Sinas Chinam X – One-Way Correspondence – Email 2: Presumption of Guilt

 

I opened this series about sinas chinam in early May, more than five months ago. The opening post explains the current events that triggered it. Please see it HERE. 

As noted, I was totally appalled at seeing self-proclaimed perpetual victim Nicole Meyer going on the publicity circuits (podcasts, documentaries, shul appearances, etc.) spewing to ingenuous Jews the sinas chinam and malshinus she’s been doing for years and spewing blood libels to the non-Jews.

What appalled me even more was seeing supposed Jewish influencers and “role models” like Rabbi Daniel Coren and Zvi Gluck giving her a platform to continue doing so. By doing so they are legitimizing her mesira, malshinus and sinas chinam. To make it worse, they are joining in and doing it themselves.   

This is disgraceful and totally unacceptable and I cannot condone it.

I gather that I might be coming across as self-righteous. It’s hard not to be self-righteous when one has a whole anthology of Shas and poskim supporting their position which is something that I have and Reb Zvi Gluck does not. 

Still and all, one Jewish attribute that I like to apply is to be dan l’kaf zechus. To consider the possibility that maybe I am missing something and to allow the other party to explain themselves and to substantiate their position. I would like to know what it is that Zvi Gluck and Rabbi Daniel Coren see in this episode that justifies their unmitigated presumption of guilt and public sinas chinam that I don’t see.

 

So I asked them.

As I wrote in previous posts, I wrote Zvi Gluck a series of 5 emails. Each one had a CC to Rabbi Coren. The first email was a request for clarity in the false allegation story that he related in his March 8 discourse. I discussed this in detail in my previous Sinas Chinam post.

The second email was to request clarity about his presumption of guilt regarding Mrs. Leifer who never admitted to any guilt to this day. This is boosted by his story of dealing with a false accusation “many, many years ago”. I find this to be paradoxical at best and hypocritical at worst.

The email is totally self-explanatory. Here it is in full: 

Hello Reb Zvi, LOY”T

 

Shalom u’bracha.

It was quite gratifying to see your prompt and courteous response to my previous email. I hope that all people who contact you receive the same courtesy. [Note – I was being a bit sarcastic with this. There is no sarcasm in the rest of this email. – YH]

To move on, a few questions about the Malka Leifer episode.

Whereas:

• I am sure you are aware that to this day Mrs. Leifer has not admitted to any guilt and has not confessed to anything.

• The story that you told about the false accusations and the unanswered questions to my previous email indicate that you are likewise fully aware that false accusations are a real phenomenon.

• You also claim to be a man of truth and integrity. At least this is what your friend who you knew growing up said about you, he believes you look for the truth and not for an agenda. You did not dispute this accolade.

• You are probably also aware that Mrs. Leifer was acquitted of all charges that pertain to Nicole Meyer.

• You may also be aware that throughout the entire trial, it was never proven or established that a crime actually took place. (Please see my post on the subject: Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta: The Malka Leifer Verdict - Guilty!...or not?)

 

In light of all the above:

1. How can you be certain without any doubt that Mrs. Leifer is guilty at all?

2. I assume that her case fits the profile of a typical offender and the [alleged] victims fit the profile of typical victims. Is this your entire basis? Is there anything more substantial than that?

3. Is it because of your philosophy to “believe the victims”?

4. On the [off] chance that Mrs. Leifer is not guilty, would that not make her the victim?

5. Since this has been her claim throughout, aren’t we supposed to believe the victim? (As it should apply to the friend you knew growing up.)

6. Ergo, when you told us to “believe the victim” were you not really telling us to “believe the accuser”?

Again, if all these questions are too much, I would appreciate it if you could at least just answer the first one.

Once again awaiting your prompt response.

Hatzlacha rabba v’kol tuv, sela.

Very sincerely yours,

 

Yechezkel Hirshman

 

 

Please note - This correspondence and all responses and subsequent ones are not confidential. You may show them to whoever you like and I may do the same including discussing them on my blog if the need arises.

As per the first email, I did not receive a response to this, nor any kind of acknowledgement, whether polite or impolite, whatsoever. Zvi Gluck must be a very busy person. I can’t imagine he would be intentionally avoidant. (Again, I like to be dan l’kaf zechus.)

At this point I wasn’t finished. I still had a few more questions for when he can find a spare minute to reply. There were more emails.

Stay tuned…

Sinas Chinam IX - The Fifth Horseman

 

Any longtime readers who are still with me know that I started my extensive Mesira series in 2015 as a response to the flawed Kol Koreh that was published in some Jewish periodicals. This eventually morphed into extended coverage of the Malka Leifer affair.

I capped off the Kol Koreh analysis by presenting a four-part series that I called The Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse. The concept was obviously modeled from X-tian [my]theology, sorry about that, but I thought that this helped bring out the point.

The “Four Horsemen” of the Kol Koreh are four common scenarios of this kind of abuse wherein most rational people will agree that going straight to law enforcement without taking some more moderate steps at first is not a good idea.

The first two Horsemen (cases 1 and 2) were fictional scenarios. In each of these two cases, the fiction portrayed an actual identifiable abuser who presented a clear and present danger. Case 1 was the case of the Amudim video clip Shattered where the abuse is happening inside a nuclear family. Both the abuser and victim are members of the nuclear family and going straight to the police would be the surest way to destroy it.

