Your Friendly Jewish Community Kangaroo Court

The reports are that the long awaited hearing for Mrs. Malka Leifer took place today as scheduled. According to Dassi Erlich, Mrs. Leifer herself did not show up in court. The entire session was a cross-examination of the state psychiatrist by the defense. Future dates have been designated for further cross-examinations.

In short, this debacle has developed into a "war of attrition". It's going nowhere slowly. But, it's not a total loss. The Sapper sisters got to meet lots of nice MKs and got great coverage from ABC News. And their trip was paid for by a generous sponsor.

In the meanwhile, someone sent me a link to a very recent (Nov. 21, 2018) interview of Jewish Community Watch (JCW) COO Shana Aaronson by Rabbi Scott Kahn. All in all, the interview is very impressive and informative. Shana Aaronson is a top notch spokesperson and as child abuse advocates go, she is a superstar. I think it is well worth listening to the interview and you can access it HERE.

So much for the compliments.

Unfortunately, my humble unpopular opinion is that for all the good that JCW does under the illustrious guidance of the lamed vavnik Avraham Meyer HaKohen Seewald and HRHG Rabbi Yosef Blau, Shlita, they do quite a bit of damage. I have written about it in the past and intend to write about it some more in the future. My overall assessment is one of יצא שכרו בהפסדו - the damage far outweighs the benefits.

In terms of Mrs. Aaronson's interview, I thought it was somewhat deceptive due to a number of half-truths and I felt duty-bound to point out these deceptive half-truths. So I set out to write a comment on the page. 

Of, course, as usual, the text grew and grew and I exceeded the 5000 character limit. So I will post the intended comment right here and I will put a summary and link onto the page. Here is the intended comment:

Mrs. Aaronson is a very eloquent speaker and has a lot of professional knowledge, expertise and true-to-life experience. As such, she comes across as very professional, sincere and genuine. Still, she is concealing from her listeners the dark side of JCW and uses at least two deceptive half-truths.

A “half-truth” is being defined as: a statement that is totally true in and of itself but it only reveals half the story so as to be passively deceptive.

Half-truth number one: “We have never been sued”.

I presume this is a true statement, but she says so in a context as to ensure us that the rigorous professional standards of JCW’s shaming process is impeccable and we should not be concerned about wrongful listings. The proof to the pudding and their badge of pride is that, to date, they have not been sued.

If one understands the logistics of lawsuits, it becomes clear that this is a vacuous statement for the following reasons:

·        For secular court in the US, one must have conclusive proof of monetary damages in order to claim monetary compensation for defamation.  For lack of such proof, the most one can win is a court order for the listing to be rescinded. No money. For this reason it is almost impossible to sue on a contingency. This means a tremendous outlay of legal expenses with little to no hope of any financial redress whatsoever. For this reason, even if one is confident that he has a valid case, it is all too often financially prohibitive.

·        In the US (and in Israel), freedom of speech statutes and “good faith” criticism clauses make defamation cases hard to win. Not because it isn’t genuine malicious defamation (and certainly Halachic motzi-shem-ra), but because it is hard to establish that this defamation is illegal. Thus, even if one retains a very skilled lawyer – who will not work on contingency and does not come cheap – it is hard to prove a violation of law even if the person is clearly maliciously defamed.

·        Perhaps the biggest legal obstacle in the US is that there is a very short statute of limitations (SOL) on defamation claims. In New York state, it is only one year. And it counts from the time the defamation is posted and expires after a year. One cannot claim that since the offending material is “still up there”, the defamation is perpetual and perpetuates the SOL. There is yet good news for those affected by JCW. JCW is incorporated in Florida which has a two year SOL on defamation, so you can get a second year - but you will have to sue them in Florida. Regardless, JCW very slyly does not put a date on their WOS listings so they can always claim – true or not – that it was posted more than one or two years ago and the claimant will need to prove otherwise.

·        Beth Din does not count for this because BD is merely arbitration, and a plaintiff cannot force a defendant to show up. In fact, one “offender” did summon JCW to a Din Torah very recently and JCW refused to acknowledge that Beth Din nor to do a Zabla. Perhaps their reason for refusal is justified but the fact that they always have the option to refuse – with or without an excuse - indicates that they cannot be forcibly sued in a Beth Din.

