Daas Torah and Mistakes

One of the most interesting things to emerge out of the Asifa is the extent to which Gedolim are seen as the infallible arbiters of public policy. Not that this should surprise anyone who adheres to the concept of Daas Torah or who reads this blog with any regularity.

This was highly evident in Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman’s exhortation to follow the Psak that 60,000 plus attendees were about to receive from one such Gadol, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner – also known by his Sefer, Shevet HaLevi. His by now famous Psak was that the Internet is Assur to have in one’s home under any condition. And that even for work it is only permitted with filters. That was followed by his directive that Yeshivos should bar admission to any child whose parents have the interent in their homes for any reason.

This was pretty much the policy of many right wing Yeshivos heretofore. But now it is official. No school who considers itself a card carrying Charedi one can knowingly allow students like that into their schools. Furthermore, I would assume that those who have been in those schools and whose parents refuse to remove the internet from their homes – should be expelled. That is Daas Torah. And it must be followed on penalty of losing your Olam Habah (…at least according to the way Rabbi Wachsman characterized Rabbenu Yona’s Teshuva on such things.)

But is it really Daas Torah just because a Gadol of Rav Wosner’s stature said so? What if he made an honest mistake? Not possible? I am here to tell you that not only is it possible, but that it happened to me.

I had occasion to ask Rav Wosner a Shaila about an issue relating to my father's illness over 20 years ago. His Psak that was surprisingly very Machmir. I walked out in somewhat of a daze - very concerned about telling my father the bad news until it occurred to me that Rav Wosner may have misunderstood my question - perhaps I didn't describe the situation in enough detail. I returned immediately and re-asked it in greater detail. After hearing the more detailed explanation of the circumstances he Paskined very differently - L'Kula.

That episode makes me wonder just how often people receive an erroneous Psak based on their own inadequacy in expressing the Shaila. It also underscores the fact that Askanim can indeed manipulate a Psak out of a Gadol by simply asking the Shaila in a way that will certainly elicit the desired Psak. That may be obvious to everyone by now... but what happened to me is personal evidence to me of that.

It is quite possible that when R' Wosner phoned in his Psak to the Asifa - it was based on an incomplete understanding of what the circumstances in America are for lack of anyone explaining them to him in great detail. This does not mean that Rav Wosner’s level of Torah knowledge is deficient. What it does mean is that he can only Paskin based on the information he is given. The result may then very well be an erroneous Psak. To one who is Chareid L'D'Var HaShem and the recipient of that Psak, it will be the final word. Daas Torah. Not to be contradicted on pain of losing one’s Olam Habah. 

Any suggestion like mine that perhaps he was not fully informed will be treated as an affront to the Gadol. How dare anyone say that a Gadol Paskined without being fully informed?! How dare I have the audacity to suggest that a world class Gadol like Rav Wosner would Paskin without knowing all the facts?! And yet it can and does happen, more often than we would like to believe. All you need is a trustworthy person to relate the facts to him and he will tell you what the Psak is based on that.

This happened to Rav Elyashiv. Twice. Once with Rabbi Natan Slifkin and once with Rav Nosson Kaminetsky. Rav Elyashiv Paskined based on information he received from trusted advisers who he knew to be religious Jews dedicated to the welfare of Klal Yisroel. I’m sure they were. But it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that Rav Elyashiv was misinformed by his advisors because of the way they presented information to him.

Is it the fault of these elderly Gedolim for not doing their own research before they Paskin? One can debate whether it is or not. But the truth is that even the most knowledgeable Poskim will occasionally have to resort to information supplied by others. And once you rely on others, you are at their mercy. And their possible biases. Biases which can affect the Psak.

So I can't really fault them for Paskening without doing their own research given the limited time they have even if they were not elderly.

But what this does tell us in my view is that whatever their Daas Torah is, it may very well not be applicable to the reality of the situation. It is only true that it is applicable to situation as presented.

When a Gadol who lives in one culture is asked to Paskin for another culture that is 7000 miles away and so radically different from his own, it compounds the problem even further.  And yet the Charedi world sees the Psak as rock solid. Let the chips fall where they may – Daas Torah has spoken.

What are the repercussions of this? One example can be found in a blog called, Oceans of Joy. The (apparently) Charedi blogger tells the story of her experience in speaking to a principal of the school she thought would be a good fit for her daughter. Here is an excerpt: 

To start our conversation, she said, “Tell me, do you have the internet?”  To which, naturally, I said, “yes”.  (I know, some of you are banging your heads at my idiocy since I’ve repeatedly been told to lie about this question.)  I explained to her that my husband works from home using the internet, that I write online, and that our children Skype their grandparents in the US before Shabbos.

 I also told her that I had been told I’d have to lie about this for my child to be accepted, and that if my daughter can only be accepted under false pretenses, that it’s not the right fit for us.  She appreciated my honesty and then told me that in the past (ie until a couple of weeks ago), they would probably have allowed in a family like us who uses the internet in the way that we do.  But now, since a famous rabbi said at the recent asifa that schools aren’t allowed to accept students from homes that have the internet under any condition, they can’t go against the ruling of the leading rabbis of our generation. 

Need I say more?

Is Daas Torah like this so sacrosanct that it denies anyone the right to even question how that Psak came about? When Gedolim are put on too high a pedestal they are seen as infallible regardless of their claims to the contrary. Honoring them requires never questioning a Psak… or the circumstances in which it is obtained. Thus their pronouncements have the effect of being inviolable.