Case 2 was a reporter posing as a young woman who claimed to be abused by her friend’s father while she was visiting. 27 Israeli Rabbanim were asked what to do by the bogus victim. 21 out of the 27 Rabbonim advised her not to go to the police since doing so will very likely be more detrimental to her than otherwise. She has a lot more to lose than she has to gain in her case.

The second two Horsemen (cases 3 and 4) were cases of abuse that allegedly really happened. However, both cases involved incidents that were far in the past and it could not even be ascertained that the offenders were still offenders. Case 3 was the Malka Leifer episode where three vengeful sisters walked into a police station in Australia to file a complaint going back 3 to 7 years against a person who left Australia years before and had no intention of coming back.

Case 4 seems to be a true story of a young man who had a phase of being abusive as a young adult but grew out of it, married, and was currently minding his own business. Once again, a vengeful person who claimed to have been a victim of this fellow during his dark period took it upon himself to get this fellow into trouble with the law for no reason other than personal vengeance.

I want to note that I have never received any counter-arguments to my position on the Four Horsemen from anybody as of writing it. Not from any readers, not from David J. Nyer who authored and published the Kol Koreh, not from any of the 200 185 183 181 Rabbonim who signed that thing, and not from Zvi Gluck. Nobody.

To be sure, there are many people who disagree with me on the Malka Leifer episode and think that these three sisters are the world’s biggest heroes, including Zvi Gluck, but nobody who claims to adhere to Shulchan Aruch and Halacha has even tried to explain why (including Zvi Gluck).

So, these are the Four Horsemen that I illustrated until now to discredit the Kol Koreh. Now, thanks to Zvi Gluck and his inspiring lecture on March 8, we now have a fifth Horseman. I am referring to the case of the false accusation that he related which I discussed in my previous Sinas Chinam post. 

The first two horsemen are fictitious scenarios of clear-cut abuse and an active abuser. The problem was that going straight to law enforcement would likely come at a price that nobody wants to pay. The second two horsemen are true scenarios about allegedly clear-cut abuse but are ancient history. This fifth horseman is a true scenario where no clear-cut abuse took place at all.

To me it’s a no brainer that going “straight” to the police (or going at all) is a recipe for disaster. But Zvi Gluck’s brain works differently. This is because he drank the Kol Koreh Kool-Aid. Also, he is probably right-handed. In any case, fear not, because he has Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, to rely on. 

But so do I.

The difference between us is exactly as I wrote in this Kol Koreh post (HERE):

if we don’t get a precise transcript of Rav Elyashiv’s exact words, we cannot be sure Rav Horowitz (in our case, Zvi Gluck) is quoting him accurately. I don’t know exactly what Rav Elyashiv said but I know what he wrote. He did not write to go straight to the police.

Here is what Rav Elyashiv wrote to Rav Shraga Feivel Cohen:

Indeed, all this about permitting one to notify the government is only in a case where the matter is clear that his (the suspect’s) hand is indeed sullied.

And HERE he wrote:

And therefore, each and every case requires the evaluations and rulings of Torah scholars who are great in Torah and fear of Heaven.

In the case that was discussed “in Zvi Gluck’s presence”, we have no idea what are the circumstances of the case, what was permitted, exactly who is expected to contact the police, and who is the one who might be lying. But each case needs to be evaluated individually. In the false accusation case that is described by Zvi Gluck in his talk, it is hard to imagine that if if it was presented to Rav Elyashiv the way Zvi described it to us, he would recommend contacting the police.

In the same way that Reb Zvi falsifies the position of Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, he likewise falsifies the position of the Tzitz Eliezer, ZTL. He falsely presents both of them as advocating to report cases to the police as a standard course of action. Neither of them say so. They say only that it is permissible when it is necessary.

At about the 24:10 mark of his appearance he falsely claims that "The Tzitz Eliezer writes explicitly that in the case of child abuse, one is obligated to go to the authorities, not muttar." 

Throughout the entire teshuva, the Tzitz Eliezer constantly uses the term muttar, not obligated, except in one place where he writes “one is obligated to save a young girl from physical and mental harm.” He didn’t say one is obligated to go to the authorities, he said one is obligated to save a person. This is not much of a chiddush. If going to authorities is the best way to do that, then you can claim it is an obligation, but where it is not, such as in all five of the “Horseman” cases that I describe, not only is there no obligation, but mark my word, it is forbidden.

The Kol Koreh faction and Zvi Gluck glance at teshuvos but do not actually read them. Consequently, they misquote them, misrepresent them, and distort them to fit their agenda. And their agenda is to mahsser every accused abuser to the police regardless of what grounds they have to do so or the potential consequences. Everything will turn out just hunky-dory. As such, to conclude his rendition about the false accusation episode, Reb Zvi remarked:

I can promise you if this case went to the police, there would have been no arrest. It would have been investigated properly and this guy's life wouldn't have been destroyed. There is a system that works. If we utilize the system, it will be beneficial to everybody.

I am not sure what he means by 'arrest'. He probably means being fully booked and detained, not just brought in and interrogated. Despite his “statistics” (less than 15% get arrested), I don’t know how he can be so confident. 

The job of the police is to catch and prosecute bad guys. It is not to judge cases. They need to validate their paychecks so they really like to come up with bad guys, even if they aren’t really so bad. Especially if business is slow. You can call it “erring on the side of caution”. They will hold innocent people indefinitely. They do not work out of conscience. רק אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה.

Zvi has a point in this specific case, being that it is especially weak. This is because the complaint is not coming from the alleged victim or a credible eye-witness and there is really no victim who is ready to press charges. So, the person would likely be released after questioning. But this in no way would make him look innocent. There is no reason to think that going this route will make the school less inclined to implement the extreme measures it implemented anyway or make his irrational wife any more rational. 