·        In Israel, it is easier to prove defamation but here we have another problem that Mrs. Aaronson has not revealed to us. JCW is not a legal organization in Israel as they have not registered in their business or non-profit registry (Rishut HaTaagidim). Officially, in Israel JCW only exists on the cloud. They do not post any land address and only in a recent brochure have they put up a Jerusalem area phone number for contact. This number does not appear on their US URL. They have a single page Israeli URL which has been “Under Construction” since 2016. The only hot link on the page (besides Contact Us) takes you to their US URL. Sof davar, here in Israel, unless you know where to find Shana Aaronson, there isn’t anybody to sue.

[Update - Sometime in December, 2018, the Israeli JCW website was updated and greatly expanded. It still does not identify any local staff members and it does not display any address. There does seem to be a Jerusalem area phone number.]

What emerges from all this is that, for logistical reasons, JCW all but has artificial immunity from being sued. This gives them protection to be the bullies that they are. This is not something to be proud of.

After all this, I do indeed agree with Mrs. Aaronson's prediction that JCW is going to be sued sooner than or later.

Half-truth number two: “The statistics for false accusations are only 1-4%”.

Again, by itself, this may be totally true. However, this statistic only relates to those who are totally innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever and are totally railroaded. And even in this case, we have as much as 4% false allegations. If we settle for 3.3%, this means that one out of every thirty people accused are totally innocent. This works to ten out of 300, etc. and this is not something to dismiss.

But what comes at a much higher rate are cases where there may have been some type of incident which, by itself can be verified, but it is exaggerated, overblown or misinterpreted to become something way beyond what it really is (or was). When we add these to the pile, we are somewhere in the 20% range (rough estimate).

I explained this in detail in my 2016 blog post VictimTurned Predator (this post, incidentally, made Mrs. Aaronson very angry – sorry about that).

Summary of Half-Truths

Once we know these half-truths, we see the dark side of JCW. Their activities to help victims and referral services are very admirable and commendable and it would be great if they stopped there. But their methods of dealing with [suspected] offenders are horrendous and dispicable. Their Wall-of-Shame program comes across as a virtuous enterprise but it is very dishonest, irresponsible and lacking in integrity.

JCW wantonly and impudently passes judgment on people without any benefit of what can be called “due process”. JCW assumes no accountability or oversight whatsoever. Zero! They pass judgement on others with no confrontation or warning, no self-exposure, no redress, no cross-examination or scrutiny of evidence by an objective or defensive party whatsoever. They pass judgement with no method of appeal. There is no transparency of process and the accused or his agent cannot request a transparent review. In short, they are running a Kangaroo Court!

Their panel may be composed of esteemed “Rabbanim”, “professionals”, mental health experts, lawyers, I don’t care who. They are passing judgment on people’s lives in absentia. Not the accused, nor any agent of the accused, is invited to participate. These anonymous cowards hide in the cocoon of logistical immunity from being sued to sentence people to all the indignities and direct and collateral repercussions of being shamed with no consideration for time or weight. All prison sentences have time limits for understandable reasons. Long sentences for more severe crimes and short ones for lesser crimes. There is no parole from the WOS and no distinctions between heavier or lighter cases.

All of this from their unchallengeable and indefensible self-appointed Kangaroo court justice. Of course, according to Mrs. Aaronson, the process is meticulous and the decision (i.e. judgment) must be unanimous. But all of these people pay homage to Meyer HaKohen Seewald and Rabbi Blau and their policies and mindset. They are the proverbial all-white jury in the deep South. (I also suspect that Meyer Seewald and/or Rabbi Blau are members of this panel.)

Of course, it is all seems justified when they provide true case examples and describe how horrible these offenders are and they make it seem as if every “offender” on their radar screen is just as unequivocally monstrous as the undisputable ones they singled out. But the truth is that there are very, very many questionable cases and they use the indisputably clear-cut cases to mask all of the questionable ones. And this becomes another half-truth.

JCW is in dire need of oversight and accountability. Any system without checks and balances is dangerous and immoral. If we allow judges of Jews and their families to appoint themselves, the Jewish Community had better Watch out!

ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה

Parshas VaYeshev Rerun - Dassi's Lament (A Year Later)

It is Parshas VaYeshev 5779 and it looks like we have some very prominent guests here in town.

