Volume 53 Number 85
Produced: Fri Jan 19 6:23:38 EST 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Baby Gordon #3
[Ben Gordon]
Lots of Questions (2)
[<FriedmanJ@...>, Avi Feldblum]
Those bad, bad Charedim (2)
[SBA, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Gordon <dbg1000@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:07:31 -0500
Subject: Baby Gordon #3
We'd like to announce the arrival of a new baby boy to the
Reingold-Gordon family!
Baby (name TBD/TBA) was born Wednesday morning. Leah is doing great, and
baby is approaching great, after a slightly scary (but brief) stay in the
NICU. We are still waiting on a few tests, but our hopes are that
everyone will be able to come home tomorrow afternoon.
-Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:35:59 EST
Subject: Lots of Questions
[Heading] Bedatz [Eng. "High Rabbinical Court"] Torah Warning
(underlined) We hereby declare our Torah opinion [Heb. "Daas
Torah"] regarding protests in general, and in particular protests
regarding matters of modesty, that it is forbidden in any way to
impose upon another's body or property, and that this is not the
way of the Torah and regarding [the Biblical] Jacob [it is
written] "his power is only through his mouth".
And furthermore, regarding the occasions when the Bedatz forbids
contact and dealings with a certain individual, it is forbidden to
to impose upon his [or her] body or property, and certainly [these
are forbidden] upon his family members.
[Date] 9 Kislev 5767 [i.e. Nov. 30, 2006]
[Signatures]
[end of translation]
In light of this:
>The thing that struck me most about the latest conversation, was that I
>just could not elicit from him any criticism of the attacker. This
>really disturbed me, as it seems to be a lacking in the basic Jewish
>attribute of compassion for one's fellow Jew. Regardless of one's
>views, it would seem "poshut" that a beating perpetrated by a Jewish
>man (or perhaps "men") upon a defenseless Jewish woman, who certainly
>posed no physical threat to him, would provoke human feelings of
>indignation, but it seems that these feelings had been erased by
>ideology. The closest I could get him to a criticism was that "both
>were at fault".
I have many questions.
Why is this "Torah Warning" written in such an obscure way? How is one
to understand the second paragraph?
Could it not simply say the following? The High Rabbinical Court issues
this warning. The Torah specifically prohibits hitting, spitting and
disrespect of God's creatures--even in matters of modesty, and certainly
in public and private places, even inside one's family. Creating a
chillul Hashem by beating people up and treating women in a manner
contrary to the Torah is not acceptable under any circumstances
whatsoever. Those who persist in such behavior as that which occurred
against a "nekayvah" on the Number 2 bus will be held accountable in a
Beit Din and will be subject to consideration for a siruv and
cherem. The shame shall fall on the perpetrators of violence and their
families, and not on their victims.
Out of simple curiosity, would a placard written in such a direct manner
make more sense than what was actually sent out? And also, where in
Israel were these signs posted? And what was done in the places where
the "enforcers" were trained to think and act as they do?
As far as kibud haRav is concerned, and the personal slurs against me
that were made, I will only say that Chana Luntz and Eitan Fiorno have
basically covered the territory in my defense...
And questions I have remain unanswered: Who can and should respect Torah
leaders who have created situations of pikuach nefesh for hundreds, if
not thousands, of women and children by playing with the laws of gittin
and putting the ketubah above the rules of pikuach nefesh?
Why does a bill of sale trump pikuach nefesh, when the laws regarding
the saving of a life in danger are clear?
If theJewish lives at risk, especially frum women and children who
actually are trying to be pious, why did the rabbis cancel the agunah
conference and and why do their rulings vis a vis gets stand?
How can a rosh yeshiva be respected when he says that there is no sexual
abuse of a child unless he has been penetrated? Is that child not
suffering from pikuach nefesh?
And finally, one last question: When a man's knees are permitted to be
broken until he "wants" to give the get--a violent and life-threatening
situation, which might also be described as torturing someone until he
gives you, freely, what you want--why can't civilized means be used to
make a man want to give a get in a court of law? Why do the rabbis
insist that felonious behavior (extorting money from the other party for
a get) is halachically permissible?
