HaloScan.com - Comments

Interesting blog. Intelligent and informative. Keep it up.
Independent Frum Thinker | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:35 am | #

Clearly, discussion on blogs is generated and dominated by those who never look to these Rabanim for guidance, so what could they really have to say, anyway?

I don't understand why people like DovBear and the Wolf get so worked up about what the Agudah's going to say or do. What's it matter to them?

I've never seen any chareidim get agitated about the pronouncements of the RCA about smoking, or whatever. They'd just say, "nu, nu" and light up a cigarette.
David | 11.24.06 - 3:52 am | #

Did you see any other bloggers there ? Did anyone recognize you as a blogger ?

You mean they didn't have your name on their watch list ? ;-)
anonymous | 11.24.06 - 3:55 am | #

Clearly, as the blogging universe expands, various niches become better defined. One can offer little criticism of Torah blogs that do not offer social comment and commentary or are dedicated to inspiration, Jewish thought and Torah study (such as hirhurim, avakesh.com -my blog, or the simple jew). Other blogs, especially when anonymous, engage in disussions that definitely weaken the traditional methods of communal control. Otehrs, even if not objectionable in tehmselves, certify the legitimacy of the internet as repository of Torah knowledge and therefore deteract from live role models.

It is too early to asess the impact of blogs. As hth various niches establish themselves, the long term potential impact will become clearer. We will then be speaking in terms of blog categories and not painting with brash strokes.
avakesh | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 4:09 am | #

According to YW, the convention can be heard via telephone (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/?p=3916#more-3916) . Complete details are not given. It seems that it is only live and I suspect that it is only for some sessions.
anonymous | 11.24.06 - 4:10 am | #

Ok, so the three-letter-blogger [tlb] was the focus of the eve.
Understandable.

At the same time, tlb served an important, even crucial role.
Does the Agudah have an alternate course of action when the rabbis are not responsive, especially to this degree? What would they suggest? What should have been done in order to effect the kind of change needed?
Fred | 11.24.06 - 6:28 am | #

R. Matisyahu Salomon in saying that questions and critiques that are respectful are acceptable

Wow. This is major. If you're right, then I view this as a virtual Haskakma of my own blog.
Harry Maryles | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 6:44 am | #

'a three-letter acronym containing two vowels....'

----- ????? maybe it's early A.M.
Paul | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 7:09 am | #

>is an understandable misunderstanding because I have not yet said, but will be"H soon be saying, "Eis la'asos la-Shem" on the subject.

R' Wachsman point was not 'Es Laasos', but that R' Aron Kotler surely understood the Rambam better than any of us, and if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not.

As in the story of the Chazon Ish who paskened that even Sheirut L'umi (national service) for our Bnos Yisroel is Yaharog V'al Yaavor.

When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here.
ed | 11.24.06 - 7:47 am | #

If the Agudah is concerned with the impact of blogs, why don't they start their own blog, one that can deal with topics and issues in the Agudah's perspective.
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 8:02 am | #

R' Wachsman point was not 'Es Laasos', but that R' Aron Kotler surely understood the Rambam better than any of us, and if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not.

And how did RAK understand the Rambam? Perhaps, just perhaps, like the Kessef Mishneh who said "Eis la'asos la-Shem".

As in the story of the Chazon Ish who paskened that even Sheirut L'umi (national service) for our Bnos Yisroel is Yaharog V'al Yaavor.

I believe that the Chazon Ish was referring to forced Sherut Leumi and not volunteer Sherut Leumi.

If the Agudah is concerned with the impact of blogs, why don't they start their own blog, one that can deal with topics and issues in the Agudah's perspective.

The Agudah has a policy of not having an internet presence so as to be consistent with the message they are trying to teach of staying off the internet.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 8:30 am | #

"Clearly, a certain blogger was the villain of the evening. I won't name him, but let's just say that he goes by a three-letter acronym containing two vowels. I looked around but did not see that blogger there."

He is, no doubt, delighted by this--as he should be.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 8:40 am | #

"a certain blogger was the villain of the evening"

- was Kolko at the event?
Jewish Observer | 11.24.06 - 8:41 am | #

>And how did RAK understand the Rambam? Perhaps, just perhaps, like the Kessef Mishneh who said "Eis la'asos la-Shem".

Most likely, that WAS the reason.

But Es Laasos wasn't the relevant point. The point was that if RAK ok'ed it, then its OK. Whether we understand it or not.

>I believe that the Chazon Ish was referring to forced Sherut Leumi and not volunteer Sherut Leumi.

You mean if its forced - you should let yourself get killed, but its OK to volunteer?!?!?

Gil, please explain what you meant.
ed | 11.24.06 - 8:45 am | #

>He is, no doubt, delighted by this--as he should be.

He is, no doubt, disgraced and humiliated by this--as he should be.
ed | 11.24.06 - 8:48 am | #

Maybe I'm atypical, but I see more and more recycled ideas and discussions, and blogs running with other blogs' topics. This suggests to me that boredom and loss of interest will soon sink much of this enterprise. Even the blog reactions to current events often address the events by saying exactly the predictable thing.

The Jewish-oriented blogs that survive will be those that enhance our dedication to Torah and mitzvot and are free of shticky putdowns of Orthodox groups and ideas, and free of character assassination.
Bob Miller | 11.24.06 - 9:00 am | #

Just curious-How many of us received some sort of assurance that Agudah welcomed constructive Torah oriented blogs, as opposed to irresponsible blogs that either could be seen as displayong a lack of respect for Gdolim and/or the Charedi world?
Steve Brizel | 11.24.06 - 9:04 am | #

"The Agudah has a policy of not having an internet presence so as to be consistent with the message they are trying to teach of staying off the internet."

Granted. But they acknowledge the effects and influence of bloggers who send a message that they find inconsistent with their own. Should they feel this risk puts their mission in jeopardy, is it not shortsighted to ignore a medium in which they can potentially regain their influence?

Will they avoid the Internet forever?
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 9:07 am | #

"R' Wachsman point was not 'Es Laasos', but that R' Aron Kotler surely understood the Rambam better than any of us, and if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not."

My problem with this kind of thinking has nothing to do with whether or not people accept money to teach or learn in kollel. I object to the position that when someone of great stature takes a position is difficult to comprehend, we should not try to comprehend it--but should instead simply nullify ourselves to it. Perhaps for a godol's actual talmidim this is an appropriate way to behave le-ma'aseh in terms of following a pesak halahka, but in terms of Torah study, this is an unacceptable attitude.

It is certainly reasonable to assume that great talmidei chachamim don't make careless errors and are not unaware of primary sources. However, there is still a chiyuv to try to understand someone's reasoning. The suggestion that we should not think about these questions because 'he knew the Rambam better than us' is simply a way avoiding thought, and this anti-intellectual ideology is antithetical to Torah. It is also dangerous. It is what led to Second Coming Messianism, and it has led to all the other wacky manifestations of 21st century zealotry. Whenever any single person's authority is accepted with no critical thinking and is immune to criticism (and indeed any questions are shouted down as kefira or rebellion) then the path is open for being led way off the derekh. It is bad for the godol himself. Every lamdan should fear being refuted by his talmidim and colleagues. It forces someone to think more carefully about potential weaknesses in his arguments, and to refine his exposition.

This kind of thinking is also symptomatic of weak, lame emuna. It is a defense for a flimsy belief in a thin ideology which cannot stand up to any questions or challenges.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:08 am | #

"But they acknowledge the effects and influence of bloggers who send a message that they find inconsistent with their own. Should they feel this risk puts their mission in jeopardy, is it not shortsighted to ignore a medium in which they can potentially regain their influence?
Will they avoid the Internet forever?"
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 9:07 am | #

In their defense: The main problem with the Internet is not that there are messages which are antithetical to their ideology. That is true of printed media as well, but they are not prohibiting membership at public libraries.

The Internet presents special challenges because of how visually stimulating it is, how addictive it can become, the easy access to pornographic sites, the temptations of chat rooms, and most of all the impression that it is all anonymous--which removes inhibitions. They simply don't want people involved in the internet, and they don't want to be involved with the internet themselves.

I respect their stance on this (even though I disagree with it).
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:21 am | #

Nachum Klafter - Bravo! Very well put. RAK (and no other Godol for that matter) has ever told his talmidim that "since I'm smarter than you and a much greater tzadik and talmud chachom then you'll ever be, you should follow my psak unquestionably and not even try to understand it."

Gil - Is it possible that instead of "Eis la'asos la-Shem", RAK may have held we don't pasken like that Rambam, or that the Rambam may have been completely mistaken.
UnAnonymous | 11.24.06 - 9:22 am | #

"R. Matisyahu Salomon in saying that questions and critiques that are respectful are acceptable

Wow. This is major. If you're right, then I view this as a virtual Haskakma of my own blog."

didan natzach.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 9:22 am | #

Although, one testimony to the impracticality of this stance is how many card-carrying right wing agudaniks. I know who spend huge amounts of time online. THis includes rabbonim in RW yeshivos. I don't know who is following this eitzah. Perhaps prushim who don't even own a computer in the first place.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:25 am | #

Dr. Klafter ,very well said. In fact R'Rakkefet (who went to Lakewood)said (one of the lectures on YU.org that when Rav Aharon gave a shiur many of the bachurim would literally shout objections that an outsider would think was chutzpadik.(Apparently,iirc this was the method of learning in Kletsk)(IIRC did not R' Rakeffet also say that a future son-in-law was showing so much chutzpah, and when RAK asked him why he replied to RAK if you knew the topic or knew how to learn..?) Not that I advocate this behavior but its a far cry from mevatel daas.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 9:28 am | #

Also after the holocaust perhaps there may have been a better reason to claim es laasos laheshem.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 9:30 am | #

How many of us received some sort of assurance that Agudah welcomed constructive Torah oriented blogs, as opposed to irresponsible blogs that either could be seen as displayong a lack of respect for Gdolim and/or the Charedi world?