So we end up in a situation where there are two realities. One is the reality of unquestioned institutional fealty to the Psak of a Gadol. And the other is the reality that many of the people the Psak is aimed at ignore it… and in many cases lie about it to those institutions.  

Doing the Right Thing - A Charedi Rav We Can All Be Proud Of

Readers of this blog may remember a post I wrote about Williamsburg’s Rabbi Nechemya Weberman, an unlicensed therapist about to go on trial for sexually abusing one of his young female patients. At the end of that post I wrote the following:

What I do hope happens is that the energy expended here continues at trial and that the victim will have as many supporters present in the courtroom as the defendant will.

It looks as though this might happen. And the man who is responsible for it is a Charedi Rav by the name of Rabbi Yakov Horowitz. He just posted an essay on his website entitled: Stand With the Survivors - Our Children are not Hefker (Part II). Here is an excerpt: 

We are once again asking our readers to display a similar show of support for the brave family of the young woman who was allegedly abused by Nechemya Weberman (Kings County Supreme Court Case # 01589-2011) in light of the pressure being directed at them from certain community members who would want the charges dropped.
 The hearing will take place in the Kings County Supreme Court, 320 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 on Thursday, June 14th at 9:00 a.m. 

Once again, Rabbi Horowitz shows that he is a man of action and not just words. This is not the first time he done something like this. He did the same thing 16 months ago during the trial of another child molester.

Considering the level of harassmanet Rabbi Weberman’s community is capable of and its history of it - which includes intimidating victims, their families, witnesses, and supporters, it is no small feat of courage to publicly make this call. He may very well get some of that harassment himself. I’m sure he is quite aware of that.

And yet he is going public in the face of that community’s resolve to defend the alleged abuser since they fully accept his denials as the truth and consider the victim to be a liar.  This community pulls no punches when they act on their beliefs. Here is another excerpt that demonstrates this. It involves parents of an abuse victim that were encouraged to report it to the police: 

During the initial meeting with his parents, they expressed genuine concern and even fear of pursuing this matter, as they were warned that friends of this well-connected perpetrator will harm them or worse. (The warning had been issued to them earlier through back channels.)
 During our initial meeting with the Queens District Attorney, I mentioned the “intimidation factor” and explained to them how these things work – the 3:00 a.m. anonymous phone calls, pizza deliveries in the middle of the night, on and on. 

Rabbi Horowitz might be getting some pizza delivered to his house at that hour too as a result of this public call.

I can only stand in awe of this man’s level of courage in support of yet another victim of abuse. What if the accused is innocent as his community believes him to be? That is for the courts to decide. But as Rabbi Horowitz points out: 

Think about it. Why would anyone in their right mind make a claim of being abused if it didn't happen? All the more so because there is unfortunately a stigma attached to the individuals and the families of victims of abuse. 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. With all this in mind, we must stand with them until this is sorted out. 

Could not agree more.  Those who are able to do it, should show up and support the victim. You can be sure that the accused will have his supporters there in spades. Countering that in a public courtroom for the judge (and if there is media attention for the whole world to see) will not only support the victim and his family, it will support all victims by showing that the Orthodox Jewish community as well as all people of goodwill really do care about justice. And it will  be a Kiddush HaShem to boot.

At the very least - please also consider posting a comment on Rabbi Horowitz's website in support of the victim.

A Charedi View about the Truth of His World

Guest Post 

The following post is in response to someone who claims to be a Charedi Jew and comments frequently of late using the alias of harediandproud. Here is the gist of his comment which was made in response to Shlomo Pill:

You live in the twilight zone if you think Charedim are the ones who "fabricate numerous historical inaccuracies". One of the greatest fabrications in Jewish history is a movement that makes stuff up as they go along and then backdates it to Moshe Rabbeinu.

If you think that Jewish communities throughout history looked and acted more like YU than Lakewood and Satmar then well feel free to convince yourself of that.

But I suspect that you don't. In fact, it is my sneaking suspicion that the average MO knows that his lifestyle is somewhat a copout, which is why they relish in attacking their Charedi brothers. Can't beat 'em, don't want to join 'em? Bring 'em down.

The proof is in the pudding. Charedim are content to live their life and let others live as well. How many charedi blogs are there dedicated to attacking MO? ZERO. How much of charedi conversation revolves around MO? The same. How many MO blogs attacking everything charedim do? Dozens.

Harediandproud’s arrogance is quite astonishing. He repeatedly claims that his way represents the Mesorah of old and that anything else is an aberration of Judaism. 

It would be one thing for me to respond. But it is quite another when a fellow Charedi responds – especially one with an education in one of the premiere Yeshivos in the Charedi wolrd - Philly. And who also has a Mesorah about the way things were in that world from a father and grand-father who lived it.  

Nothing like personal experience to trump arrogance based on faulty perceptions of the past and a dishonest assessment of the present.

The response is profound and deserves to be highlighted. Although it is generally my practice not to publish anonymous posts, the words uttered in this post are truly worthy of being highlighted. They follow unedited in their entirety.

Once again, it is precisely because of my rebbeim at the Philadelphia yeshiva who taught us to be honestly self critical, that I feel compelled to respond to the inaccuracies of this (harediandproud’s) post.  

Are you really suggesting that the absence of Chardei blogs criticizing MO is a sign of respect for that approach? In the schools, camps, and communities that I have been a part of it is common practice to put down MO as a matter of course.

The followers of that hashkafa are considered inferior and “less frum” whether they are condescendingly called Young Israel members, YU students or Mizrachiniks.