To me, based on my personal layman experience and not as a seasoned Child Abuse Advocate, all this seems quite obvious. A seasoned professional like Reb Zvi Gluck should have just as much common sense, but he isn’t showing it. Since until this point I had held Reb Zvi Gluck such high regard, I considered that maybe there is something that I am missing. Hence, I contacted Zvi Gluck directly and implored him to fill in the blanks and set me straight. 

I wrote and sent him the email that I embedded in my previous Sinas Chinam post, the first of five. It turned out that the embedded email did not display in my blog emails, so in this post, I will need to copy/paste the important parts of it. If you wish to see the entire email, you can see it embedded in the previous post on the blog site or you can access it HERE.

To open, I introduced myself and proceeded to tell him why I am writing to him. I wrote:

I have been following, researching and analyzing the Malka Leifer episode since 2016. That’s ten years, now. I have written a ton of literature about it. I studied the claims and the facts and the Halachic and social ramifications. Unlike you, I know what the Tzitz Eliezer really says and what he doesn’t. Also, what Rav Elyashiv, Rav Dovid Cohen the Chofetz Chaim and some others actually wrote.

Astonishingly, it brings us to a very different place than you are at with this. Clearly, one of us has a distorted perception of this case, either you or me...Perhaps you can teach me things that I don’t know. Or, just maybe, I can teach you things that you don’t know.

I proceeded to ask him the 15 questions that I referred to in my previous post. The ones that inquire about the role of the police were questions 6-12. These were the exact questions:

6. Do you honestly believe that reporting this to the police would have brought about a better outcome? Why?

7. Do you think any police investigator would have gone along with the accused to check out his route?

8. Are you aware that the job of police is to decide whether or not to detain the suspect, which depends on whether they can establish that a crime was committed, not whether the suspect is innocent or guilty? The police do not exonerate anybody.

9. Are you aware that the police will be forced to question the affected child? Is that a good idea? For a mere allegation?

10. Even if ultimately the charges are dropped, as you are convinced they would have been, why wouldn’t the same amount of damage or more happen in the interim regardless?

11. Why do you think that the police would be trusted by the school and community if they dropped the case [invariably due to lack of proof or a complainant]?

12. Why do you think it is muttar for an external party to call police without first confronting the accused as mandated by the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Rambam? (Note I am differentiating a first-hand complaint by the victim to that of an external party based on second hand information as in this case.)

Collectively, the seven questions address the concerns about police motives that I wrote about earlier. They should be self-explanatory. Without answering all of the above questions, I cannot see how this story even begins to “prove his point” that we can rely on the police for a positive outcome.

All told, I was truly hoping at least one of us could get educated. As I wrote him, “Perhaps you can teach me things that I don’t know. Or, just maybe, I can teach you things that you don’t know.” But accomplishing this requires an open line of communication. From my end, the line was open and remains so. From his end there is only deafening silence.

Once again, the fateful words of HRHG Asher Zelig Weiss return to haunt us.

One cannot have a dialog with these people, they are so bent on what they believe.

Rosh Hashanah Message from the Tolna Rebbe

 

HRHG Yitzchak Menachem Weinberg, Shlita is the Tolna Rebbe in Yerushalayim.

As he often does, he sent a Rosh Hashana message to members of his Kehila. I am on their list.

In his message, he noted that the abbreviation for the coming year, תשפז (5787), are the last two digits – פז (87). The word  פז (paz) in Hebrew means high-grade gold. Here in Israel it means gasoline which costs about the same.

The Rebbe noted that this word is mentioned in the following pasuk in Shir HaShirim (5:15): 

שוקיו עמודי שש, מיסדים על אדני פז. 

His (my Beloved’s) calves are like pillars of marble, bolstered on bases of fine gold. 

He says that there is a Targum for this pasuk. The Targum says:

“These refer to words of Torah that Clal Yisrael busies itself with…whereupon HKBH (our Beloved) is filled with compassion upon us and whitens the sins of the people of Israel people like snow.”

The Rebbe sees this as a sign that our success for the upcoming year is dependent on our commitment to learning Torah. As such, he encourages everybody in his Kehila to rev it up a notch and to assist others in this venture. 

The pasuk in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:3) tells us that ameilus b’Torah is the sole key to success, prosperity, and peace.

With this, I want to say Thank You to all the readers I have left. And to wish everybody a

כתיבה וחתימה טובה

שנת שלום וברכה והצלחה, בריאות, בני חיי ומזוני וכל מילי דמיטב

And lower gasoline prices.

Sinas Chinam VIII(b) – Innocence Found

 

As we left off in our previous post, we were hearing a fascinating story from the mouth of Zvi Gluck. This was right after he claimed that Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, said "in my presence" (i.e., he was talking to somebody else, not to Zvi) that one should let the police decide if “the person” is lying. Here is the entire story (1:28:11):

 

Now I'm going to share a story if I may, just to prove that point. Many, many years ago, not so many because Amudim was open already, a person who I knew growing up came to me and said, "I need your help. I was falsely accused of molesting somebody." I looked at him. I said, "You need my help. I'm the wrong guy for this." And he says, "No, you're the right guy for this because I firmly believe you look for the truth and not for an agenda."

He says, "I was accused of molesting somebody. I was an employee at a school. The school fired me. My wife doesn't believe me. She left me. I can't get another job. My whole life fell apart. I need you to help prove my innocence." And I remember telling him, "I don't know if I can prove your innocence, but if I find out you're guilty, I'm going to be the one to bury you." And I remember saying it like it was yesterday. And he said, "Game on. Anything you could do."