I did receive such assurance, although I think R. Wachsman might have gone after me. I might be mistaken, though, because I am so unused to his style that I likely misunderstood him.

Is it possible that instead of "Eis la'asos la-Shem", RAK may have held we don't pasken like that Rambam, or that the Rambam may have been completely mistaken.

Certainly. But the issue was how he understood the Rambam.

>I believe that the Chazon Ish was referring to forced Sherut Leumi and not volunteer Sherut Leumi.

You mean if its forced - you should let yourself get killed, but its OK to volunteer?!?!?

Yes. It is a very different beast when it is voluntary.

This is why I think R. Wachsman did a disservice to the community by not clarifying his point, thereby indirectly (and presumably unintentionally) leading people to believe that an entire community of lomdei Torah are acting against Da'as Torah when they participate in Sherut Leumi.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 9:33 am | #

eit laasot in its classic form aiui is for temporary set asides. Assumedly R' AK gave over to his talmidim his logic so they would be able to determine future application.

From some of the current articulations (I can't say if authoratative) it sounds like the earlier generations could do both (e.g. a tanna could be a blacksmith and a gadol) but not later generations. At some level imho this implies that even though the original ratzon hashem was to do both and he would allow success (or else wouldn't that tanna have been a greater gadol had he spent all his time learning) this is no longer the ratzon hashem and it seems a permanent (since the Rambam?) change.

I suppose in the end it's a question of relative priorities(would anyone say we should sell advertising space in a beit medrash to an unseemly cause as an eit laasot to support learning?) I would just like to have a better understanding of why the decision went this way in this case and why according to R' MF if one wanted to follow the original derech, he shouldn't.

KT
Joel Rich | 11.24.06 - 9:46 am | #

his is why I think R. Wachsman did a disservice to the community by not clarifying his point, thereby indirectly (and presumably unintentionally) leading people to believe that an entire community of lomdei Torah are acting against Da'as Torah when they participate in Sherut Leumi.

Even if they are. The CI wasn't their Da'as Torah, and they have no obligation to accept his words as binding.
ari | 11.24.06 - 9:49 am | #

"...They simply don't want people involved in the internet, and they don't want to be involved with the internet themselves.

I respect their stance on this (even though I disagree with it).
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:21 am"

I too respect their stance, but I find it shortsighted. The Internet as a medium is something they can't control without an outright ban against its usage, or urging its constituents to avoid using it as much as possible.

But when you openly acknowledge an effective medium as a threat to your own ideals, the obvious solution should be to use that medium, perhaps even cite "eis la'asos" and publish your own blog.

I find the policy of isolationism to be detrimental.
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 10:04 am | #

> R' Rakeffet also say that a future son-in-law was showing so much chutzpah, and when RAK asked him why he replied to RAK if you knew the topic or knew how to learn..?) Not that I advocate this behavior but its a far cry from mevatel daas.

That was Kletsk. I don't think it was RAK. The marriage, btw, was a disaster.
Nusach Anglia | 11.24.06 - 10:16 am | #

Nusach I don't recall but was that not on a shiur given in Israel from the f-i-l from klestk (I thought by RAK but not at all sure)
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 10:22 am | #

"I looked around but did not see that blogger there."
--------------------------------------
How do you know who he is?
steve | 11.24.06 - 10:23 am | #

ended in divorce, correct?
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 10:24 am | #

"...In fact R'Rakkefet (who went to Lakewood)said (one of the lectures on YU.org that when Rav Aharon gave a shiur many of the bachurim would literally shout objections that an outsider would think was chutzpadik.(Apparently,iirc this was the method of learning in Kletsk..."

That is interesting. My Shver shlit"a, who attended Reb Aharon zt"l's shiur in Lakewood, told me that his policy was that talmidim were not to interrupt or question him during the delivery of the shiur. My Shver told me that the only ones who ususally violated this rule and argued with Reb Aharon during shiur were HaRav Moshe Eisemann zt"l (was a talmid chochom in NJ - not to be confused with the Rosh Hayeshiveh of NI) and bl"c, HaRav Elya Svei shlit"a.
Rafael Araujo | 11.24.06 - 10:45 am | #

I apologize, first of all, for writing anonymously, but I too was there, Gil, and I too have to collect my thoughts before I write under my name.

I didn't hear Rabbi Solomon say respectful questions and critiques are acceptable, but maybe you're right, Gil, and maybe I'm wrong. I heard him say blogs are a "plague" and an "insidious...poison" that has entered our homes. At one point, he did obliquely refer to the UOJ/child abuse problem, and I give him credit for that. Criticize some rabbis, he said, not all of us, so perhaps that is what you're referring to.

He said we don't know how many hours rabbis have dedicated for dealing with perpetrators, but acknowledged some cases have slipped through our fingers, and demonstratively held up his hand. He said some cases should be swept under the rug, when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug.

I heard Rabbi Wachsman come out unconditionally against blogs - he said, "No excuses". He told the story of a kehilla where some of the baal habattim appointed a dayan without first asking the town Rav, and the Rav then said those baal habattim should die within a year. I'm not 100 per cent if R' Wachsman told this story, or R Solomon. This is the meaning of daas Torah, and rabbinic authority. Rabbi Wachsman uttered only one word about "grievances", and that was the word. On the other hand, he uttered the words "mesorah" and "laytsim" many times.

I'm still giving this thought, and maybe I'll write under my name, and maybe not, but the point they all missed was not that the Jews are losing respect for their rabbis, and blogging is a cause and/or symptom. F'kert. It is because the Jews have such great respect for rabbis, and Torah learning, that many of us have taken to the blogs to vent our protest. It is always peaceful, often intelligent, and even mostly respectful, albeit with major exceptions, but this is what is agitating people.

As far as the mood of the crowd there, I don't think the three speakers captured their emotions at any point. There was no spontaneous crowd response at any point. Maybe others will differ, I don't know.

I would love to see a transcripts.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.24.06 - 11:01 am | #

Rafael Araujo

Two possibilities. Very possible that my memory of the lecture is bad. (getting too old).
Different times they attended Lakewood?
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 11:06 am | #

>I object to the position that when someone of great stature takes a position is difficult to comprehend, we should not try to comprehend it--but should instead simply nullify ourselves to it.

Of course we should try to comprehend it. What do you think they do a whole day in kollel/yeshivos?

My point was, that when a Godol of the stature of RAK paskens a halacha, our lack of comprehension doesn't give us the right to dismiss his psak. Sure we are allowed to discuss it. But when it comes down to the bottom line, it is on us to nullify our Daas, that his psak is correct. Unless of course, you have an opposing Godol of equal stature. Then, you have to decide which Godol do you follow.
ed | 11.24.06 - 11:11 am | #

cazzie: the story ostensibly happened in yerushalayim, when RAK came to etz chaim. When he came in, someone had his feet on the chair/desk, and RAK said kovod hatorah, and the future son in law said that when the rosh yeshiva demonstrates he's worthy of kovod hatorah he will give him kovod or something like along these lines. So goes the story.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:16 am | #

"But when it comes down to the bottom line, it is on us to nullify our Daas, that his psak is correct."

Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:19 am | #

"Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself."

is in response to this:

"Of course we should try to comprehend it. What do you think they do a whole day in kollel/yeshivos?"
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:21 am | #

>Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself.

Of course. But it takes a Godol Hador to argue on a Rambam.

And when a Godol does that, the fact that you have 'smicha' doesn't give you the right to argue on the Godol on Halacha Lmaaseh.
ed | 11.24.06 - 11:28 am | #

"Of course. But it takes a Godol Hador to argue on a Rambam."

Not when the rama says otherwise. Let alone all the other ink that's been spilled on this topic.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:33 am | #

See R. Chaim Volozhin in Ruach Chaim on Pirkei Avos 1:4 where he states "it is forbidden (assur) for a student to accept the words of his teacher if he has a question on his words" He maintains that although we must have respect and humility, we are obligated to ask questions, critique and argue if we don't understand or we have proofs against our Rabbanim.
Observer | 11.24.06 - 11:36 am | #

And when a Godol does that, the fact that you have 'smicha' doesn't give you the right to argue on the Godol on Halacha Lmaaseh.
ed

Plenty of RY's do eventhough we might not have them on kids gedolim cards.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 11:37 am | #

But when it comes down to the bottom line, it is on us to nullify our Daas, that his psak is correct."

Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself.
Anonymous

A gadol shouldn't pasken for himself -he is a nogeah badavar. He can pasken for another gadol not when he is nogeah badavar.
Of course if the matter is clear eg a dvar mishna etc it is not really psak-it is knowledge of existing clear cut law.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 11:37 am | #

>>You mean if its forced - you should let yourself get killed, but its OK to volunteer?!?!?