Rav Solovitiechik was routinely described in an undignified manner, and many a shmuz criticized those positions whether the speaker was Rav Elya Svei or, more recently, Rav Malkliel Kotler.  Even today a casual glance at the comment sections in articles posted by Yeshiva World and Vos Is Naiz reveals the negative attitude that the Charedi world has for the MO community. One may agree or disagree with that approach but please do not say that it does not exist and that the yeshiva world is happy to leave other communities alone.    

The deeper issue that troubled me about your comments, however, was the assertion that today’s Charedi lifestyle is indeed a direct continuation of the life lived in Europe. As someone whose grandfather learned for eight years in Slobodka and who was (my ziede that is) a yedid of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, and Rav Aahron Kotler, I must sadly say that you are mistaken as today’s yeshiva community is vastly different from the world of Lita.

In those days yeshiva bachurim were encouraged to develop “breidkait” (to have a real breadth of both intellect and personality). They were supposed to be as sophisticated as the world around them but steeped in torah and mitzvos. That is why in all the great yehsivos – including those run by Rav Aharon Kotler - the talmidim were clean shaven and wore gray hats. 

In a comparable vein they were encouraged to be aware of current events. Rav Elchanon Wasserman actually read the local newspaper as a yeshiva bachur – as described in the Artscroll book on his life – and his talmid muvhak Rav Mendel Kaplan read the NY Times each day as well.  It was precisely because he was raised in such a climate that Rav Hunter (who learned in Slobodka) was able to write a profound work such as the Pachad Yitzchak.  

Does that picture match up with the image of yeshiva bochurim today? Have we produced sifrei machshava even remotely similar to Rav Hutner’s work?

Moving on to more fundamental issues, let us examine the concepts of life time learners and daas torah. In Slobodka there were never more than 20 members of the kollel and they were allowed to stay a maximum of 5 years before they had to go out and impact the world around them. (The former information comes form my family; the latter from Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky) Only the truly gifted were encouraged and allowed to be supported by the community. Is that the practice in BMG where everyone can come and stay forever? You can argue that our present day system is better but you cannot say that it is the same as it was in Europe.

In regard to listening the gedolim a comparable phenomenon exits. Were their great manhigim in Europe who guided klal yisrael? Of course; who can forget the incredible leadership of Rav Chaim Ozer and many, many others. However, the idea of gedolim being all knowing on all issues is simply a modern invention. 

When the Netziv – the great Rosh Yeshiva of Volohzin – wanted to bring in his son as his successor the bachurim revolted and he withdraw his candidacy. Did those talmidim not recognize the gadlus of the Netziv; of course they did but he respected their opinions as well and appointed someone else. Can one even begin to imagine a modern day scenario – where yeshivas are simply passed over b’yeruhsa - playing out in a similar fashion?  

Finally whether it is noting the fact that we are all makpid on Cholov Yosrael and have total separation of men and women at weddings , while Rav Aharon allowed regular milk to be served in Lakewood (as described by Rabbi Yosef Tendler) and Rav Moshe’s own children’s wedding had mixed seating, it is clear that today’s yeshiva world is quite different than the Litvesha world that preceded it. You can claim that the Charedim of today are following the derech hachassidm or that we have improved on the past but you cannot say that the line is unbroken from Mir, Slobodka, and Telz to BMG.  

Shmiras Einayim - How Far Must One Go?

Shmiras Einayim (guarding your eyes) is the idea that one should take care to avoid looking at images and people who might elicit sexual thoughts and fantasies.

The question arises as to what those images are. Are they the same for all people? Is it the same for men as for women? Do individual differences come into play? 

I don’t think that this is an issue for women. It is a male problem. And the answer to the question is subjective.

A lot depends on nature and a lot depends on nurture.  I happen to believe that the nature of the human male to respond to erotic visual images is dealt with in Judaism by the laws of Erva. Anything beyond that is nurture. So in a vacuum when a normal heterosexual man sees a woman who is dressed immodestly by Torah standards it will elicit improper thoughts.

On the other hand in those cultures where it is common for women to dress slightly less modest by Torah standards, such sights do not generally give way to improper thoughts since men are so used to seeing them that way… as long as the society in which one lives considers it modest.  A woman wearing a sleeveless dress for example will rarely elicit improper thoughts in most American men.

Unfortunately in our time some women feel very comfortable wearing the most immodest of clothing by any standard of western civilization. Especially in the summer time. Although impulses by men who encounter them are for the most part controlled, most men will definitely notice these women and improper thoughts may soon follow. This is where Shmiras Enayim comes in. One should try and avoid staring at improperly dressed women like that. Just as they should avoid looking at provocative billboard ads like those of Victoria’s Secret.

But nurture can go the other way. If one rarely sees any women publicly as is the case in certain Chasidic circles, then even a Halachicly very modestly dressed women may elicit improper thoughts. This is why many Chasidic publications do not publish pictures of women no matter how modest their dress is… even if they are covered from the neck down to the toe in a loose fitting outfit. In my view – it is the desire to reach that demographic that magazines like Mishpacha and Ami have decided not to publish any pictures of women  even though they world probably agree that there is nothing wrong with it, Halachicly.

Taking nurture to the extreme - Muslim women who cover themselves up in Burkas would probably elicit improper thoughts in Muslim men if they would dare to dress in the more revealing standard of a Meah Shearim woman.

Bottom line - once you are past the basic requirement to cover up Erva it’s all about what you’re used to.

