a mobile number for Rabbi Dovid Gutnick of East Melbourne and passed it on. He then said:

“is there any way that I can go to Rabbi Ravin’s house without driving on shabbos”

I was taken aback. I wouldn’t have picked him as a Yid as he stood near my office, and now he’s trying not to drive on Shabbos! It touched me. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to fraternise with students on a social level according to University rules, so I’m out of the picture. I responded that he should speak to Rabbi Ravin about this problem. I suggested he was living in the wrong end of town; he is only here for a semester, though.

He kissed my מזוזה as he left.

So, I’m a somewhat a sentimentalist—I looked up at my מזוזה  and thought how different this morning might have been if there was nothing on my door. ‘ברוך ה