>Yes. It is a very different beast when it is voluntary.

Although it may have been partially apologetics, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky is quoted in the book about him as making a similar point about Sherut Leumi to a non-religious Israeli politician. Parents need to have the right to dtermine the proper environment for their children. He said his grand daughter volunteers in a hospital, but he'd never let her get drafted into a Sherut Leumi type program he couldn't control.

At a minimum, parents need to be able to decide which kids are suited for such a program and which aren't.
UnAnonymous | 11.24.06 - 12:00 pm | #

> A gadol shouldn't pasken for himself -he is a nogeah badavar. He can pasken for another gadol not when he is nogeah badavar.
Of course if the matter is clear eg a dvar mishna etc it is not really psak-it is knowledge of existing clear cut law.

mycroft - Says who? There are countless examples of Godolim following their own Daas Yachid opinions. Whatever source you may have for it, it seems we don't pasken that way.
UnAnonymous | 11.24.06 - 12:02 pm | #

>A gadol shouldn't pasken for himself -he is a nogeah badavar. He can pasken for another gadol not when he is nogeah badavar.

It is mind boggling and quite shocking how a blog commentor gets to decide who a Godol could pasken for.
ed | 11.24.06 - 12:16 pm | #

I think it is a question of what we are referring to when we say nogeah bedavar. I would think if its a case of halacha like practices in davening then a Gadol could easily pasken for himself. If it is a case of a Gadol or his relative involved in a money argument then the Gadol should and I imagine do recuse themselves.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 12:34 pm | #

Nachum Klafter, it was the "temptations" of printed material that decimated religion among Eastern European Jewry a hundred years ago. I doubt there's nearly so much of a problem now.
Nachum Lamm | 11.24.06 - 12:44 pm | #

WADR to the quotes re RAK and understanding Rambam, I side with Dr Klafter-RYBS never encouraged anyone to accept a pshat that he offered in any Sugya or Rishon on his own word without at least thinking thru the sugya or Rishon on his own. It is antithetical to the entire underpinnnings of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah which challenges us to (1)understand the primary sources (2)understand what your rebbe is saying by way of explanation, and (3) use one's critical thinking in understanding any source, I also share R D Klafter's view that there is a huge world of difference in nullifying one's own will to obey Psak Halacha and in trying to understand a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim or Gdolie HaDor. Obeying established Psak means that you are affirming Naaseh VNishmah every moment of your life.

Walking away from working out a machlokes in the course of any sugya or inyan that you are learning basically shows that you have no interest in offering a possible chiddush based upon a Rishon, etc and is contrary to Chazal's observation that "ain beis hamedrash bli chiddush". As RCS once said "Noone ever died from a Kashe." Unfortunately, the approach set forth shows that the fear of questions is widespread, despite the fact that it is the bread and butter of TSBP.
Steve Brizel | 11.24.06 - 12:48 pm | #

See here for the perspective of the Seridei Eish on Pilpul vs. acceptance of the Torah of the greats:

http://mishmar.blogspot.com/2006...n-torah- of.html
Bari | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:53 pm | #

It is mind boggling and quite shocking how a blog commentor gets to decide who a Godol could pasken for.
ed

I'll quote Cazzie and adapt his cogent comments

I think it is a question of what we are referring to when we say nogeah bedavar. I would think if its a case of halacha like practices in davening then a Gadol could easily pasken for himself.

Agreed

If it is a case of a Gadol or his relative involved in a money argument then the Gadol should and I imagine do recuse themselves.

agreed
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 12:34 pm | #
Also in halachick matters where a gadol has a family interest eg "should his sick son eat on Yom Kippur etc" there are tradeoffs the mere fact that he is a
father makes him a nogeah badavar.

Ed thus if a gadol would pasken in an issue where his son or grandson had a financial interest he would be disaualified as a nogeah badavar.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 12:53 pm | #

Dr. Klafter was basically Mechaven to that Seridei Eish, I see.
Bari | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Steve:

Your 1248 PM post is as usual right on point-we don't disagree.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 12:56 pm | #

"He said some cases should be swept under the rug, when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug."
-------------------------------------
This is a troubling statement, if indeed Rabbi Solomon did say this and is not being misquoted. I don't know how you can "sweep under a rug", even a single claim of molestation. Every Jewish soul is precious and by not acting swiftly and definitively, you are potentially causing others to be harmed.

The passuk states regarding a man or woman who is accused of idolatry:
"Vedarashta heiteiv vehineh emet nachon hadavar neestah hatoevah hazot beyisrael. Vehotzeta et haish, etc."
Now we know that a homosexual act between two consenting adults is also called a "toevah", an abomination. How much more so is child molestation a "toevah". And we see that when there are accusations of a "toevah" being committed, it is the responsibility of our leadership to thoroughly investigate. If the allegations are indeed true, then the perpetrator must be dealt with accordingly. There is no "sweeping under the rug" in such cases.
steve | 11.24.06 - 1:02 pm | #

>Ed thus if a gadol would pasken in an issue where his son or grandson had a financial interest he would be disaualified as a nogeah badavar.

Of course. Even Moshe Rabbeinu wouldn't be believed.

The discusion at hand is relating to a general psak for the Klal.
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:17 pm | #

>This is a troubling statement, if indeed Rabbi Solomon did say this and is not being misquoted. I don't know how you can "sweep under a rug", even a single claim of molestation.

Steve, I'll requote it with the proper emphasis.

"He said some cases should be swept under the rug, when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug."

Still troubled?
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:21 pm | #

>If the allegations are indeed true, then the perpetrator must be dealt with accordingly.

Who said he wasn't dealt with according to the way that Daas Torah outlines in such circumstances?
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:24 pm | #

Ed,

Yes, I am still troubled. Where does it say in the Torah to sweep such cases under the rug?

I asked a friend who was there last night if he indeed said this. According to his recollection, Rabbi Salomon said that the rabbis are being accused of sweeping these cases under the rug. In the meantime, nobody knows the tens of cases that they dealt with definitively, because those cases were also swept under the rug.
steve | 11.24.06 - 1:29 pm | #

"R. Salomon meant that was is swept under the carpet (not rug) is when they take steps against an offender but keep it quiet to protect the innocent individuals involved. He did not mean that an offender should be left alone and his acts swept under the carpet."
-------------------------------------
Thank you, Rabbi Gil. Now I am less troubled.
steve | 11.24.06 - 1:31 pm | #

ed:
You said "...if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not."

RAK poskined this how long ago? Decades. How many kollel learners were there? Not many. The situation today is different than decades ago therefore the p'sak does not necessarily apply.

In America the kollel system is not yet out of hand. But in E"Y, where almost half of chareidim are in kollel, it is out of hand. The situation there is unsustainable, but will the Gdolim stop it? Sometimes I think they are hesitant to do so because they will be denounced by the kollel members and roshei kollel.
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Bari's reference to the SE should be mandatory reading for anyone who believes that Daas Torah prevents us from delving into and understanding a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim, Gdolei HaDor.Simply stated-there is a huge difference between Naaseh Nishmah as a fundamental to all of Torah observance and using all of one's intellectual powers to understand pshat in any issue within TSBP. The entire process of learning TSBP resonates and beams with Machlokes-Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim and even betwe generations ( Rashi and Baalei Tosfos). Our duty is to explain these conflicts , not to walk away from them because of a notion that we can only receive the text, not explore it and try to understand it within the Mesorah.

I stand by my point that Naaseh vNIshmah ,while extremely important to how one accepts Psak, is of little importance and is never used as a primary or even secondary means of argumentation among Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim in understanding any Talmudic concept.Learning, as per the Mesorah that I received from my RY means (1) knowing the primary source (2) understanding what your rebbe has added to your knowledge and (3)using one's own critical knowledge in understanding a source. It is not blind acceptance of the words without understanding the concepts, what your rebbe says and suspending critical inquiry.IMO, when one blindly accepts the words without having any understanding of the issues and critical inquiry, it is tantamount to reducing Mitzvas Talmud Torah and especially TSBP, which is an ongoing process that has been codified for our convenience, into the recitation of Tehilim and a dumbing down of the beauty and complexity of TSBP.

It is a sad day when we are told that a Ben Torah is told that he must rely on "pshat" of a "shvere Rambam" or worse an English "elucidation" instead of breaking his head and mind over the pshat and finding a Chiddush.Blind acceptance of the words of the Talmud or a Rishon without struggling thru the process of what is meant by the words and without a rebbe to explain to you what is between the words IMO raises the issue of whether one has even begun to fulfill the mitzvah of Talmud Torah as to TSBP-which minimally requires the would be lamdan to understand it and which RCS would possibly require the would be lamdan to be able to explain it to the man in the street.
Steve Brizel | 11.24.06 - 1:42 pm | #

Gil is correct. This was the clear intent of Rabbi Solomon.

In another forum, Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levine, Telshe Chicago R"Y, and Moetses member, said, We can't sweep these cases under the rug anymore, there's no more room.