How far does a man have to go to avoid seeing a provocatively dressed woman (or image of a woman)? As always, common sense and self restraint should prevail. You do the best you can to avoid staring at those images. If you accidently encounter it, you should simply avert your eyes.

But in certain circles common sense and self restraint has nothing to do with how one lives. As with many other things it’s all about going to any extreme to accomplish the goal. Some of which are so ridiculous that it would make a laughing stock out of us if we were all to adopt them.

There was a letter in Hamodia’s May 16^th issue in the Reader’s Forum that promoted a ‘genius’ of an idea in this regard. This fellow has had difficulty in airports and in airplanes. I guess seeing female flight attendants or some of the female passengers have caused him to have impure thoughts.

His solution? Transparent stickers over your glasses that will blur everything you look at. And if you don’t wear glasses, buy a pair of glasses with clear lenses and place the stickers over them. This way you could look straight at people and have no clue what they really look like. Problem solved.

Does the individual who wrote that letter really think that no one would realize what we were doing if all of us would start wearing ‘stickies’ on our glasses?

I can see it now. The next Asifa:  Shmiras Enayim - Solutions to the Pitfalls of the Street.  Will these stickers be promoted as one of the solutions? What’s next? Will someone come up with an even more ridiculous idea that will offer even more protection? Like maybe a blindfold and a seeing eye dog?

If Hamodia hadn’t published this story, I would have thought this was some sort of parody. Sadly, it isn’t. The writer was as serious about it as a heart attack. And Hamodia must have felt the same way since they published the letter without comment.

Disunity

The reverberations from last week’s Internet Asifa are still being felt. I was going to move on, but I keep reading things that are hitting me in the face.

Over the three day Yom Tov we just had - I had an opportunity to read many of the reactions to the Asifa in various periodicals. As could be expected there was everything from outright praise at the glorious moment of unity achieved - to criticism along the lines I and many others have been making.

The biggest criticism is that the Asifa was not what it was advertised to be. It was advertised as a solution to the problems of the internet - how we can use it safely.  In a published interview Eytan Kobre’s description of this event prior to its taking place as a way to deal with the reality of the internet was as misleading as could be. I doubt that it was intentional. He probably believed the hype. I’m sure that this is how it was explained to him in all sincerity.

But viewing it post facto it was instead just more of the same old… same old: The internet is Assur. Among the things gleaned from that gathering by the exclusively Charedi and Chasidic speakers were the following:

People who use it even for business even with filters are Reshaim (as per R’ Don Segal).  If one does not follow the Psak of the Gedolim as they make edicts when Rivvivos Yisroel (thousands upon thousands of Jews) are gathered they lose there portion in Olam HaBah (as per R’ Ephriam Wachsman’s application of Rebbenu Yonah’s Sharrei Teshuva).  One is not permitted to even enter a home of someone who has unfiltered interent - and those children whose homes have even filtered interent should be barred from  Yeshivos (as per R’ Shmuel HaLevi Wosner).  Description after description of what went on there leaves little doubt in my mind. Nothing has changed.

So what happened?

The search for Achdus happened. In trying to get every segment of Yiddshkeit (as defined by those who organized the Asifa) on board they had to make compromises. Chasidic Rebbes have not conceded to the realities of the internet. Nor have Israeli Rabbinic leaders. They were the speakers… and they were the sought after Daas Torah.

It is my personal belief that Rav Salomon and the original organizers had intended this to be as advertised: solutions to the problem and not just a rehash of all the condemnations of the past. I don’t think they realized what they were bargaining for or the price they would have to pay. According to everything I read - speaker after speaker did nothing but condemn the internet!

Nor was there any true Achdus of observant Jews. Unless one considers Achdus to mean a sea of bearded man clad in black comprised mostly of Chasidim and other Charedim from Yeshivos like Lakewood. True – the audience was peppered here and there with an occasional ‘blue shirt’.  But the vast majority of attendees were wearing black hats of one type or another. And by black hats I mean Hashkafic black hats. One need only look at any photograph of the crowds or interviews with some of the attendees to see that.

It is an insult of the highest level to call this event unifying. Where were the modern Orthodox Jews in the audience? Where were even right wing modern Orthodox speakers like any of the Roshei Yeshiva of Yeshiva University? Or someone like Rav Gedalia Schwartz, the Av Beis Din of the RCA Bet Din (the BDA)?

The only unity was Charedi unity. Only that is not how the speakers referred to themselves. They did not say Charedi unity. They said unity… Achdus!  For them as long as Chasidim and other Charedim were there, Achdus was acheived!

And how were the massive crowds achieved? A lot of it was by force or intimidation (as per Rav Avrohom Schor’s ultimatum to his Shul members and the description by one Kollel member about his Rosh Kollel’s threat of expulsion if his Avreichim did not attend). I can only guess that there was a lot more where that came from. Yeshivos and Kollelim were clearly empitied out by Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel for purposes of attending the Asifa. It’s hard to know just how many Charedim would have attended had they not had a ‘capitve audience’.

The bottom line for me and others who seek true unity among Orthodox Jews is that in the view of the rabbinic leaders and organizers of this Asifa – if one is not Charedi one is so outside their radar, that intermarrying with us is an insulting suggestion.  No matter how big a Talmid Chacham one is or how obseravnt of the Mitzvos one is, if they are not part of this ‘Kehilla’ they will not consider our children for marriage to theirs. Think not? Read on.