Make a long story short, this person was a bus driver. The accusation came from a parent on the bus that he molested a child on the bus. I reached out to the school and the school said to me, "What do you mean? You should be so happy we fired him as soon as we heard it." I said, "Firing someone and putting them on a leave of absence till it can be investigated is two different things.”

“Did you go to the police?" No, of course not. “Why not? Well, so how do you know that anything's even true?” Well, we believe the parent. I said, “You know what? I gave my word. Either I'll have to go after this guy or not, but can you, uh, can I speak to the parent that spoke to you?” Of course.

The parent gets in touch with me and tells me, "Oh, wow. It's so nice. You're finally taking it seriously. Someone's taking this seriously." My daughter came home and told me that she saw the bus driver molest another kid on the bus. “Did you call that other parent?” Yeah. “And what did they say?” They said, "I'm crazy and it's not true." Okay. I asked the school, "Can you share with me who the other parent is or have the other parent talk to me?" And the other parent got in touch with me and said, "Listen, we took my daughter to a therapist. We wanted to just be safe, but it came out that nothing was true and we don't know what this other mother was. And we told the school that they need to stop it.”

So, I asked the school, I said, "Is it?" And I don't know. I promise you, I'm not a detective. I'm not an investigator until today. I have no idea why this thought came into my head. But I asked the school specifically in this case, can the bus driver take the bus at night with me and drive the route that he did with these students? I could try to figure out what happened.

I will say to the credit of the school, they never told the bus driver who made the accusations. By the way, bus driver gets on the bus with me. It was a small bus, a mini bus. So, the driver's door, the driver would get in from that door and the students would get in from the other side. My mazal, it was pouring that night and the bus driver starts driving and I'm looking at the route and I see the names and I see in one place he drives on the wrong side of the street. Like, just interesting things happening, and at one point, by a dead end, he cuts the curb and opens up the driver's door.

I said “What's going on here?” He says, “Oh, when it's raining, this family, it's a single mother. She has a bunch of kids in the house. The father, the husband passed away and I basically passed the child to the mother through my door so she shouldn't have to come around the bus.” It was the next stop of the child who complained to her mother ‘cuz I don't get a ride on the bus driver's lap like my friend Chani.

I can promise you if this case went to the police, there would have been no arrest. It would have been investigated properly and this guy's life wouldn't have been destroyed. There is a system that works. If we utilize the system, it will be beneficial to everybody. But this school was so proud of themselves. We fired him right away. You should be happy. No, you destroyed a family. You destroyed a person's life for no reason. So, to answer that question, what if the person's lying? That's for the police to decide. And I stick to that all the time.

Zvi Gluck claims that the purpose of telling this story is to prove a point about letting the police decide whether a “person” (which person???) is lying. He closes the story by saying “So, to answer that question, ‘what if the person's lying?’ That's for the police to decide. And I stick to that all the time.”

I’m sorry to hear that. I think his closing statement is wrong. Moreover, I don’t see how this story even proves his point. We’ll get to this later. But this story does indeed prove other points.

Firstly, it proves that false accusations happen. Most Child Abuse Advocates do not believe that they do. It tells us, contrary to Zvi Gluck’s entire misguided philosophy, that there is such a thing as an “alleged” abuser. Secondly, it shows that false accusations are totally devastating. And that well-meaning people tend to jump to conclusions. It also tells us that the accusers may not actually be “lying” or may not think that they are lying, yet the accusations can still be false.

His remark that “firing someone and putting them on a leave of absence until it can be investigated are two different things” is also very revealing, although he doesn’t see it. What he is saying is that we need to distinguish between what needs to be done to protect potential victims, which is essential, and what “needs” to be done to punish suspected offenders, which is not. I have been preaching this for years (HERE) but nobody cares. Here comes Zvi Gluck and blurts it out as if it means something to him. But this is not what he preaches and certainly not what he practices. 

Zvi conceded that he was trying to "make a long story short". Sometimes this is a service to the listener and sometimes a disservice. For me, it was the latter. There are several gaps in the story due to details he left out.

As I mentioned, I have had personal experience with these types of stories, so I needed to know some of the missing pieces. I also wanted to challenge some of his assertions, especially his unwavering faith in the police. As such, I emailed Zvi Gluck with a list of questions.  The email is dated April 20, 2026 and the subject line was Please End this Sinas Chinam.

Here is the email in its entirety (note - in case this embedded file does not display in the blog email versions, the email can be accessed HERE):

As you can see, I asked 15 questions. I think the questions and their intent are self-explanatory. They were all honest and sincere questions and I really wanted to know the answers. I still do. They are not “shtuch” questions.

15 questions may be a bit heavy and I said as much, so I listed the 5 questions that I thought were the most important.

Zvi Gluck never responded to me. He did not answer the 15 questions and not even the 5 preferred questions. He did not answer a single question. What’s more reprehensible is that he did not even acknowledge the email at all. Not even to politely blow me off and say, “Dear Mr. Hirshman, Thank you for writing. I appreciate your thoughtful questions. Unfortunately, I am very busy and cannot address your email at this time. Have a nice life.” Or anything remotely close to that.

I think he is afraid to answer the questions. Very sadly, he is not the courageous hero I thought he was.

This email was the first of a series of 5 emails that I sent to him pleading to tone down the sinas chinam that he is perpetuating in public. There are four more to come. (Spoiler alert - None of them were answered or even acknowledged.)