So what did Rabbi Levine mean? That in the past, we weren't sufficiently focused on addressing abuse, we thought each case was an aberration, and we would even turn our eyes away; now, because of the rising caseload, we understand we were mistaken, and we must address it.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.24.06 - 1:46 pm | #

Steve: I agree with your 142 pm post very well put.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 1:48 pm | #

How many kollel learners were there ever in Europe at the height of Jewish life on that continent?
curious | 11.24.06 - 1:51 pm | #

Yes, I found it ironic that R. Wachsman specifically said that what a particular Gadol said 60 or 70 years ago is irrelevant, and then kept on quoting what R. Aharon Kotler said 40+ years ago.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:52 pm | #

>Yes, I am still troubled. Where does it say in the Torah to sweep such cases under the rug?

See my comment at 7:47am

"When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here".
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 1:52 pm | #

1:52pm was me
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:53 pm | #

>RAK poskined this how long ago? Decades. How many kollel learners were there? Not many. The situation today is different than decades ago therefore the p'sak does not necessarily apply.

The "psak" we are refering to here, is if one may accept money for learning, vs the Rambam who seemed to indicate that its forbidden to do so.

Just because there are more learners today, that doesn't invalidate the psak.

Perhaps, the RY's have to send people out of the Bais Midrash to find jobs. But that is irrelevant to the Rambam and RAK's psak if its PERMITTED to accept money for learning.
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:59 pm | #

>Bari's reference to the SE should be mandatory reading for anyone who believes that Daas Torah prevents us from delving into and understanding a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim, Gdolei HaDor.

Steve, what do you think they do a whole day in Yeshivos?

That's right! They delve into and attempt to understand a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim, Gdolei HaDor.

But don't you see a difference between "delving into/understanding" and arguing against the PSAK HALACHA of a Sar Hatorah and Godol Hador?
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:05 pm | #

ed:

I agree it is permitted today, whether eis laasos or some other reason.

But is it permitted in the NUMBERS we have today? Is it still an eis laasos for each individual when we have the numbers? This is a difficult question, but I think the answer is no once there are "enough" learners.
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 2:06 pm | #

>Yes, I found it ironic that R. Wachsman specifically said that what a particular Gadol said 60 or 70 years ago is irrelevant, and then kept on quoting what R. Aharon Kotler said 40+ years ago.

Gil, he didn't say its irrelevant. What he said was, that we have to learn from the transmitters of the Mesorah.

We can't cherry pick a rishon, if we aren't being Mekabel directly from that Rishon.

However, the mesorah received via RAK is still current, being that R' Schneur and RAMK are following in his derech.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:12 pm | #

>But is it permitted in the NUMBERS we have today? Is it still an eis laasos for each individual when we have the numbers? This is a difficult question, but I think the answer is no once there are "enough" learners.

A great question indeed. And every God fearing jew should NOT reach his own conclusions, but should consult with his transmitter of the Mesorah.

As per the story mentioned by R' Zwiebel, that when R' Moshe Sherer ZT"L thought that option A would be better, and the Moetzes said to follow option B, he was very B'simcha.

Why?

"Because this is what we are here for. To follow our Gedolim".
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:21 pm | #

However, the mesorah received via RAK is still current, being that R' Schneur and RAMK are following in his derech.

And the mesorah of Rav Herzog and others whose views have been used to defend R. Slifkin are also current. Maybe not in Lakewood, but they are still current.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:26 pm | #

As per the story mentioned by R' Zwiebel, that when R' Moshe Sherer ZT"L thought that option A would be better, and the Moetzes said to follow option B, he was very B'simcha

R M Sherer had a unique ability to get the Moetzes of selected Agudah Rabbis to agree with him. They probably recognized that Sherer was more sophisticated in political matters than they were.

A very interesting study -if one could get access to materials is a history of lay vs Rabbinic power in Agudah in its roughly 95 years of existence so far starting with the debates of Rosenheim vs Breur in the beginning decades of Agudah in Europe.-for this purpose Rav Sherer is a layman,no one seriously believes he had his power because of his gadlus in
Torah-a Gadol in PR see eg how he built Daf Yomi into a big Agudah power play.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 2:31 pm | #

And the mesorah of Rav Herzog and others whose views have been used to defend R. Slifkin are also current. Maybe not in Lakewood, but they are still current.
Gil

Agree with Gil
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 2:32 pm | #

Clearly, a certain blogger was the villain of the evening

Giving this loser credence is the biggest mistake.
ratzdash | 11.24.06 - 2:37 pm | #

So what we have Gil is three mesoras, at least: Chasidish, Yeshivish, Modernish/Centrist.

"Both are the words of the Living G-d"
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 2:39 pm | #

Picking up on Gil's last comment, Rabbi Wachsman discussed at length the gemara's story of Chonie Hamagil. He was gadol hador in his day, but after his long sleep spanning generations, when he returned, he was no longer gadol hador. Why? Because he no longer carried the mesorah for that dor. This is so even though his Torah learning was greater than anyone else in that dor.

So this is why we listen to Rav Ahron Kotler - Rabbi Wachsman was referring to the kollel movement here - and not to the Rambam. Rabbi Wachsman joked, many shvers know the Rambams by heart.
(We also don't listen to the Chasam Sofer either, but why Rabbi Wachsman picked him, I don't know why, maybe somebody else can explain this.)

I'm bothered. Yes, we needed kollel in RAK's day. But today, in this quantity, when there are other pressing needs, like K-12 chinuch?
And why isn't RAK the Chonie Hamagil of our day? We look to our gedolim of past years with reverence, and for guidance, and where applicable, we apply their teachings, but where the problems differ, we need to follow the guidance of our living leaders, both rabbinic and communal.

I don't see anything complicated about this.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.24.06 - 2:45 pm | #

>And the mesorah of Rav Herzog and others whose views have been used to defend R. Slifkin are also current. Maybe not in Lakewood, but they are still current.

But they aren't current in R' Elayshiv book either. Or in the book of all other signatories.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:48 pm | #

>R M Sherer had a unique ability to get the Moetzes of selected Agudah Rabbis to agree with him. They probably recognized that Sherer was more sophisticated in political matters than they were.

The point of the story was, that when the Moetzes paskened AGAINST him, he accepted the psak B'simcha.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:52 pm | #

ed:
But R'Elayshiv and the other signatories are not the only opinions on this matter. As you stated, there are different mesorahs. Each one of us can pick to follow the one we think is best. That is why I am not Chasidish.
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 2:54 pm | #

>And why isn't RAK the Chonie Hamagil of our day?

Because RAK's mesorah was passed to his son and grandson, who still believe that RAK was correct.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Thanks for the report, Gil. Good Shabbos.
neilsharris | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:56 pm | #

>But R'Elayshiv and the other signatories are not the only opinions on this matter. As you stated, there are different mesorahs. Each one of us can pick to follow the one we think is best.

You can't pick and choose. You have to stick to one mesorah.

L'kula U'lchumra.
ed | 11.24.06 - 3:00 pm | #

"See R. Chaim Volozhin in Ruach Chaim on Pirkei Avos 1:4 where he states "it is forbidden (assur) for a student to accept the words of his teacher if he has a question on his words" He maintains that although we must have respect and humility, we are obligated to ask questions, critique and argue if we don't understand or we have proofs against our Rabbanim."
Observer | 11.24.06 - 11:36 am | #

It is also a beraisa on "Me-devar sheker tirchak..." on Shavuos 30b.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 3:26 pm | #

>And why isn't RAK the Chonie Hamagil of our day?

Because RAK's mesorah was passed to his son and grandson, who still believe that RAK was correct.
ed

Give me a break if R M Kotler's last name were not Kotler would he had a chance in the world to be head of BMG as compared to Rav Wachtfogel? This is not a Purim Torah blog.
Rav Schneir ZT"L a leading Gadol but Rav Malkiel?

Of course his grandson better believe he is correct-the source and authority of the family business.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 3:49 pm | #

gil - regarding the volunteer sheirut leumi, i heard that the problem isnt b'etzem volunteering, its the fact that once you volunteer, you cant get out of it, and they can change your position - against your will. and therefore, in any event, its not "volunteer" per se, but rather there is (atleast) an element of force in it
Anonymous | 11.25.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Rabbi Matisyahu Salomon is not the torch bearer of Reb Aharon Kotler’s ideology. [deleted]

I dare say that Reb Aharon would have put an end to his experiment had he lived to see its current state [deleted]. BMG was never designed to be a mass production institution but rather a Makom Torah created to grow Torah in America. Look at what it has become.

If bloggers are the only people willing to speak the truth about this sorry state of affairs; Godspeed to them.

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 11.25.06 - 7:19 pm | #

Rabbi Salomon in his eternal wisdom states that some cases of child molestation should be swept under the carpet “when the Torah so dictates.” [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 11.25.06 - 7:36 pm | #

Rabbi Salomon in his eternal wisdom states that some cases of child molestation should be swept under the carpet “when the Torah so dictates.”

He never said such a thing. See my comment above.
Gil | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 8:38 pm | #

>BMG was never designed to be a mass production institution but rather a Makom Torah created to grow Torah in America. Look at what it has become.

It became a Makom Torah.
ed | 11.25.06 - 8:47 pm | #

>In another forum, Rabbi Avrohom
>Chaim Levine, Telshe Chicago R"Y,
>and Moetses member, said, We can't
>sweep these cases under the rug
>anymore, there's no more room.
>
>So what did Rabbi Levine mean?