Rav Chaim Feival Schneebalg of Khal Avreichim in Monsey was interviewed by Ami Magazine. In explaining the purpose of the Asifa he asked a rhetorical question. “If someone redt you a Shiddach, a Chashuva Mechutan, a fine Yid, except there is one problem, that he had a huge television in his livingroom, would you enter a Shidduch?” “Of course not, you would even be embarrassed that the Shadchan Redt you such a Shidduch.”  He goes on to make a comparison to the interent. But that is beside the point.

Rav Schneebalg’s statement is very revealing. He dismisses virtually anyone who was raised in a home more modern than his. It doesn’t matter how religious or learned the potential Shiddach is, nor how religious or learned their parents are. If one was raised in a home with a TV… don’t insult me by suggesting that Shiddach for my son or my daughter!

I suppose he feels that the bad influences of TV have tainted the soul of that Shidduch. Although it is not an exact comparison - this Rav’s attitude is reminiscent of Ploni Almoni’s attitude with respect to Rus, the Giyores we just read about on Shavuos. He did not want to taint his pedigree. He therefore would rather go through an embarrassing process of Chalitza than fulfill his obligation to marry her.

Not so Boaz. He was the Gadol HaDor of his time. He didn’t care that she was raised with a television in her home. He married her anyway.

This is apparently the Charedi world of today in its most extreme incarnation. It seems that moderate Charedim who might not feel this way are being harangued into thinking like this. Wonderful Shidduchim are rejected for reasons that are given far too much weight. True – backgrounds should be considered as part of an overall package. But outright rejection of a Shiddach without knowing anything other than there was a TV in the home?! Please!

It is precisely this mentality that Rav Shteinman ridiculed in a recent YouTube video.  He was asked by some officials at a Charedi school in Israel if they could reject a student because the Hashkfos of the parents weren’t exactly the same as what the school called for. They were described as religious – even Charedi – but a bit too open minded. Rav Steinman’s response to them?  Pure Gavah! He repeated it several times and admonished them for their exclusionary attitude. He considered them to be extremely haughty and way too self important.

I doubt that Rav Schneebalg would see his statement that way but is there any other way to look at it?

I am appalled and insulted by this attitude. I understand why they considered this a unifying event. But in my view it wasn’t. Instead calling this event a demonstration of Achdus makes it one of most divisive events in my memory.

Memo to Rav Salomon

Last week there was a massive gathering of mostly Charedi and Chasidic Jews. The issue was the dangers of the internet.  It was strongly promoted by Lakewood Mashgiach, Rav Matisyahu Salomon who considers this issue one the biggest challenges ever faced by the Torah world.

Across the street there was a much smaller gathering of sex abuse victims and their supporters. Their message was that sex abuse was a far greater problem and that it has as of yet not been fully addressed. Certainly not in the way the dangers of the internet has been addressed.

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were tackled in the same way, with the same fervor as the dangers of the internet are? There are more than a few Charedim who might think so. One of them might very well be Rabbi Yakov Horowitz who wrote the following post on his website. It follows unedited in its entirety.

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.

Be All that You Can Be

One of the results of the revelation at Sinai was the effect it had on Moshe Rabbenu. When he came down with the Aseres HaDibros (The Ten Commandments) his face was shining with Karnei Hod (Rays of glory - the descriptive Midrashic way of describing the Keren Or Panav - rays of light shining from his face.) He was in effect transformed by the singular most important event in the history of mankind… God’s revelation at Sinai to the Jewish people in order to give them the Torah.

How did Moshe achieve those rays of glory? The Medrash asks this question (Shemos Rabbah 47:6) and answers that he derived them from the Luchos (tablets) of the Aseres HaDibros themselves. When he carried the 6 handbreadth (Tefachim) long Luchos down from the mountain he held on to 2 Tefachim,  God held (as it were) onto 2 Tefachim, and the two Tefachim in the middle were exposed. From there Moshe recieved his rays of glory.

Rabbi Norman Lamm interprets these 3 segments as 3 areas of existence: the unattainbale, the already attained, and the yet to be attained.

What God held on to was the unattainable. Not everything in life is possible to achieve.

There was a time in the late 19^th and early twentieth century where mankind thought that anything could be accomplished was enough money, brains behind it.  They were intoxicated by the great advances and achievements of science and technology.

But as mankind matured it began to realize that were not omnipotent… that there were things that are simply not achievable. Judaism teaches us that not everything in the realm of spirit or in the material world is given to man to know or to achieve. We are taught to have a sense of our human physical and mental limitations… and thereby feel a sense of humility. Ben Sira exclaimed “in what is wonderous to you, you shall not inquire”. The efforts know the secrets of God can only result in failure.

The 2 Tefachim that Moshe held refers to what mankind has already achieved.  There are people who revel in past achievements and dwell constantly on the ‘good old days’. But dwelling in the past is no way to achieve a halo. Stand on your dignity and you crush it. Rest on your laurels and you flatten them. Past glories are only significant if they inspire us toward new creativity.

It is the middle portion of the Luchos that signifies the point between these two extremes. It is in striving to achieve the not yet achieved that is rewarded with rays of glory.

That said God does not require us to do things that are beyond our ability to do. So by definition it is always possible to live to the standards of Torah and Halacha.  The reward comes in achieving those goals.

This concept is important to all parents. In rasing pour children we sometimes resort to extremes. Occasionally we see a child as an extension of ourselves and try to achieve through our children what we have failed to do in our own lives. Goals are set too high, and we become too demanding. If we push them too farand  into the realm of the impossible (those 2 Tefachim that God holds on to) we can expect only failure and resentment. There can only be a loss of self confidence and self esteem on the part of the child.