For now, all I can say are to repeat the immortal words of HRHG RavAsher Weiss, Shlita:

I came to the conclusion you can't even have a dialogue with these people. They are so bent on what they believe.

 

Sinas Chinam VIII(a) – Innocence Lost

 

Also see this previous post:  Sinas Chinam III - Surviving Malka Leifer

I generally prefer to not expose correspondence that happens behind the scenes, but this is much too important. It’s Kalman again. Kalman sent me another email. He writes:

In all seriousness , I strongly suspect that you are a sexual abuser 

I took your posts and entered them in a psychological profile data bank and it came up that you are very disturbed individual and a probable abuser

I suggest you get help asap 

 

I am totally amazed at the extent that he echoes Reb Yid from my post in 2018. Reb Yid also had similar suspicions. I doubt Reb Yid entered my posts into a psychological profile data bank, but to be frank, I highly doubt that Kalman did it either. Where does one obtain a psychological profile data bank anyway?

The similarity between them is uncanny, to the extent that I wonder if they may even be the same person. I went so far as to ask Kalman if he was ever abused (like Reb Yid was) and he wouldn’t answer me. Let’s review what Reb Yid wrote in 2018.

I have very serious doubts and suspicions of what it is you are hiding from, avoiding and trying to cover up, Hashem Yeracheim. Perhaps the time has come to open an investigation into your past and history.

My response to him at the time:

Sorry to disappoint you. Go ahead if you like. Start with the autobiography in my book. Rated PG (for Holocaust stories and a few violent incidents in Eretz Yisrael).

This response works for Kalman, as well. Nothing much has changed in eight years.

That said, I can agree with Kalman’s data bank about one thing. This is the claim that I am: “[a] very disturbed individual”. There is truth to this but not the way he means. I responded to Kalman:

It is right about one thing, though. I am very disturbed about a lot of things. As I have written.

What am I disturbed about? Why am I so outraged about the players in this episode?

We can start with all the sinas chinam, zilzul Eretz Yisrael, mesira, nekama, and chillul Hashem. That ought to do it right there. But there is something else that I have complained about post after post after post. This is the blood lust, lynch-mob mentality, and universal automatic presumption of guilt that almost everyone on Earth seems to suffer from.

In one of my earliest posts, I wrote that this is because the Human being craves drama. It’s very easy to accuse people of doing nasty things, and a lot of fun to boot. And, since it happens so often, it must always be true. It’s so standard that even Reb Yid and Kalman can level “suspicions” at someone they have never met. This is because everyone seems to carry around their handy-dandy psychological profile data bank. It’s science, how can it be wrong?

Of course, these guys don’t know, or don’t care to know, where I am coming from. I mentioned it sparingly in a few of my posts, notably this one (HERE), but it hasn’t sunk in. So, I will say it again more directly.

I have never molested anybody and I have never been molested, but I have been where very few others claim to have been. And no one who hasn't been there can understand it. I have been in the thick of a case of false accusation. it doesn't happen all that often, but still, it happens way too often. 

B”H, I was not the one that was falsely accused, but it was somebody I have a very close connection to. It taught me how people who cannot think, think. It taught me how rumors fly and how the lynch-mob works. It taught me everything I need to know about how much to trust accusations in general.

The case in point happened over 35 years ago. But since then, I have seen a number of similar incidents. Once you pick up the pattern, it becomes easy to recognize.

There are two levels of false accusations – total and partial. A totally false accusation is exactly as it sounds. The “crime” never happened at all or it did not happen at the hands of the accused. The accused is totally innocent.

A partial false accusation means that a minor event is being overblown into a major event. The accused may not be totally innocent but is not as guilty as they are being made out to be. In all cases the accuser is trying to achieve a certain goal and they are aware that being truthful is not the way to get there. So, they resort to bending and stretching the facts. I see such patterns in the Malka Leifer case.

This plague is not only chronic, but it is also contagious. רבים חללים הפילה.The casualties are many. Among those I was distressed to find on the casualty list is Rav Zvi Gluck of Amudim.

I first heard him out on a Halacha Headlines podcast in 2016 – yes, those ten long years – and I was very impressed by his interview. I quoted him in 2016 and sang the praises of the organization. I did it again in this post in 2022. I wrote:

 

Amudim looks to be an upstanding and dedicated Jewish organization that specializes in crisis intervention and case management. From their website, it looks like they deal with all types of traumatic situations including domestic abuse, substance abuse, other addictions, depression, eating disorders, self-harm, mental health issues, and of course, sexual abuse…Clearly, their goal is to help individual people deal with their problems. They are not interested in “changing the world” and saving it from wicked people. They seem to understand that “wicked” people are created by the same G-d who created the righteous ones – for whatever reasons. We need to coexist with them.

I was trying to say that I did not see the vigilante lynch-mob mentality in Amudim. In his March 15 interview in The Struggle, Zvi Gluck said what I wanted to hear. He said (14:26):

I'm very much in the sense that my focus is more on the victims, helping them, getting them the proper help. Right? I'm very anti-abuse, don't get me wrong. I'll do whatever it takes to stop it, but our focus isn't the abuser. Our focus is the victim. Very often by dealing with the victim you're dealing with the abuser and you have to take a stand which I have no problem doing but that's not our focus.

I took this to mean that he is a “champion of victims”, to do what he can to help them. Okay, if he needs to deal with an abuser to “stop it”, it’s part of helping them. But I hoped that he hadn’t crossed the line to be a “crusader of justice” and an “avenging angel” after the fact, when it doesn’t help the [former] “victims”. I thought he was different than the herd.