Per Gil:
>R. Salomon meant that was is swept
>under the carpet (not rug) is when
>they take steps against an offender
>but keep it quiet to protect the
>innocent individuals involved. He
>did not mean that an offender should
>be left alone and his acts swept
>under the carpet.

So what did Rav Levine mean?

They've run out of room to protect innocent individuals?

Come on Gil, since when did Rav Salomon give you authority to clarify HIS comments? Do you purport to speak for him? With what authority can you say what he meant? What right do have to do so?
anonymous | 11.25.06 - 9:23 pm | #

Gil, Thank you.
ed | 11.25.06 - 9:26 pm | #

I was there as well Gil, he definitely said that certain cases should be kept under the carpet. I just could not believe my ears.
michoel | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 9:39 pm | #

>How many kollel learners were there ever in Europe at the height of Jewish life on that continent?

In eastern Europe pre-war there were about 6000 young men learning in yeshiva gedolah, out of a population of millions. That does not, of course, mean that only 6000 people were learning Torah and nothing of the sort is implied by this statistic.
.

Strioctly guess out of memory I believe the figure was less than 4000-maybe some differences in definitional problems. Effie Zuroff discusses it in his book about Vaad Hazalah-believe he gives figures for 20's and 30's. Someone check it .
mycroft | 11.25.06 - 9:52 pm | #

>I was there as well Gil, he definitely said that certain cases should be kept under the carpet. I just could not believe my ears.

Did he also say:

"when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug." ???
ed | 11.25.06 - 9:52 pm | #

I was there as well Gil, he definitely said that certain cases should be kept under the carpet. I just could not believe my ears.

You misunderstood him, then. Listen to a recording.
Gil | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 10:35 pm | #

Ok Gil, I spoke to 3 people that were there, they all agreed that R' Solomon definitely said that certain cases that were being dealt with by them should be "kept under the rug"

Was there an "under the rug" scenario talked about at all or is everyone hallucinating?
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 10:45 pm | #

Would a transcript help, or would you just say it's being taken out of context?
ICAAN | 11.25.06 - 11:13 pm | #

I continue to give much thought to Aguda's Thursday night session. I definitely did not come away with any feelings of "general tolerance" described by Gil in his post.

My overall impression is that the Aguda fortress mentality is as rigid as ever. Now its not the goyim who are the problem, its other frum Jews, from other camps. They're talking about modern and central orthodox Jews, and of course, bloggers.

The very choice of the two speakers was notable. It would be hard to find two more identifiable hardliners than Rabbis Wachsman and Salomon. Notably, also, although this was not the traditional motsei Shabbos keynote session, the Rosh Aguda, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, was seated to the right of the podium; and seated to the left was Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, Philadelphia Rosh Yeshiva and Moetses member, usually looked upon as the most senior Aguda rabbinic figure alongside Rabbi Perlow. This was an endorsement.

Rabbi Salomon, from Lakewood, hates bloggers. There were at least two Lakewood blogs that I know of, and they were instrumental in defying the Lakewood rabbis when they wanted to agree to the construction of a hockey stadium very close to the Yeshiva, in exchange for some money from the town; in forcing the cancellation of a glitsy Chinese auction that they felt was not in keeping with the modest Lakewood style; and in exposing some yeshiva administrator's very high salary, that raised some eyebrows. The Lakewood rabbis eventually shut down these blogs, because after all, Internet is forbidden in Lakewood.

Rabbi Salomon said what he said, and he meant it. Sweep it under the carpet, when the Torah tells us to. He is talking about child sex abuse committed by rabbis and other "frum" Jewish adults. But when does the Torah tell us to? And who decides? Rabbi Salomon did not answer these obvious questions.

I'll tell you why Rabbi Salomon is so wrong - because a pedophile repeats his behavior. He is an ongoing threat to children. He must be exposed, and forever barred from contact with children. He should never work in chinuch or any other youth setting again. By the way, this is exactly what the RCA Resolution says, from May 2005. If the pedophile's family members feel shamed or embarrassed, that is, unfortunately, fallout that cannot be prevented. The greater good of protecting children is far more important. There is a pasuk, Lo sa'amod al dam ra'echa, Do not stand upon the blood of your brother. The mitzvah requires one Jew to save the life of another. It means that you don't put a pedophile in close proximity to children. Child sex abuse is a form of retsicha, and a pedophile is a rodef. You heard none of this from Rabbi Salomon.

Rabbi Salomon's view, by the way, which has carried the day, is much different than that of Rabbi Levine, another Moetses member, who said, Let's NOT sweep it under the rug, there's no more room, and this was said at the May 2003 Torah U'Mesorah Convention, where there was a session on the child sex abuse problem. What did Rabbi Levine mean? That we erred in the past, as demonstrated by the fact that the cases have increased. We now need to change course, and at least publicize the problem.

I think, Gil, that you're looking for some type of hechsher from the Aguda types. Fuggehdaboutit. You can't dance at two weddings.

In Rabbi Salomon's view, the perpetrator should be dealt with by beis din, behind closed doors, some form of punishment/teshuva should be imposed, and the community will not be informed. That is daas Torah.

The great flaw in Rabbi Salomon's reasoning is that the perpetrator can pick himself up, resign from his charedi yeshiva, and move to an out-of-town day school. His guilt is under the rug, and his new employer neither knows about the rug, nor what's under it.

By the way, everybody, we will NEVER see a nationwide registry of sex and violent offenders initiated by Aguda and Torah U'Mesorah. If it ever does happen, it will need to be initiated by other camps, and/or imposed by the Government.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.25.06 - 11:52 pm | #

"In Rabbi Salomon's view, the perpetrator should be dealt with by beis din, behind closed doors, some form of punishment/teshuva should be imposed, and the community will not be informed. That is daas Torah."

Sad.
tzvee | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 11:57 pm | #

The Haredi "wise men" will pay the same price the OU paid for their obfuscation of their problem. When one Haredi rabbi winds up behind bars,all these brave guys will hide under the carpet. [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:40 am | #

I think, Gil, that you're looking for some type of hechsher from the Aguda types.

Far from it. I've just chosen to sit on my post and think about it before posting it.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:44 am | #

The great flaw in Rabbi Salomon's reasoning is that the perpetrator can pick himself up, resign from his charedi yeshiva, and move to an out-of-town day school.

No, the great flaw is that there are too few people, with too little training, involved. A few (extremely dedicated) rabbis with little experience and no professional training cannot solve the entire community's many problems.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:55 am | #

>Sweep it under the carpet, when the Torah tells us to. He is talking about child sex abuse committed by rabbis and other "frum" Jewish adults. But when does the Torah tell us to? And who decides? Rabbi Salomon did not answer these obvious questions.

R' Wachsman already answered that:

"When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here."
ed | 11.26.06 - 7:56 am | #

>No, the great flaw is that there are too few people, with too little training, involved. A few (extremely dedicated) rabbis with little experience and no professional training cannot solve the entire community's many problems.

Well, if you are referring to RMS when you talk about dealing with people with 'no professional training', you don't know what you are talking about.

RMS deals with, on a constant basis, trained mental health professionals. He refers people to professionals all the time!
(Psychologists, social workers etc..)

To claim that RMS is not aware of the need for trained professionals, is just uninformed and plain wrong.

BTW- 'ploni' are you so sure that there is never a Torah obligation to protect the accused? People who always take the accused side in their zeal for what they feel is a form of 'retzicha' (perhaps rightfully so), get me very worried.

We do have halachos that come into play with regard to ruining someones reputation you know. Even if caution must be taken with regard to children, this doesn't mean that we need to ruin someones life if we can avoid it.

(l'hisvayish p'nei chaveiro b'rabim is certainly a form of retzicha. Not to mention the damage on the accused's wife, children, shiduchim etc..)
Anonymous | 11.26.06 - 8:26 am | #

I am very well aware of the involvement of trained professionals.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:36 am | #

R' Wachsman already answered that:

"When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here."
ed

a classic "daas Torah " response. BTW that classic is relatively new-roughly from the time that Vatican 1 promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility-did the Agudanh types-technically found rarely before Agudah's founding.

Trivia-about Agudah-who was the only American to go to the first Agudah convention in Europe?
R. Dov REvel.
mycroft | 11.26.06 - 9:46 am | #

>I am very well aware of the involvement of trained professionals.

Then why did you earlier say:

"A few (extremely dedicated) rabbis with little experience and no professional training cannot solve the entire community's many problems."

Without adding that trained professionals ARE involved?
ed | 11.26.06 - 9:46 am | #

Because it is the rabbis without the professional training who are doing the exhausting and seemingly endless day-to-day work.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:57 am | #

>a classic "daas Torah " response.

Are you denying what the Chazon Ish said? Are you saying that what he said isn't good enough for you?!?

>BTW that classic is relatively new-roughly from the time that Vatican 1 promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility-did the Agudanh types-technically found rarely before Agudah's founding.

R' Wachman mentioned that too. He said that such statements as yours comes from an absolute ignorance of what Daas Torah means. People who are ignorant tend to associate their confusions with something they are familar with, such as confusing Daas Torah with the pope, which is as stupid and silly as it gets, since Gedolei Torah among themselves always had arguments in Hashkofa and Halacha.
ed | 11.26.06 - 10:02 am | #

>Because it is the rabbis without the professional training who are doing the exhausting and seemingly endless day-to-day work.