At the other end of the parenting spectrum is the laissez-faire approach to parenting. “Things will take care of themselves”. When we allow too much indulgence, then the 2 Tefachim of already attained achievement will suffice… and there will be no individual accomplishment. Children will stagnate.

The appropriate way to parent a child is to inspire him to achieve by our own example and to expoit his latent talents, interests and abilities.

Above all this principle applies to Torah. Rabbi Lamm declares that no one has the moral right to call himself a Torah committed Jew if he only observes the Mitzvos. The most important Mitzvah is Talmud Torah. If one is not Kovieh Itim – establish time for daily Torah study, one cannot truly call himself Torah committed. Smugness and complacency is not going to give us a feeling of satisfaction in our Judaism. Unless we strive to be the best we can be, we fall short… and not worthy of those rays of glory.

There is a famous story about a Chasidic Rebbe by the name of R’ Zusya. He was seen crying on his deathbed. When his Chasddim saw him cry they asked him what the problem was. He answered that he feared the judgment from the Heavenly Court that he was about to enter.

His Chasdim responded that he certainly did not have to worry considering the exemplary life he had led.

He responded by saying, “You don’t understand.” I’m not worried hat I will be asked why I wasn’t willing to sacrifice myself on the level of Avraham Avinu.” I will respond that I am not Avraham Avinu. I am only Zusya.” I am afrad that God will say to me, ‘Why were you not Zusya?!”

We all are all unique… each with our own potential. It is up to us to work at fulfilling it. Only then can we be worthy of the 2 middle Tefachim that bestow upon us the rays of glory.

Adapted from Festivals of Faith by Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm

Criticism of Charedim - Criticism of Modern Orthodox

I received the following comment from a reader who goes by the alias of cloojew:

Harry, I don't care if you post this comment or not. I just want to point out something, and I don't know your email. If the Orthodox mother who left her two kids in the car had been Chasidish, you'd be all over this. But because she's modern Orthodox, it probably never hit your radar. Here's the full story: (link).

I don’t know who cloojew is. But based on his comments both here and in other venues, including occasional full length commentaries on various blogs and websites, I believe him to be a moderate Charedi… or something very close to it. In fact he will often present a view similar to mine, critical a problem he sees in the Charedi world. And yet, he too apparently believes that I have an anti Charedi bias. That is in essence what he is accusing me of in the above comment.

I think this comment is typical of the attitude some people have about my supposed bias. Is he right? Would I have bashed this woman and her community had they been Charedi?  Let us take a look.

The story involves a mother who left her children in a car to run quickly into a drugstore to drop off a prescription for a sick child, she did not wait for it to be filled and ran back to her car. Nevertheless in the interim her car apparently rolled into the street and almost hit another car. She was handcuffed, arrested - and after 6 hours in police custody - released on $50,000 bail. She will apparently be charged with child endangerment.

She admitted she shouldn’t have done that and said she is normally a careful mother. This mother of five children has no record and has never been investigated by DYFS.

That is pretty much the sum and substance of the story. I can only surmise cloojew bases his views about my bias on commentary I have made on somewhat similar stories about Chasidic women - like the posts I did from from 2009 where a woman from Meah Shearim was arrested for murdering her own child. 

For those who don’t recall - here is what happened. 

A Chasidic woman from Toldos Aharon in Meah Shearim was accused of starving her sick child. She had protested her innocence even though there was massive surveillance evidence that proved her guilt. She blamed the doctors and the hospital for that death. 

Her community backed her story in spite of all  the evidence against her. There were protests and riots by her community in support of her. Boycotts were called for against the hospital where this happened and who accused her of the crime. 

This is the typical response of that community. The Chasidim of Toldos Aharon are very Satmar-like Chasidim - isolated form the rest of the world on purpose. They are very anti Israel… always blaming the seculars for all their problems.

How is this Modern Orthodox woman’s situation here even remotely comparable to this? How do you even know she is Modern Orthodox? Because she was wearing a hat instead of a Shaitel?! 

And even if she is MO, did her community come out and start trashing the neighborhood because they believed one of their own was unfairly arrested? Did any MO accuse an anti Semitic government of lying about her act or framing her? Did she deny any wrongdoing?

And yet cloojew – in spite of the fact that I believe him to be a moderate Charedi  - sincerely still believes that if I were fair, I would be all over this story just as I certainly would if she were Charedi. Does he not see any difference between the two cases that makes one worthy of commentary and not the other? Can he point to any similar story to this one about a Charedi where I came out and bashed them? I don’t think so.

I do not bash Charedim. Only those who react the way the extremists in Toldos Aharon reacted in cases like the one in Meah Shearim. I bash them when they deserve it! And if the Modern Orthodox community would have started trashing their neighborhoods and calling the government anti Semitic, you better believe I would have some very strong words to say about them. The fact is that modern Orthodox Jews do not do things like that.

Mesirah and Making the Right Call on Sex Abuse

A young 9 year old boy came home from school and told his parents that his Rebbe had touched him in an inappropriate way.

The parents were stunned. They have known this man as a charismatic and very popular teacher for many years. Every single other day school in the city would ‘kill’ to add him to their faculty. His talents have inspired even mediocre students to excel in their studies and inspired them religioulsy. Former students testify to that and have gone into Chinuch because of it. In short, he is the role model for Mechanchim.