The "Amazing" Sapper sisters are here - Nicole Meyer, Dassi Erlich and Elly Sapper.

They are here to participate in and to promote the Chillul Hashem of the century: The extradition hearing for Mrs. Malka Leifer which is expected to take place this Tues. Nov 27, 2018 here in the holy city of Yerushalayim.

This looks to be quite an event because not only have these three sisters come in special from Australia, but the famed lamed vav-nik, Meyer Seewald of Jewish Community Watch, also made a special trip all the way from Florida to join them. 

The sisters spent much of last week posing for the ABC News crew that is following them around and going to the Knesset and meeting all kinds of MKs who want to help them on their glorious noble mission: to extradite a Jewish person from Eretz Yisroel to Australia. Apparently, only Yaakov Litzman doesn't think this is such a Kiddush Hashem, but why should he count? 

But all the other MKs they met are aboard. Wasn't this the dream of Herzl and Ben Gurion to create a Jewish homeland for the persecuted Jews where we can have the privilege of extraditing our own to Australia because other Jews asked for it?

If you would like to meet the amazing Sapper sisters and Meyer Seewald in person, all you need to do is show up at the JCW Event that is scheduled to take place on Sunday night (Nov. 25) at 7:30 at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.

In any case, since it is Parshas VaYeshev, I wanted to review the wonderful dvar Torah that I wrote last year. This year it is coming out before we read the parsha so people like Meyer Seewald and Dovid Lichtenstein and the husbands of Nicole and Michelle can say it over at the Shabbos table. 

Here it is, just remember it's a year old.



Dassi's Lament - The Pitfalls of Vengeance

Part I – A Short Vort

והבור רק, אין בו מים (בראשית לז,כד)

And the pit was empty, it had no water in it.

ממשמע שנא' והבור רק איני יודע שאין בו מים אלא מה ת"ל אין בו מים מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו: (שבת כב.)

If the pit is empty, certainly it had no water in it! What does this teach us? The pit had no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. (Shabbos 22a)

We have probably heard countless insights on the significance of this chazal. For our purposes, I want to weave a tapestry from three well known insights.

The first two are very concise and almost identical:

Insight 1 (מפי השמועה)

Nature abhors a vacuum. A receptacle cannot be absolutely empty. If there is no water occupying the space there must be something else. So chazal tell us there were snakes and scorpions.

Insight 2 (מפי השמועה)

Water is a useful commodity. Snakes and scorpions have no constructive purpose. The second insight is that when a receptacle is not being used for a positive purpose, it will not stand idle but will be used for a less than positive purpose. There is no neutral.

Insight 3 (אזנים לתורה)

The third insight is an extension of the first two, but we must first know three other teachings of chazal:

Baba Kama 17a

אין מים אלא תורה – When the pasuk refers to “mayim” - water, it is a synonym for Torah knowledge.

Yoma 22b

כל תלמיד חכם שאינו נוקם ונוטר כנחש אינו תלמיד חכם  - Any Torah sage who is not as begrudging and vengeful as a snake [for the honor of Torah] is not a true Torah sage. This tells us that the snake is the quintessential model of a creature that is begrudging and vengeful. Or, in other words, one who is unjustifiably begrudging and vengeful is imitating the attributes of a snake. As such, a “nachash” – snake - is a synonym for one who is begrudging and vengeful.

Avoda Zara 13b

העובדי כוכבים והרועי בהמה דקה; לא מעלין ולא מורידין - The idol worshippers and those who raise sheep and goats in Eretz Yisrael (and allows them to graze indiscriminately), we do not raise them out and we do not lower them down.

Raise them out from where? And lower them down to where?

Rashi there in Avoda Zara 13b tells us: We do not lower him into a בור – “bor”, a pit – so that he will die; but if he fell into a pit by the Hand of G-d, we do not rescue him,  either.

This last teaching tells us that there are three status levels of people.

(1) A regular normal upstanding person. For such a person, if he should fall into a life threatening situation, the basic din is maalin v’lo moridin. We must do everything we can to raise him out of his “pit” and certainly to prevent him from falling in.

(2) A menace to society and a threat to others. Here, the din is moridin v’lo maalin, we may even initially lower him into the pit thus bringing about his demise.