But you admitted that they are involved with trained professionals. What more do you expect them?
ed | 11.26.06 - 10:05 am | #

A methodical, professional way of dealing with issues, including a certain amount of transparency.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:20 am | #

First of all, RMS has at least one major prominent psychologist's cell number on his speed dial. Kach Shamati. I find it hard to believe that RMS said that we should sweep the problem under the carpet in its entirety.

OTOH, the notion that RAK "paskened" that we should meekly accept Pshat in any sugya without delving into the sugya, the Rishonim, Acharonim and words of the Gdolim-both those who are "goresed" inside and outside of BMG IMO runs contrary to the basic notions of Talmud Torah. On many sugyos, psak halacha simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant to understanding pshat of the Tanaim or Amoraim or the views of the Rishonim. One does not approach a blatt Gemara by opening up a KSA or handbook of the Psakim of any Gadol.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 10:21 am | #

Once again-IMO this point is critical-did RMS say that problems should be swept under the rug within the Charedi world because the Torah says so? I find it very hard to accept such a statement especially since RMS utilizes and relies upon the services of frum, college educated mental health professionals.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 10:35 am | #

"..college educated mental health professionals..."

Hopefully, MD, PhD, and PsyD educated individuals who, after receiving advanced degrees, went on to receive clinical professional training.
anti-meshichist | 11.26.06 - 11:12 am | #

Rabbi Blau's approach to dealing with child molesters is correct. He says the following:

1) It would be preferable to deal with these issues privately in order to prevent humiliation of so many families involved.

2) Preventing humiliation takes no priority over the obligation to protect children from molestation.

3) Since the frum community has shown itself to be completely inept in dealing with sexual abuse--(they essentially give child molesters jobs as teachers in a different school and write letters of haskama for them, and then they molest more boys and girls, etc.)--public disclosure of the identities of child molesters and turning them over to the police is the only method we can use. (Numerous Rabbonim have poskinned that this is NOT mesirah. Perhaps Rabbi Solomon disagrees, but he is not my rebbe and I am not responsible for his concerns.)

You have a choice between Rabbi Solomon and Rabbi Blau. I choose Rabbi Blau.
anti-meshichist | 11.26.06 - 11:19 am | #

Anti-meschichist-Read my first post on this issue. Again-RMS has one of the most premier frum and PhD trained psychologists on his speed dial. I would never confuse RMS's rhetoric with a recognition of where and who RMS turns to for advice on these issues.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 11:32 am | #

There is indeed a Gemara which
states that the misdeeds of a Talmid
Chochom should be hidden however
it is clear to me that the
intention of that Gemara is only
when there is a non-public way of
dealing with it- not to ignore it!
Also, it's probably when the Talmid Chochom is not a threat to others!
I hope Gil is right in his interpretation.

Gil-is it possible u could put ur recording on-line or a transcript.
I've ordered things from the Agudh before- only to find some parts omitted.

[deleted] - Yasher Koach but watch your
language!!!

Edited By Siteowner
mavin | 11.26.06 - 11:40 am | #

>A methodical, professional way of dealing with issues, including a certain amount of transparency.

Your approach starts from a secular perspective, and you attempt to make it fit with a Torah perspective.

R' Solomon's approach is the reverse.
ed | 11.26.06 - 11:41 am | #

>OTOH, the notion that RAK "paskened" that we should meekly accept Pshat in any sugya without delving into the sugya, the Rishonim, Acharonim and words of the Gdolim-both those who are "goresed" inside and outside of BMG IMO runs contrary to the basic notions of Talmud Torah.

RAK never said that.
ed | 11.26.06 - 11:45 am | #

>Once again-IMO this point is critical-did RMS say that problems should be swept under the rug within the Charedi world because the Torah says so?

You're misquoting. He didn't say problems SHOULD be swept under. He said THERE ARE problems that should be swept under (NOT ALL!!), in accordance with the direction of Torah.

>I find it very hard to accept such a statement especially since RMS utilizes and relies upon the services of frum, college educated mental health professionals.

Of course. When RMS' understanding of Torah says go to a professional, he goes to one. And when it says sweep it under, then he follows accordingly.
ed | 11.26.06 - 11:51 am | #

I'm trying to fathom how the Torah or those who speak in the name of Torah can decide what sexual predator's behavior should be swept under the carpet.

It is common knowledge that this disease is not able to be cured, and these pedophiles just continue their behavior elsewhere.

So someone decides that the Torah says this or that, that's the problem. People with no knowledge of the illness are making these life shattering decisions in the name of the Torah. Sheer stupidity.
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:00 pm | #

The Agudah and its approach is certainly an approach among others in Yahadus. Agudah BTW was formed relatively late in Jewish history-over a decade after the OU was formed in the US,it was formed after and largely in reaction to the establishment of the Mizrachi. They are a political party and organization that like others believes it is supporting Klal Israel-their rabbonim do not have amonopoly on what is emes-we don't know what shamayim paskens like.
Specific response to Ed:
a classic "daas Torah " response.

Are you denying what the Chazon Ish said?
No
Are you saying that what he said isn't good enough for you?
The CI was a gadol-but his authority was only persuasive authority-he was not head of any community-certainly not head of my community -unlike R Chaim Ozer. It is no secret that the CI had hashkafot different than many other Rabbonim-one is not required to follow the CI in his hashkafot-the vast majority of MO reject his statements about 5th seder of shulchan aruch etc

>BTW that classic is relatively new-roughly from the time that Vatican 1 promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility-did the Agudanh types-technically found rarely before Agudah's founding.

R' Wachman mentioned that too.
He mentioned Vatican 1 as what people believe is the cause of daas Torah?

He said that such statements as yours comes from an absolute ignorance of what Daas Torah means.
To me the basic bible on Daas Torah are two similar pieces recollection about 15 and 25 years ago by frequent hirhurim commentator Lawrence Kaplan on Daas Torah-may I suggest you read them. BTW-I don't recall Kaplan making the Vatican 1 reference I did-since Prof. kaplan is the one who populariized the exposure of "daas Troah" I have a wonder that R. Wachsman would have referred to Vatican 1!!

People who are ignorant tend to associate their confusions with something they are familar with, such as confusing Daas Torah with the pope, which is as stupid and silly as it gets

, since Gedolei Torah among themselves always had arguments in Hashkofa and Halacha.

So whose Daas torah counts R. Wachsman, Rav Ploni Almoni, Gils. eds , mycrofts,, In one respect we all follow Daas Torah-what we individually believe Torah demands of us-it need not be the same as what the Agudah Board says it is.

ed | 11.26.06 - 10:02 am | #
mycroft | 11.26.06 - 12:03 pm | #

Ed-what if the advice given by a professional and the decision to sweep an issue under the carpet cannot be reconciled-especially in the case of a pedophile-what would RMS have us do-pass the offending educator around from school to school? Aside from the issue of an accused pedophile-which other issues would RMS view as deserving such a treatment?
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 12:09 pm | #

"Your approach starts from a secular perspective, and you attempt to make it fit with a Torah perspective."

Ed-There is no such thing as "THE Torah perspective" on how to deal with child molestation.

Every serious Torah Jew realizes that there is a need to protect children from sexual predators. Every serious Torah Jew knows that it is forbidden to spread loshon hora about people unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so and many specific parameters have been met (as deliniated in the halahka). Every honest Torah Jew knows that there is a serious problem in the Frum community (like many other communities) of denial and repression of the reality of sexual abuse.

If Rabbi M. Solomon has developed a way of dealing responsibly with these horrible cases which avoids publicizing the situation then no one would object. The problem is that most of us have no confidence that he is successful in dealing with these situations because stories of molestation of children continue, and the sexual predators are simply moved around the country, or in some cases around the city.

As a frum psychiatrist who lives out of town, I end up hearing about cases and situations in other cities because I am a resource who is not "noge'a be-davar". The cases continue. The exist in both modern orth. communities as well as in the Haredi communities. In modern orth. communities, there has been a recent increase in professionalism in handling these situations because of the OU-NCSY scandal, the scandal involving a famous Haredi rabbi who molested boys for decades at institutions which were popular among modern families, and a famous scandal involving a Y.U. graduate and musmach who later became a non-Orthodox New Age-Jewish Renewal cult figure, and who exhibited gross sexual misconduct on countless occasions, which included seducing his female students (seemingly regardless of age and marital status).

The Haredi leaders would be wise to obsere and learn from these three scandals. They are going on in Haredi world as well. It is a ticking time bomb. The New York Magazine article is the tip of the iceberg.

Our kehillos, Haredi and Modern, are now in serious peril because many institutions will face civil lawsuits for negligence and failure to disclose in cases where it is very clear that molestation and rape of many tinnukos shel beis rabban could have been avoided.

Are you aware that in many states teachers, roshei yeshiva, and congregational rabbis are 'mandatory reporters'? I.e., if they become aware or even if they only have reasonable suspicion of children being victimized sexually by anyone at all, they are obligated to report all the information they are aware of to Child Protective Services? This means that teachers, roshei yeshiva, and congregational rabbis will face criminal prosecution as well as civil liability if they fail to inform Child Protective Services about these cases. This is currently the law in Illinois. It will probably soon be the law in NYS.