This Rebbe also has a family of his own his oldest daughter is about to embark on Shiddach dating. He has never been accused of anything like this before.  But even though they are convinced of this man’s innocence, they know that their 9 year old is not given to fantasies such as these. If he said something happened. It happened.

So they decided to press him to see if perhaps there was something else going on here. They asked him to explain in detail what had happened. He was embarrassed and very reluctant to do that. But after being assured by his parents that it was the right thing to do - he went on to describe in graphic detail what had happened.

He added that this was not the first time it happened. His Rebbe who he had gotten very close to had convinced him that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing… and that this very special bond they developed would be their little secret. That was one of the great things about this Rebbe. He famously developed special relationships with many of his students.

The parents were horrified. But as religious Jews they did not immediately report the abuse to authorities. They first went to their beloved and trusted Rav. He would be the honest broker… and surely after speaking to their son and hearing the same thing they did he would urge them to immediately report it to the police.

After listening to the boy’s graphic description of the abuse he too was incredulous. He also knew and appreciated this Mechanech and had spent many an occasion with him discussing various issues related to his job. Based on all those experiences this Rav too considered him a role model for Chincuh. But his reaction was a bit different than that of the parents. His experiences with that Mechanech lead him to suspect that the child might just be lying, despite his obvious discomfort and sincerity - even though he had never lied about anything like this before.  

Fearing that a good man’s reputation would be ruined and that his family would suffer untold pain -  he decided to err on the side of what he believed to be caution and not allow the parents to report the abuse to the authorities. He determined this was not a case of Raglayim L’Davar – credible evidence.

Telling the authorities would then be Mesirah based on the testimony of a child. He felt confident that he did the right thing – saving this wonderful Mechanech from the devastation and untold pain that he and his family would surely have suffered. He still teaches today.

The problem is that a victim of abuse was telling the truth. His parents who knew their child better than anyone else believed him. They were sure of it. But they could do absolutely nothing about it. Three days later the boy committed suicide.

This story is fiction. However - except for the act of suicide it is a common one told by many victims. And suicides are not unheard of by victims of abuse.

The Rabbi in this story is not an evil person. He chose to side with his gut feeling that this long time, well known, and successful Mechanech could not possibly do what he was accused of.  But he had no training in how to investigate the truth of an allegation. He just said “Couldn’t be!” ...and decided that it should not be reported.

This brings me to an article in yesterday’s Forward. Apparently Rabbi Dovid Zweibel (pictured above) has spilled the beans about the Agudah’s real reason for requiring every allegation of abuse to be first vetted by a Rabbi. From the Forward:

Central to the issue for Agudath is mesirah, the prohibition in Jewish law against informing on a fellow Jew to the authorities. This religious principle flourished in Eastern Europe in centuries past, when Jews lived in ghettoes ruled by hostile, often anti-Semitic governments. But Zwiebel said the notion that mesirah doesn’t apply in modern-day democracies, where there is a fair criminal justice system, is “a minority view” among top rabbis in the ultra-Orthodox world. “The majority view is, there is a prohibition against mesirah,” Zwiebel said.

So the real issue for Agudah is not that justice will be served if rabbis are consulted first. It is that a Jew not be reported to the police even if he is guilty. Because that constitutes Mesirah.  It seems that the only way they would allow reporting it to the authorities is if there was a clear and present danger. But if that danger has somehow disappeared (for example when an abuser has been barred from being around children and monitored by the community) abusers go scot free. I find that unconscionable.

Rav Elyashiv had been the hero of both victims and their advocates with his directive that if there is credible evidence of ongoing abuse that it should be reported to authorities  – and that it was not considered Mesirah. There is apparently another aspect of Rav Elyashiv’s psak that is not so widely quoted. But it was this time by Rabbi Dovid Zweibel who (along with Rabbi Avi Shafran) was interviewed for this article:

(He) read in Hebrew from an edict issued last year by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, a widely revered talmudic authority based in Israel. In the excerpt, the 102-year-old Elyashiv warned that a “bitter” student could wrongly accuse a teacher of abuse, putting that teacher in “a situation where he would rather be dead than alive.”

Asked how a rabbi could ascertain whether a child is lying, Shafran said, “There are certain subtle [signs] in a child that show whether the child is fantasizing.” He said these indicators included a child’s tone of voice or specific things he or she says.

Offering the hypothetical example of a parent who came to a rabbi after his child told him she had been abused by a teacher, Zwiebel said the rabbi’s decision on whether the parent can go to law enforcement “depends on whether your child has the habit of fantasizing. It depends on whether your child and the teacher have had run-ins in the past. It may require some level of nuance and investigation [by a rabbi] that go beyond the mere allegation.”

In other words the benefit of the doubt always to go to the accused. Who determines that doubt? Not a professional but a rabbi. What are some of the parameters for determining whether evidence is credible? Subtle signs; tone of voice;  nuance; a habit of fantasizing...

Even if these are legitimate ‘tells’ of whether an accusation is credible, is a Rav the best person to determine it?  Or is it a mental health professional specially trained to do it with years of experience dealing exclusively in sex crimes. Can a Rav honestly say he will make a completely unbiased evaluation if he knows the accused socially and is predisposed to believe him?

If the accused is a community member in good standing the benefit of the doubt that the Rav subconsciousnessly accrues to him multiplies. What about the parents who know their child best and believe him? Sorry. Not good enough to report to the authorities. It will ruin the man’s life. What if he’s innocent? 

I’m sorry but I don’t understand this rationale. It is grossly unfair to the victim. And it allows for pre-existing biases to favor the accused – even if it is unintentional and made with the best of intentions.