(3) One who is not a confirmed threat (a shepherd who is not careful about grazing) or his sins are only to G-d (an idol worshipper). Here, the din is lo maalin v’lo moridin, i.e. “hands off”. If he is in danger, we do not save him but we cannot put him there if he isn’t already.

So the reference of maalin and moridin is relating to an allegorical bor – a pit. Hence, bor is a synonym for a ruling of administering or saving from death.

To review: mayim - water - is a synonym for Torah knowledge, a snake is a synonym for one who is begrudging and vengeful, and a bor – a pit –is a synonym for a life threatening situation.

Now let us put it all together.

The ten brothers were judging Yosef’s status regarding the din of “bor”. Is he upstanding - “maalin v’lo moridin”? Is he reckless - “lo maalin v’lo moridin”? Or is he wicked - “moridin v’lo maalin”? Their ruling was the most extreme, “moridin v’lo maalin”. He can be actively lowered into the “bor”.

They passed a sentence of bor.

But the pasuk is informing us that the “bor” was empty, void of mayim. Their verdict was void of Torah principles. Their motives were not sanctioned by true Halacha. Chazal follow up on this to add: not only was there no “mayim”, Torah principles, but there were “nachashim” and “akrabim”. There were emotions of grudging and vengeance.

So says Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, ZT”L, in Oznayim L’Torah, Breishis 37:24. This is the third insight.

When we bring this back to the original two insights about “nature abhors a vacuum”, we understand that no human action or judgment is done without motives. One’s consideration of “bor" status must either be driven by the “waters” of Torah and be justifiable as “L’shem Shamayim” or, for lack of “water”, it inevitably will fill with “nachashim” and be driven by personal whims of grudging, vengeance and self-gratification.

End of sermon.

Part II – Dassi’s First Post

I haven’t written anything about the Malka Leifer episode for over two months. Out in the real world, nothing significant has happened for quite some time. But on the social media, there has been a great deal. The primary “victim” in the case, one Dassi Erlich, has been trying to make as much noise as she can and, in so doing, she is exposing a lot about herself and her two sisters.

This sudden surge of publicity began on September 23 (two days before Rosh Hashannah) when R. Dovid Lichtenstein aired a public interview with Dassi Erlich which I found to be enormously disturbing. I will explain what was so disturbing as we continue. At the time, I considered devoting a post to this interview, but the time wasn't ripe for it. I merely wrote a short note on my Facebook page.

Dassi Erlich made some startling revelations in the Headlines interview, which I will discuss later, and what she posted over the past week was even more startling, with more revelations. In between, there were two additional very disturbing podcasts by R. Dovid Lichtenstein on the subject of Mesira. For now, all that I can say about Dassi Erlich and R. Dovid Lichtenstein is: 

The pit is empty. There is no water.

Let’s quickly review the background. (See HERE for my initial post.)

Malka Leifer, an Israeli woman, was employed by a chareidi girls’ school in Melbourne, Australia from 2001-2008. In 2008 she was accused by some students of improper sexual behavior. She was immediately dismissed and sent back to EY. She has not admitted guilt nor has she been accused of any inappropriate behavior from that point on.

Since 2012, there has been an active campaign led by Miss Dassi Erlich to have her extradited back to Australia to be handed over to the non-Jewish judicial system for the purposes of punishment.

In past posts I have written that as tragic and damaging as the initial misbehavior up to 2008 may have been, it is now 2017 and this person lives in EY. There is no indication that she is currently any kind of rodef even here in EY and most certainly not in Australia where she hasn’t set foot since 2008 and has no intention to do so ever again. 

Consequently, for lack of a status of rodef, there is no conceivable justification to extradite her to Australia and hand her over to the non-Jews. Any effort to do so constitutes full blown mesira and a host of other heavy transgressions.

The Halachic foundation for all this – the “water of Torah” – was painstakingly laid out in this post (Thinking Like a Jew). So far, the only challenge I have received to anything that was written there was some fine-schmekker who had a problem with my description of nashim daatan kalos.

In addition to the long list of serious transgressions that would be in effect, I added that since there is no Halachic justification for this, this illicit media campaign and all the publicity it is generating is a colossal Chillul Hashem. What can be a bigger Chillul Hashem than setting up a FB page dedicated to mosering a Jew to the non-Jews and trying to recruit the “empty pit” masses to participate??