I still believe that the amount of sexual abuse which occurs in the Torah community is far less than among he general American public. However, there are more than 500,000 registered sexual offenders in America. And these are only the known offenders. All expert suspect that the vast majority of cases of sexual abuse are unreported (a statistic which, by definition, is unknowable and unproveable).

We are all in the same boat on this issue. If the Haredi world is going to try to create a private method for dealing with this issue, they face the following challenges:
1) It is been shown countless times that the Orthodox world is incapable of dealing with this issue on their own.
2) The civil authorities are now under pressure from the American public to deal with these issues in a serious manner. Orthodox institutions will be scrutinized for how they deal with sexual abuse.
3) The notion that sexual offenders can be mandated to do "teshuva" is at odds with what most experts believe about child molesters. It is a controversial area to be sure, but no one has much confidence in the possibility that such individuals to ever be "safe" around children. More to the point, many sexual offenders are actually sexual predators. They did not succumb one time to a temptation. They are motivated by perverse sexual impulses, and their behavior is predatory and deliberate. They are not interested in teshuva. They are interested in gaining access to children. If they are run out of NYC, they will just move to L.A. and start over, or to Eretz Yisrael.
4) The social structure of Orthodox kehillos is such that there is a huge amountn of access of unknown adults to our children. This is why many sexual predators like to attend Orthodox synagogues. I am aware of many such cases.
5) The fact that many Torah institutions are in violation of mandatory reporting laws.
6) The fact that many Torah institutions are in violation of due dilligence laws--such as performing criminal background checks for any potential employees of schools or shuls
7) The ubiquitous tendency among all human beings to deny the existence of sexual abuse, even when it is occurred r"l to one's own children or to oneself--this makes it very easy to rationalize coverups by invoking the gravity of speaking loshon hora, etc.
8 ) Nothing does more to undermine the stature of rabbonim than learning of their participation in coverups to sexual abuse, and their putting other children at risk.
9) Secrecy is always helpful for sexual predators. The Haredi world for understandable reasons is very squeamish about discussing sexuality in general, and even moreso sexual abuse. It will make it much harder to raise conciousness in this community if everythign is handled silently and secretly. The best protection against sexual abuse is vigilant parenting. Parents deserve to be informed about the presence of sexual offenders in their kehillos. The gedolim are not capable of policing synagogues.
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 12:20 pm | #

I forgot to mention the fact that the already horrible psychological, physical, and spiritual impact on the victim of sexual abuse is amplified and magnified by a culture of secrecy. The victim already feels horribly guilty and filthy for abominations which he/she is not responsible. To add the burden of silence, or respecting the "teshuva" of the perpetrator (and all of these perpetrators claim to do "teshuva"), is very damaging to the recovery of these victims.

I am aware of a case involving one of the Haredi "gedolei ha-dor" who poskinned that a girl was not allowed to tell a therapist that her father raped her because her father had done "teshuva" and she was not allowed to speak loshon horah against him. (Note: There is no issur loshon hora in psychotherapy. See the Maharal Nisiv ha-Lashon, perek 2, or email me privately for and I will explain why this is the case and will share the identities of posekim who will confirm this). I am aware of another case where a girl was raped repeatedly by her brother (who had been raped by his rebbe in yeshiva). The family was told to separate the boy from the girl. The girl developed serious behavioral problems (as is common in cases of sexual abuse) and therefore was sent out of the house to an out of town girls high school. She was admonished by her family's rebbe not to reveal this to anyone, and the parents were told to keep her out of town so that she would not spread loshon hora about their son locally and therfore they would have greater success in finding him a shiddukh. By the way, that girl is now addicted to drugs, is completely non-observant, and has been disowned by her family. I am aware of numerous similar cases.

IN theory, it is possible to separate the communal policy from the individual pesak for a victim. However, in reality, this cannot be separated so clearly. The victim because a scapegoat for the community. "If only he/she would stop making such a big deal out of this and we could just put it behind us..." This is such a common attitude toward victims of sexual abuse, and this attitude is common among non-Jews as well as Jews.

The interesting thing about everyone talking about the "Torah perspective", which justifies cover-ups, shrouded in the rationalizations of protecting the issur of loshon hora or the obligation to prevent embarrassment of talmidei chachamim--IS THAT THESE PERSPECTIVES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE REACTIONS OF GENTILES TO SEXUAL ABUSE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS. THERE IS NOTHING FRUM ABOUT THIS PERSPECTIVE AT ALL. IN FACT THERE IS NOTHING JEWISH ABOUT IT.

It is indeed frustrating for me to read many of the sanctimonious comments above, citing the Chazon Ish or the Mo'etzes Gedolei HaTorah. Is that really what we need sages for, to repackage the natural but misguided reactions (denial, secrecy, and unintended collusion) of all human beings to sexual abuse in a "frum" language ("bizayon", "hillul HaSHem", "loshon hora", etc.)?
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 12:38 pm | #

Rabbi Solomon:

"Let's talk about what we do."

"Do these people know how many times perpetrators have been dealt with?"

"Do these people know to what extent one has to have the courage to start up against public opinion in order to make sure to protect our children?"

"The only thing is, the dust was swept under the carpet..... Because we protect human dignity!"

"We are not the cowards of these anonymous people. We are courageous. And let it be said!"

"And sometimes when a thing is not proven 100%, yes, we are guided by the Torah. We don't jump to conclussions and their consequence. And we must be proud of this. And the Olam Hatorah has to be proud of their Manhigim."

"One has to know, that this point in itself, the Taanah that one sweeps things under the carpet, in itself, is our greatest honor. Because its done Al Derech Hatorah, B'ruach Hatorah, Al Pi Hatorah Hakedosha."

"If someone slips through the fingers, the Chupzta to hold that up, as an example on Klal Yisroel."
ed | 11.26.06 - 12:40 pm | #

Gil-is it possible u could put ur recording on-line or a transcript.

Call Zalman Umlaus in Flatbush for tapes.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:48 pm | #

Ed-I stand by what R Gil, Mycroft,myself and others have pointed out to where and who is considered within the pantheon,legacy and development of the Mesorah of BMG and RAK ZTL. I also stand by my posts of 11.24 on Mitzvas Talmud Torah.

It is interesting that RAMK is viewed almost in a Chasidishe sense as the heir to the Mesorah of BMG and RAK ZTL. [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 12:48 pm | #

>So someone decides that the Torah says this or that, that's the problem. People with no knowledge of the illness are making these life shattering decisions in the name of the Torah. Sheer stupidity.

People who have no knowledge of what 'Daas Torah' and 'Al Pi Derech Hatorah ' mean, are deciding what Gedolim have the right to pasken on. [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
ed | 11.26.06 - 12:53 pm | #

"Again-RMS has one of the most premier frum and PhD trained psychologists on his speed dial"

Steve -- If you're referring to Dr. Twerski then explain why Dr. Twerski stood before a roomful of Torah Temimah parents and referred to Rabbi Margolis in the most glowing terms, despite Rabbi Margolis' proven complicity in covering for a heinous child molestor for nearly a quarter century?

And of not, then who is the trained psychologist?
still wonderin' | 11.26.06 - 12:57 pm | #

Still wonderin-the DR Twerski that you mentioned is the lawyer-R D Aharon Twerski, a prominent Agudah official, not the psychiatrist-R D Avraham Twerski
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 1:08 pm | #

>They are a political party and organization that like others believes it is supporting Klal Israel-their rabbonim do not have amonopoly on what is emes-we don't know what shamayim paskens like.

Oy. Please. Lo Bashamayim Hee.
ed | 11.26.06 - 1:12 pm | #

People are writing about this as though there is a Haredi vs. a Modern perspective on how to deal with sexual abuse. Everyone would be wise to admit that the problem in the Haredi world is not more substantial than the problem in Modern Orth. communities. The policy in Modern Orth. communities for how to deal with these cases did not change because of the wisdom of our rabbonim, or because of openness to modern sensibilities. It changed because the existences of several of our organizations and mosdos are threatened by scandal and lawsuits. Denial, secrecy, and sweeping under the carpet are not unique to Haredi, Orthodox, or Jewish institutions. They are typical reactions of well intentioned, scandalized human beings to the horrible shock of childhood sexual abuse. See my two lenghty posts above at 12:20pm and 12:38pm.
Nachum Klafter | 11.26.06 - 1:21 pm | #

OK Gil, let me try this, Mr. Censor Hagodol.

Rabbi Solomon questioned, "Does anyone know the courage it takes to stand up to public opinion to protect our children?"

I suggest he ask Mr.UOJ.
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Ed-Assuming that your quotes from RMS are accurate, IMO, it is the view of other Gdolim BaTorah that :

1)Not enough discussion has been had on this issue.
2) Perpretrators have been hidden by shifting them from school to school and job to job
3) the dignity of the perpretrator has been maintained at the expense of the mental and physical health of the accused, especially when the conduct of the perpetrator if unpunished, will repeat itself over and over again.
4) Manhigim who engage in pedophilic conduct should be viewed with revulsion, not pride or protected via a misplaced sense of courage ( which in and of itself is based on a misapplication of Mesirah)
5) Tanach sweeps certain, but by all no means, not all unpleasant issues under the carpet.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 1:33 pm | #

One more point-(6) Look at how the Talmud and Rambam define Chillul HaShem. The Bushah is that we as a community view pedophiles as appropriate teachers and role models.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 1:35 pm | #

Steve, I think you misread "Taanah" for "Tanach."