Until last March.

This is when Zvi Gluck appeared on the two broadcasts and showed me that he is just as vulnerable to the groupthink as are most others. One was his appearance at the Beis Medrash Ohr HaChaim in Monsey on March 8, 2026. The second was his interview with Joe Farkas on his podcast The Struggle exactly a week later on March 15, 2026.

It disturbed me to discover that Zvi Gluck is one of “them”, one of the lynch mob. I always thought better of him. To his credit, he is more moderate and level-headed than some others, but he peddles the same misconceptions that I listed among the consumers in my Kalman the Konsumer post.

But it’s more than that. Zvi Gluck is a very popular, charismatic, sincere, and influential person. He truly does want to do the right thing and his heart is in the right place. Consequently, when someone like him catches the “let’s-destroy-all-the-perps” sinas chinam disease, he doesn’t just succumb to it, he also spreads it around.

Case in point, throughout both his talks, he uses two terms with complete finality - abusers and victims. In both talks, there is one word that never came out of his mouth: alleged.  Not once did he utter the word alleged. In his world, every abuser is a total confirmed abuser from start to finish. Every victim is a total confirmed victim from start to finish. In his world, there is no such thing as an alleged abuser and no such thing as an alleged victim.

This is how Zvi Gluck can so cynically pronounce (19:00): 

the number one tool used to silence victims is the Torah.

Sounds pretty damning, no?

But let’s revise it just a bit:

the number one tool used to silence alleged victims – or, those who claim to be victims - is the Torah.

Owing to the fact that this situation (non-confirmed accusations) is what is happening in most cases that Zvi Gluck is complaining about, it is not nearly as damning. The abuser may not really be an abuser and the victim may not really be a victim. Shouldn't we turn to the Torah for guidance?

Zvi Gluck doesn't think so. And here is something that I am convinced Zvi Gluck would never admit to. 

It’s a two-way street.

Let’s go back one minute earlier in his talk (18:04). Zvi Gluck said as follows:

But what made it even more complex, more difficult, and even worse in some ways is the communal failure. The collective communal failure, quoting the Torah, quoting Rabonim, misquoting Rabanim, misquoting Gamara in an effort to silence people.

I hate to say it, but the number one tool used by advocates such as Zvi Gluck to silence and to mahser accused people (alleged abusers), is also the Torah. Quoting the Torah and misquoting the Gemara and misapplying the concepts such as Lo Taamod, Rodef, and Pikuach Nefesh. Quoting and misquoting and misrepresenting Rabbanim such as Rav Elyashiv (1:27:50) and the Tzitz Eliezer (24:12).

As Zvi said on March 15 (41:25): It's okay for the goose. It's okay for the gander. 

All told, from his own words, there is every indication that he has sold out to the lynch-mob. But, wait!

Toward the end of his talk in Monsey, Zvi tells us a heart-wrenching story which effectively negates everything he was preaching until then. And he doesn’t even realize that he is doing it. Strangely enough, he tells it for all the wrong reasons. He says he is telling the story “to prove a point”. In my opinion, (1) it does not prove his point and (2) it proves several points he was not trying to make. In some ways it redeems him from his misguidedness, but in some ways it doesn’t.

On the side, I was indeed very impressed with how he dealt with the situation and see him as a hero in this particular story. This doesn't make him any less misguided.

I was spellbound by the story because it is so similar to the event that happened over 35 years ago, mentioned above, that “taught me everything I need to know about how much to trust accusations”.

Here is the story (1:28:11):

Now I'm going to share a story, if I may, just to prove that point. Many many years ago, not so many because Amudim was open already, a person who I knew growing up came to me and said, "I need your help. I was falsely accused of molesting somebody."

A false accusation? Really? Is such a thing possible?

Well, there’s a lot more to this story and a lot to unpack from it. I can’t do it in this post. The rest of the story and what it says to us will have to wait for the next post. Stay tuned for it. All I will say now is that we should all be disturbed.

Very disturbed.

To be continued…

Major Extradition vs. Minor Extradition

 

Parshat Ki Teitzeh is upon us. This parshah is the last trove of essential mitzvos that we find before completing the Torah. One rather obscure prohibition that we find in this parshah (Devarim 23:16) is one that I have discussed at length throughout many a post:

לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו

You may not return a [runaway] slave to the custody of his current master.

What does this mean?

The Gemara in Gittin 45a explains that this law is referring to a Canaani slave that is owned by a proper Jew who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael. Whereupon, the slave fled from his master and took refuge in Eretz Yisrael. The pasuk is telling us that the Jewish authorities are forbidden to return the slave to his rightful master outside of Eretz Yisrael. Instead, they force the master to release the slave and the slave is required to reimburse the master for his market value.

Rambam in Sefer Mitzvos Lavim 254 explains why the slave is freed:

כיון שבא להסתופף בארץ הטהורה הנבחרת לעם הנעלה.

Since he wanted to be added into the pure land that was chosen for the exalted nation.

Sefer Chinuch (568) explains it slightly differently:

שרצה האל לכבוד הארץ שהבורח לשם ינצל מעבדות, כדי שניתן אל לבנו כבוד המקום, ונקבע בלבבנו בהיותנו שם יראת ה’ יתעלה. וכל זה להועיל לעמו ולזכותם כי חפץ חסד הוא.