And why do they participate in such extortion and then expect people to
respect them?
Does anyone have answers to these questions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:54:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Lots of Questions
On 1/18/07, <FriedmanJ@...> <FriedmanJ@aol.com> wrote:
I have many questions.
Why is this "Torah Warning" written in such an obscure way?
How is one to understand the second paragraph?
I have few answers, but questions to your questions. There have been
similar questions to the wording of the posted responses to the Neturei
Karta. I personally do not have any such questions, as these seem to be
in line with the general stylistic manner of these "Torah Warnings". I
would be interested in hearing from those that are closer to the
community whether this is true or not. There are many of these types of
posters up on the walls in Mea Shiarim, Bnei Brak etc. If people have
links to some scans of others, it would be interesting to see how they
compare.
I'm not sure how to interpret your second question, although it may be
due to the choice of interpretation of the wording. The translation
given was:
And furthermore, regarding the occasions when the Bedatz forbids
contact and dealings with a certain individual, it is forbidden to
to impose upon his [or her] body or property, and certainly [these
are forbidden] upon his family members.
The only possibly unclear item is "forbidden to impose upon", where I
would translate the Hebrew term used "asur lehaziko" as "forbidden to
harm". What is unclear to you in this paragraph. It is not at all clear
that the "Torah Warning" was specifically directed concerning the case
we are discussing. There have been some other incidents in the same
general period (including the burning / damaging of a shop one of the
communities) and the "warning" seems to be focused on how to in general
respond to both perceived violations of Halacha in general and
specifically areas of "tznius", as well as how to behave toward people
the Bedatz has put in any of the various forms of cherem.
And questions I have remain unanswered: Who can and should respect
Torah leaders who have created situations of pikuach nefesh for
hundreds, if not thousands, of women and children by playing with
the laws of gittin and putting the ketubah above the rules of
pikuach nefesh?
Here is where in my view you begin getting into much shakier grounds,
and I for one strongly disagree with your position and methodology. I
think there is a major difference between "created situations" and "not
done enough to change the situation". I also take strong offense at the
use of the terminology " playing with the laws of gittin". I do not see
any evidence shown of piskei halacha that are "playing with the laws of
gittin", and if you want to make these claims, I would chalange you to
give us such references. A reference would need to be to a psak halacha
from any of the major posking you are claiming no longer should have our
respect.
If theJewish lives at risk, especially frum women and children who
actually are trying to be pious, why did the rabbis cancel the
agunah conference and and why do their rulings vis a vis gets
stand?
We do not know why they canceled the Aguna conference, but there is no
evidence that they did it in order to further put peoples lives in
danger. I am pretty sure that if one were to discuss the matter with
them, they would identify why they thought the conference would do more
damage than good. You may disagree with them, but they have the right to
view the full picture and make decisions based on that. As far as
rulings vis a vis gets, I again ask you to specifically identify what
rulings you are talking about, otherwise there cannot be a discussion.
How can a rosh yeshiva be respected when he says that there is no
sexual abuse of a child unless he has been penetrated? Is that
child not suffering from pikuach nefesh?
As has been posted already to this list, the vast majority of major
poskim today have clearly stated that in the case of physical or sexual
abuse (both child and spousal) there is no issue of mesira, and it is
required to report such abuse. I'd like to see your evidence that the
poskim hold that abuse requires penetration. Everything I have heard
does not support that claim.
And finally, one last question: When a man's knees are permitted
to be broken until he "wants" to give the get--a violent and
life-threatening situation, which might also be described as
torturing someone until he gives you, freely, what you want--why
can't civilized means be used to make a man want to give a get in
a court of law? Why do the rabbis insist that felonious behavior
(extorting money from the other party for a get) is halachically
permissible?
You have two questions here. One the second, while I do not at all
disagree that we have many cases of the the "elonious behavior
(extorting money from the other party for a get)", I would challenge you
to show me any evidence that any major posek has written that this is a
halachically permissible activity. On the other hand, I believe that
there are many cases where the spouse that is engaging in that activity
is put is some form of cherem. That would indicate to me that the view
of the Rabbanim is that the behavior is halachically forbidden. We have
a seperate issue that in general today, the power of such acts of beit
din are largely ineffectual.