In any event, Ed, if you think we're supposed to be impressed with all those quotes from R' Solomon, I'm afraid you're accomplishinh exactly the opposite with me. They're just making me more disgusted. Basically, they just boil down to a giant "Trust us."
Nachum Lamm | 11.26.06 - 1:51 pm | #

I'm a lawyer who has been active in attempting to persuade our mosdos to perform employee background checks; comply with mandatory reporting laws; and establish a registry of offenders (sexual and violent) who should not be working near children.

I was at the Thursday night session. What's been written here by those commentators who were also present is accurate, and that includes the meaning of what Rabbi Salomon said, which was not hard to discern. Sweep it under the rug, when the Torah tells us to. This means deal with the perpetrator privately, without shaming his family, set up a teshuva program, and do not notify the community.

This is completely unworkable, as Dr. Nachum Klafter writes, both in practice and theory. In practice, because its been tried, and predators are still moving from city to city, and even between Israel and the U.S. How could it be otherwise? If there is no registry for a yeshiva/day school to check before hiring a rebbe or other employee, multiple abuse incidents will occur.

In theory, because a private beis din giving a psak of teshuva to a sex offender, and expecting compliance, is a naive view to say the least. There is no cure for pedophilia. It requires lifetime therapy, and quarantine from children.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.26.06 - 2:07 pm | #

>In any event, Ed, if you think we're supposed to be impressed with all those quotes from R' Solomon, I'm afraid you're accomplishinh exactly the opposite with me. They're just making me more disgusted. Basically, they just boil down to a giant "Trust us."

I took utmost care to attempt to accurately type his words based on my handheld tape recorder.

Please note, that what I quoted is what he said in public. "I" am not attempting to impress anyone. There was a discusion here in regards to what he said, and I made an attempt to present his actual words.
ed | 11.26.06 - 2:19 pm | #

Elliot Passik,

I do recall seeing a post of yours on UOJ berating him for his choice of vocabulary. I do admire your courage for that, and for what you're doing for the benefit of the Klal.

Have you consulted with Rabbonim from the Moetzes in regard to your Practical and Theoretical points? Or with any other Rabbonim? If yes, can you share that with us? If not, why haven't you?
ed | 11.26.06 - 2:29 pm | #

I would add that Mr. Pasik and I were both hired recently to speak to rabbonim about these and other issues related to professional misconduct. B"H, professional miscondunct and sexual misconduct is extremely rare among rabbonim. We are blessed with a preponderance of admirable spiritual leaders and mechanchim. However, the presence of a few sexual predators in our kehillos is enough to wreak havoc on thousands of lives, and our rabbincal leadership is not yet equipped to handle this problem. This is not surprising. There is really no one, secular or religious, Jewish or Gentile, who has developed a failsafe program to protect children. However, silence and secrecy are the most effective means to perpetuate an intergenerational cycle of sexual trauma--that much is clear to all experts.

In discussing these issues with rabbonim and lay leadership, I have come to the following conclusion: Some individuals (not just Haredi, but perhaps moreso Haredi) feel threatened and offended by the very notion that social ills (sexual abuse, spousal abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, etc.) exist in frum kehillos, or that religious leadership cannot deal with all social problems. That is why "Daas
Torah" and "Derekh Ha-Torah" are being invoked above. This is a non-argument, which is designed to delegitimize any problems or challenges to the implausible proposal that private, secret tribunals can be used to stop sexual abuse.

I am aware of Haredi Day School that received an application for a gemara Rebbe position. He seemed to be a good applicant. The principal received an anonymous phone call from someone saying that they should stay away from this guy, but no explanation as to why. The principal called a dayan in the city of the applicant's origin. He was told--"I know what this person is referring to. You could definitely go ahead and hire him, but don't let him go into the bathroom unaccompanied if other children are present."

Whenever rabbonim contend that they have received legal and clinical advice that these situations can be handled secretly and privately, then it is no wonder that many other rabbonim, attorneys, and mental health professionals will have serious doubts about the appropriateness of the guidance they are receiving.
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 2:37 pm | #

I've begun some posts on the convention before reading the outstanding response on Hirhurim.

I also want to add that expecting any responsible person to ruin another's life not al pi torah is unreasonable and cruel to the innocent family.

At the same time, Mr. Pasik's suggestion of background checks and a registry could easily be implemented and limited to mosdos on a 'need to know basis'. Every shadchan does not need to know. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to leave chinuch.
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:43 pm | #

I would note that in Israel there is a registry of mamzerim and in Europe the rabbonim are starting a "Jewish Interpol" to track and deal with men who leave their wives agunot.

So why in America can our rabbonim not do something about our sexual predator problem?
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:47 pm | #

>to mosdos on a 'need to know basis'.

If you are a parent you "need to know".
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:50 pm | #

Ed -

Yes, I've been in contact with the Aguda Moetses and other rabbis.

Everybody is basically on board for background checks - but getting them to do it is another matter.

On mandatory reporting and a registy, some are in favor, some against.

Question: who's in charge? Yes, the rebbe has r'shus over the neshama, but the parents have r'shus over the guf of the child. There are yeshivas today that do more in securing permission slips from parents for museum day trips for children, than in protecting the children from sex offenders.

From my legal, and also halachic vantage point, my question is an easy one. Of course, the parent has exclusive authority for the physical well being of his child. The school nurse can't give the child a Tylenol, without the parent's permission.

Viewed from this perspective, the Agudah evening was an interesting one, but to some extent irrelevant. I'm the boss over my child's guf, and so are you if you have children in school. Of course, I've sought the guidance of rabbis, both as rabbis and fellow fathers. I've sought guidance from doctors also, both as doctor and fathers. In fact, Dr. Nachum Klafter's comments here have been very helpful for increasing my understanding of the nature and extent of the problem, so thanks Nachum.

At the end of the day, the parents can and should have the final say over background checks; mandatory reporting; internal disciplinary system and registry.

In addition to dealing with Aguda, I proposed and drafted the May 2005 RCA Resolution, appearing on their website at rabbis.org, which endorsed mandatory background checks, and a registy.

Finally, if anybody reading this is in the Rockland County area, at 8 pm tonight, 11-26 at the Dvar Shul, 4 Village Green, Wesley Hills, Monsey, I will be speaking about the new NY nonpublic school background check law, together with Rabbi Chaim Friedman, the shul rav, and Rosh Kollel at Yeshiva Dvar Yerushalayim (Topic: Square Pegs in Round Holes in our Yeshiva System); and Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn, Torah scholar and author, with haskomos from gedolei Torah (Topic: Parents Power: Advice from the Great Rabbis of the Past Generation).
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.26.06 - 2:54 pm | #

From Leapa's website:
>Rav Solomon nicely addressed the
>issue of blogs 'outing' purported
>child abusers in our community. He
>made a neat rhetorical spin on the
>charge that these charges are 'swept
>under the carpet'.
>He said (paraphrased) "Yes, we do
>sweep these things under the carpet!
>We sweep under the carpet the many
>cases we take firm action on to
>protect the families of these
>(abusers) as we get them out of
>chinuch. And we cannot be faulted if
>a few cases slip through our
>fingers!"

My comment -
Yes you can and must, how else will the sutuation improve? If you take on the responsibility to protect our children and silence others with different approaches, you must be held accountable when you are wrong.

Because when you are wrong it is worse than Jews eating treifut, the neshamas of innocent Jewish children are murdered.
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Whistleblower - you only need to know about your child's rebbeim.
Dor Yeshorim style, perhaps.
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:58 pm | #

>Whistleblower - you only need to
>know about your child's rebbeim.

And what about the people in your shul that go in to the washroom at the same time as your child?

Those who babysit, tutor your children?

Your child's friends parents where he/she spends time and has sleepovers and who drive your child to various places?

And the list goes on ....
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:04 pm | #

The more information parents have, the better tools they have to protect their children.

If you think otherwise, go talk to the parents who trusted in the Catholic priesthood to look out for their children.
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:07 pm | #

You're very welcome, Elliot. I admire and am grateful for the work you are doing. I have no doubt that you will end up indirectly saving thousands of lives by speeding up the process with which the Torah community deals seriously and effectively with this issue, and I am honored to have been included in the same speaking venue as you.

To everyone else here: I strongly recommend Mr. Pasik as a speaker for your school, beis din, shul, va'ad ha rabbonim, or similar rabbinical body where the individuals there are responsible for setting policies for how to deal with reports of sexual abuse. There is a mass of legal, psychological, and halakhic information that anyone in a position of authority must assimilate before making communal decisions. Mr. Pasik is an expert in the secular legal aspects of this complex issue, and he is a vital resrouce for anyone facing the resopnsibility of how to negotiate these challenges. He can at least explain to you what the state laws are in your jurisdiction. Wouldn't that be an important thing for educators and poseqim to know about?
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 3:12 pm | #

Whistleblower:

There are already public databases for that.

You are diluting your issue, which should focus on the school or camp, where the child spends many hours out of the parents' control and in the control of the mechanech.

If I slap your child on the back in shul (perhaps because he's the first one in the room for tehillim) will I appear on your proposed registry?
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:12 pm |