 

That HKBH desired, for the honor of the land, that one who flees to there shall be spared from servitude. This is so we will take heart the honor of the place (Eretz Yisrael) and establish fear of the High G-d in our hearts when we are there. And all this is to benefit his nation and to confer merit on us for HKBH desires kindness.

The pirush of Chumash Torah Temimah explains that nobody should be forced to reside outside of Eretz Yisrael since it is a place of impurity and idolatry. One who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is as if he has no G-d.

The astonishing thing is that this mitzva is referring to one who was not born Jewish and did not undergo a full conversion. He is only a quasi-Jew. He is not eligible to marry a Jewish woman. Yet, the Torah is expressly commanding to uphold his desire to live in Eretz Yisrael. Note – Upon being released, he is required to undergo a full conversion and keep all the mitzvos so, at the end of the day, we are indeed gaining a full-fledged Jew. Still, this status only comes after the mitzvah to release him takes effect, not before, and still he is protected.

We can deduce by kal v’chomer that this mitzva is no less applicable to any regular, full-fledged Jew. Certainly, all the reasons stated by the Rishonim apply even more to a natural born Jew.

If so, why did the Torah seem to single out a slave for this mitzvah?

One obvious answer is to show us how far the kavod of Eretz Yisrael extends. It extends not only to a regular Jew but even to a quasi-Jew. But a more practical answer is that it is already a capital crime to forcibly relocate (kidnap) a free Jew from point A to point B even if both points are in Eretz Yisrael. This is known as gonev nefesh m'Yisrael. The only type of person that “we” are authorized to transport is a person who is the rightful property of somebody else. This would be a Canaanite slave. But it definitely applies to all Jews in the strange cases where it could apply, such as criminal extradition.

In case you have doubts, just check out Midrash Rabbah Breishis 94 (Vayigash). Here is what it says:

At the time that Nevuchadnetzer came up to conquer Yehoyakim (King of Judah), he settled by the walls of Antioch. The Great Sanhedrin approached to meet him and they asked him, “Has the time come for this house (Temple) to be destroyed?”.

 

He answered, “Not yet, but King Yehoyakim rebelled against me. Hand him over to me and I will go [in peace].” This implied that if he didn’t get the king, things won’t be very peaceful.

 

They went and told King Yehoyakim that Nevuchadnetzer issued an arrest warrant for him (i.e., he should turn himself in for the sake of peace.) He told them, “Is this the right thing to do, to sacrifice one soul for the sake of another? Does the Torah not say ‘One may not reintern a slave back to his master’?” They responded, “Didn’t your own grandfather do the same to Sheva ben Bichri?” (Sheva ben Bichri was a wanted murderer whose crimes were known to all - YH.)

What do we see from this?

Yehoyakim was not only a full-fledged Jew but he was a Davidic King, no less. A King! And he argued that this mitzva concerning a Canaani slave applies to his case. And he would have been correct if not for the proviso that he had the status of Sheva ben Bichri. Clearly, this law is not limited to a slave.

This explanation of the mitzvah is the mainstream one. It is spelled out in the Gemara in Gittin and endorsed by Rambam, Chinuch, and SMa”G. It is also codified in Rambam (Avadim 8:6, 9, and 10) and in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 267:84,85. Shulchan Aruch goes out of its way to tell us that this law applies even in today’s times. Almost nobody entertains any other explanation of this pasuk, except...Rashi.

Rashi in Chumash likewise references the gemara in Gittin but, surprisingly, this is only his second ‘backup’ pshat. His first is to reference Targum Unkelos who wrote something a little bit different. Unkelos wrote: Do not hand over a non-Jewish slave of a non-Jewish master to that master after he ran to you for refuge.

This pshat looks to mirror the opening of the gemara in Gittin. The gemara opens with a story about a slave who ran from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael and, although it isn’t said openly, the indication is that it is talking about a non-Jewish slave belonging to an idolatrous non-Jewish owner. This runaway slave is willing to swear off idolatry.

The gemara initially wants to say that such a person who swore off idolatry is permitted to remain in Israel even if he does not become Jewish. With this in mind we can say that this pasuk does not really care about location. Even if the slave ran away to a Jew in chutz l’aretz but he does not want to be forced to serve foreign gods, we are prohibited to return him to a master who will force him into idolatry. Obviously, this assumes that the local authorities do not intervene on behalf of the owner.

The gemara in Gittin subsequently rejects this explanation of Lo Tasgir and settles on the mainstream one that I mentioned earlier and that Rashi mentions last. (Rashi is a bit of a puzzle, but I suppose he has a lot of respect for Targum Unkelos who, in fact, predates the gemara.) The gemara’s first assumption (Unkelos) doesn’t make it into Shulchan Aruch, but it may still have Halachic validity. So, let’s not totally forget about it just yet.

Let’s get down to business.

The State of Israel identifies itself as the “Jewish Homeland”. As such, it is reasonable to expect that its laws should at least be modeled after traditional Jewish law.

Although the secular leftist Israeli judiciary is trying it’s hardest to divest the country of any semblance of Jewish identity, there are some areas where it just cannot be avoided. For one thing, the Jewish calendar is officially recognized as a valid dating system here in Israel. Likewise, the state recognizes the seventh day – “Saturday/Shabbat” – as the official off-day for the nation and acknowledges that it cannot legally compel those who observe Shabbos to violate it. The same applies to all Jewish holidays.

Another thing is that all matters of family and marital status – marriage, divorce, conversion, and mamzerut – are delegated to the Rabbinate. This goes so far, that the state itself will not allow for a genetic DNA test to be used to determine a case of questionable paternity that can lead to a status of mamzer unless the Rabbinate approves of it. I wrote about this at length (HERE and HERE).