The first question is a valid one, but requires response from someone
more involved in hilchot gittin to properly respond to. One one hand, as
is clear from the Rambam, there is a concept of "makin oso ad sh'tezei
nafsho", beit din is permitted / required to impose physical beatings on
an individual that beit din has determined is required to give a get and
refuses to. On the other hand, the halachot of gittin require that the
get be "freely" given by the husband to the wife. This requirement has
been the major propblem with many of the attempted secular Get laws, as
they run afoul of this requirement. What are the details that allow /
require the first case but make invalid the latter attempts?
Does anyone have answers to these questions?
If there is to be valuable conversation on this topic, it must be framed
in a format of a conversation. To demonize those that you want to have a
conversation with is the best way to ensure that no real conversation
occurs. To start with the assumption that all of Gedolei Yisrael are out
to harm all women and children is both, in my opinion, ridiculous and
guaranteed to not lead to productive discussion.
I think that there is a discussion to be had on why and how the Rabbinic
leaders of our varied communities could do more to improve the
situation. But such a conversation requires an honest attempt to
understand what they have actually done and said. I do not see that from
you.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:06:22 +1100
Subject: Those bad, bad Charedim
From: Batya Medad
> And it's no secret that "dirty secrets" are coming out about the
> "uncontrollable sex-crazed maniacs..." who are breaking both secular
> law and halacha and damaging the "sexual orientation" of innocent
> kids, because their lives are so separate from females.
Not bad...now that we have completed bashing Chareidim for being violent
thugs, let's move on to the next phase, disclosing the dirty secret that
they are deviant perverted sex-maniacs.. (I am surprised that no one
has mentioned that other dirty secret about their kids being drug
addicts and their rabbonim pushers. But that could still be coming.)
Following this - and in perfect time for Pesach - we'll no doubt hear
the gory details on the Charedi chumrah of using blood of RZ children in
matzos... (Whoops, did I say children? Boys' blood only - of course.)
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:16:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Those bad, bad Charedim
In the interest of balance, I have a similar response to SBA that I had
for Jeanette.
Not every post critical of the Chereidi community is "bashing
Chareidim". However, when the response to any criticism of individual
acts by Chareidim is that one is "bashing Chareidim", it is likely to
cause the opinion that the Chareidi community as a whole does support
those acts that are criticized. If we take the case of the bus incident,
and we take the assumption that it is correct, I think the bigger issue
is not the individual who did the action, but the response of the rest
of the individuals. One person can also be doing that which is
wrong. But if the society around him allows that to continue with no
active stopping of that, that is cause to criticize the community as a
whole.
I think that there is no question that there are "eviant perverted
sex-maniacs" in both the Chareidi and Daati-Leumi / Modern Orthodox
communities (as well as any other community that you want to pick). I
know that there is a significant problem of both Chareidi and
Daati-Leumi / Modern Orthodox kids who are serious drug and alcohol
addicts. The problem comes when the community attempts to deny the
existence of this problem in their midst. I think it is the attitude, at
least until recently, within the Chareidi community that these problems
do not exist that has been a major problem. Families with kids at risk
have been shunned by the community, and many kids and families have been
significantly harmed, because the Rabbi and the Yeshiva refused to deal
with the problem, preferring to insist it does not exist. That has
changed significantly within the last ten years, but still remains an
issue in many places.
The last paragraph is one that I find highly insulting, and is why I
think this conversation (on both sides) tends to break down. It is one
that I do not like seeing on mail-jewish, as my intention here is to
promote a forum for reasoned discussion. There has been no claim made by
even the most anti-Charedi person I am aware of, and surely not on this
list, that there is a "Charedi chumrah of using blood of RZ children in
matzos". The use of that statement is a method of trying to identify in
peoples minds that the Religious Zionists are in the same camp as those
enemies of the Jews who made those claims. By demonizing your opponent,
you close the door to conversation. That is not what I expect of
conversations here.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 85