By following this path, victims feel like they have been abused again. Only this time by the religious leaders that they once respected and by the community to which they belong.

Is there any question as to why so many people who have gone OTD were victims of sex abuse? Is it any wonder they feel rejected by their community? Is it any wonder that many of them become clinically depressed and on a downward spiral that can lead to anti social behavior, alcoholism, drugs, and even suicide? How many victims like this need to be created before their voices are heard and the right thing is done by them?

Haredi and Proud

Harediandproud. What a wonderful name for someone who is proud of his Hashkafa. That is the alias of an anonymous blogger and frequent commenter (of late) on my blog. It’s a shame that he couldn’t just be proud of his Hashkafa without bashing everyone else’s.

That would be laudable. But it is not the case.

He speaks with a condescending air of superiority that is rare even for the most self assured Charedi. His message? My way or the highway. Meaning that if one does not buy hook line and sinker into his Hashaka - he is not only not Charedi, he is not even part of Klal Yisroel (...defined as a Shomer Torah and Mitzvos).

I have no idea who this fellow is. He hides his identity but his self assured, self righteous pomposity is undeniable. His blog is a masterpiece of mischaracterizing the intent of many Jewish bloggers – imputing all kinds of nefarious motives to them - using the most pitiful terms imaginable. It is obvious from his blog that he includes me among them.

His thinking is so disgustingly condescending that it makes my stomach turn. The truth of the matter is that the mentality he preaches is precisely why there is so much divisiveness in Klal Yisroel.  That breed of Charedi is so sure of his exclusionary views, that he has no fear bashing hard anyone who see things a bit differently than he does. The subject of his current tirade is the internet.

He actually believes that when a major world class Posek bans the internet from all private homes and one doesn’t adhere to that ban, he is in the category of a Heterodox Jew. That he has rejected what Harediandproud believes to be one of the fundamentals of the Torah – listening to his Gedolim who have now Paskined for all of Klal Yisroel.  

One can be the most religious Jew in the world. If he has the internet in his home, he is disobeying the Gedolim and therefore disobeying God on purpose. Not much differently than if he would be Mechalel Shabbos on purpose.

Yet he still maintains that this somehow furthers Achdus. How? By basically asking all Modern Orthodox Jews to come on over to his side and become Charedim. To him that is the only real Achdus that exists. Differences of opinion about the value of the internet are illegitimate and immaterial - once a Major Posek has spoken to the multitudes. Those who question his Psak are seen as either rebelling or ignorant.

The bottom line to someone like him is that if we don’t have Achdus it’s our fault. It is not Charedi Rabbanim that chases us out. Those who continue using the internet are choosing to leave.

Ignorance is the only way he can be Dan L’Kaf Zechus to modern Orthododx Jews or even Charedim who visit blogs like mine.  If only they understood the Emes…!  They would quickly get on their hands and knees and beg Mechilla for ever questioning the Psak of such a Gadol and run as quickly and far away from my blog (and every Jewish blog) as possible!

To put it the way he did in a lengthy comment he made to one of my posts:

"The "realignment" is a new definition of klal Yisrael, which is in fact the age old (Chareidi) definition; Klal Yisrael includes only those who adhere to the dictates of gedolei Yisrael, and only those."

What I meant with realignment was… with regard to the issue of the internet itself. A new wall has been erected and those who are in are in and those who are out are out. All are welcome to come in, truly.

We wish you all the best and would help you as we would any Jew, but a family or a person that has unfiltered internet access is assumed by charedim to have been tainted by it.

What condescending arrogance!

I just returned from a Chumash party at my grandchildren’s day school. The thought occurred to me that it is very likely that most of the parent body in attendance probably have internet access. Some of them without filters. The parent body of this school consists of a cross section of Yiddishkeit, from very Charedi to very modern Orthodox. . I know many of these parents from all of the various Hashkafos. They virtually all have internet access in their home.  But to Harediandproud, all of these people might as well be Reform or Conservative Jews.

I want to be clear about this. Haerediandproud actually believes that an entire parent body of an Orthodox day school whose parents are Shomer Shabbos, Shomer Kashrus and Taharas HaMispacha are equal to the non observant Jews of Heterodoxy. To him the only difference is how much of Halacha they choose to reject!

I am virtually certain that most of the Charedi Rabbanim whose pronouncements he so vigorously defends disagree with him. Although they see their own Hashkafos as the correct ones, they do not see people who are Shomer Torah and Mitzvos as some sort of new Heterodoxy. They may think we are wrong, but that is as far as they will go. Putting us outside the Machaneh is something only lesser Charedim might do.

These lesser Charedim that Harediandproud exemplifies believe they are just taking this to the logical next step. But I do not believe for a minute that any one of those rabbinic leaders would refuse to count me or any of those day school parents into their Minyan just because we continue to have internet access in our homes.

His assertion that Modern Orthodox Jews do not listen to their Gedolim is absurd in any case. Anyone who has ever read Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s writings on this subject would know just how false such a claim is. The difference is that we do not see every word coming out of the mouths of our Rabbanim is intended by to be an edict by them.

Perhaps he is right about one thing. Jewish bloggers - especially anonymous ones like him - can be quite damaging – when the spew garbage like this as gospel!

Update: In response to this post, Harediandproud has assured me that he was misunderstood and in no way meant that anyone who does not listen to his Gedolim are not considered fully observant. He was only referring to Charedim who do not listen to thier Gedolim are  'outside the camp'. I accept that and apologize for the misunderstanding.