More or less everything else – default monetary disputes and damages, criminal law, default inheritance, and real estate - is all governed by secular Western ideals. Sadly, this also includes extradition. The leftist Israeli law allows a full-fledged card carrying natural born Jew to be extradited away from Eretz Yisrael at the request of some other country. This is even if the accused is a full Israeli citizen. This was pivotal in the Malka Leifer episode. It is a disgrace. I have been lamenting about this for years.

So, let’s imagine that Israeli law would treat extradition like family law. Just like the court will not order a genetic test without the approval of the Rabbanut, let’s imagine that the court will not approve any extradition without the approval of the Rabbanut, as well. If this were so, I think it’s a safe bet that there is no chance that any Beis Din would approve of extradition – and mesira - for Mrs. Leifer.

A very recent incident enlightened me that there may be a second type of extradition. One that does not involve criminality or mesira. A type of a case where there can be justification to transport another human being who is not a slave from one place to another. What kind of a case?

A parental custody dispute of a minor.

A parent cannot set his small child free and send the child a bill for his market value. What if a couple had a family in chutz l”aretz and then split up. Then one side abducts a minor child and runs to Eretz Yisrael. Does Lo Tasgir apply here or not?

What if one parent is Jewish and one parent is not?

This can get very sticky. Let’s check out the story.

I saw this in a newsletter about interesting court cases (secular court). The story is in Hebrew. If you read Hebrew you can see it HERE (or use the page translation feature).

The title reads:

District Court Upholds: 6-Year-old boy abducted to Israel will be returned to his father

 

The story is about a tourist from Italy who came to Israel and got into a relationship with an Israeli woman. This “hookup” resulted in a baby boy. Evidently, the pair stayed together.

Initially they lived in Israel. After Oct. 7, they moved to Italy. They moved back to Israel in early 2024 and moved back to Italy later in 2024. Finally, in Jan. 2026, the couple split and the mother came to Israel with the now 6-year-old boy. As you may guess, the father filed kidnapping charges and demanded to forcibly send the boy back to Italy.

The mother claimed that the father is violent and attacked her on “Xmas Eve”. The father denies it. The Israeli court ruled that the mother failed to substantiate her claim of violence and that the abduction without the father’s consent or a hearing in Italy constitutes kidnapping by international law. The child must be sent back. The mother appealed in the District (Appellate) Court and was denied.

Based on standard international law and The Hague convention, the Israeli court was complying with the rules. There are no surprises here. But let’s play along with our fantasy that the Rabbanut must approve of all calls for extradition. How would they rule on this?

Of course, the first thing is to determine whether or not the child is Jewish. The story indicates that the couple celebrates Xmas. This implies that at least the Italian father is not Jewish. The mother may be Jewish, but if she is, she is very far from observance. But that shouldn’t make a difference.

Let’s examine a hypothetical case where both parents are Jewish. Yet, the father lives in Italy and the mother wants to live in Israel and she kidnapped the child to the Land of Israel. Is it the same Lo Tasgir? I noted above that a father is not a master. He cannot “free” his child.

Of course, we would need to know the standard Halachos about child custody when two estranged parents live in one country. Both live in Israel or both do not. The basic rule is that up to the age of six, all children are granted to the mother. From the age of six on, many poskim maintain that the boys should be housed by the father because a father has an obligation to teach his sons Torah.

Well and good. But now, we are discussing a father living in diaspora and a mother in Israel. If the father is an observant Jew, do his rights to custody still apply? Does the father’s obligation to teach Torah override the mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisrael? After all, we know the rule that one should not leave Eretz Yisrael except to learn Torah so, Torah learning overrides living in Israel. Or would we say there is a din of Lo Tasgir and the child must stay here and we would compel the father either to come to Israel or to relinquish custody?

Tzarich iyun gadol.

Then comes a situation where the Jewish father has no connection to learning or teaching Torah. How does this play into a standard domestic custody battle in one country? And in an multi-national one like this case, where even the father is Jewish but not observant, would we say that since this child isn’t about to be taught Torah no matter which parent he stays by, that the father can still assert his rights to take the boy out of Israel?

Teiku.

Now comes what looks to be the likely scenario here where the father is certainly not Jewish but the mother is. Hence, the child is Jewish. What would the Rabbanut do?

On the face of things, there is definitely a form of Lo Tasgir that can apply here. But still, a father is a father and the Rabbanut may not want to contest international law and the Hague Convention even at the expense of losing a Jewish Neshama.

And what if both parents are not Jewish?

This would seem to be a no-brainer. Let’s just send this Italian goy back to Italy - and the mother, too. But, wait!

According to Rashi, we have two explanations of Lo Tasgir. The second one concurs with most of the other Rishonim and the poskim that we are dealing with an Eved Canaani who wants to be free and to embrace Judaism. This certainly does not apply to a non-Jew.

But his first explanation, based on Targum Unkelos, tells us something surprising. Even if the slave is totally not Jewish, we should still offer him sanctuary to keep him away from idolatry. Perhaps, it may be contingent on his embracing Judaism, so it will not be applicable to a clueless non-Jewish six year old, but maybe it isn’t contingent.

And so, if the Rabbanut is unconcerned about defying international law and wants to follow the Halacha precisely, would it rule to block the extradition?

What would Unkelos say?

All I know is that Unkelos did not start off Jewish himself – and that he lived in Italy.