Now, let us get up to date and look at the two most recent Facebook posts of Dassi Erlich (update - she has since added two more posts).

The first of the posts comprises only three lines which I will number for reference purposes. Here is what she wrote:

1.   They tell me it's a chillul Hashem. My media campaign to #bringleiferback - a desecration of God.
(Messages received on a fairly regular basis)

2.   It makes me wonder how many people are messaging Malka Leifer with the same sentiment??

3.   Why is the onus on the survivor to remain silent and not on the perpetrator to expeditiously face the consequences of their crime?

In Line 1 she notes that she is receiving these messages “on a fairly regular basis”. Evidently, I am not the only person who sees her campaign as a big Chillul Hashem. Note that I am only a single person and I have not broached this topic for about two months and, outside of my blogs, I certainly have not messaged her, nor have I encouraged anybody else to do so.

Everything else she wrote both in the post and in response to comments indicates that she doesn’t take these messages seriously. So, why did she need to post this?

Something is obviously gnawing at her and she is desperate for support. So she turns to her mindless choir and, in one voice (except for a lone dissenter), they soothe her conscience. Of course, there is no mention of who “They” are. Even worse, she does not tell her audience on what basis “They” tell her it is a Chillul Hashem! She does not give her clueless audience a premise upon which to evaluate whether or not there is merit to this charge. And not a single member of her support choir seems to be interested.

Let’s move on to Line 2. She is wondering if people are sending the same messages to Mrs. Leifer.

Now, it’s pretty clear that Mrs. Leifer does not have a Facebook page and is not running any campaigns. Currently she is only going to Meron on Lag B’Omer and calling in sick to her extradition hearings. I didn’t really comprehend the question. At first glance, I thought that Dassi is asking if others are also telling Mrs. Leifer that Dassi’s Facebook page is a Chillul Hashem. Like, is Mrs. Leifer getting direct support from the “audience”? 

This “wonderment” does strike as a bit bizarre, like, why should she care? 

I then realized that I misunderstood her question and she was really asking if anybody from “her” (Dassi's) camp is telling Mrs. Leifer that her something-or-other is a Chillul Hashem?

This is even more bizarre (which is why I originally discounted this position). What is Mrs. Leifer currently doing that can possibly be called a Chillul Hashem???

Assuming the alleged activities are true, they occurred more than nine years ago and ended then. A thing of the past. As noted, Mrs. Leifer has not posted anything on social media for or against anybody. The only thing happening now that is relevant to the past is that she is not cooperating with those who want to extradite her and prosecute her. In light of the fact that her official position is one of innocence, whether true or not, there is no obligation for her to cooperate with those who are rodef her, with no Halachic license, to boot.  It certainly is no Chillul Hashem for her to avoid incriminating herself or to be incriminated.

Dassi Erlich alone is running a public media campaign to facilitate the mesira, nekama, Gonev ish, Lo tasgir, and any other transgression that is involved and is urging other uninvolved people (many of whom think they are observant Jews) to join her. And this is in the face of not only I but others who are warning her of her folly “on a fairly regular basis”!

Line 3 is the Makkah b’patish. Dassi wants to know why she must remain silent and there is no onus “on the perpetrator to expeditiously face the consequences of their crime”?

At the simple level these are two distinct questions. The answer to the first one - Why must she remain silent? - is quite obvious to a devoted Jew. We have rules about malshinus. If there is a clear and present danger to people and a constructive toelles to the malshinus, then one need not remain silent. But if nobody is in any kind of danger and the malshinus serves no useful purpose, as is the case here, then malshinus is forbidden.

The second question about why the “perpetrator” doesn’t need to “expeditiously face the consequences of their crime” is a very silly one. “Perpetrators” are not prone to do these sort of things just because their accusers want them to. Even if the accuser asks nicely like Dassi did in her Headlines interview (37:10).

So the answers to her questions at this level are really quite simple to one who knows how to think logically and to think like a Jew. One whose “bor” is filled with “water”, the water of Torah. But we have seen that if the “bor” is void of water, then it gets filled with “nachashim”, only thoughts of vengeance. And a vengeful thinker cannot think rationally. And so, she laments at being baffled by these questions.

But clearly, on a deeper level, she is asking a different question in Line 3. I will get to it in Part III where we examine her second recent post.

Part III – Dassi’s Second Post

Before I get back to her inquisitive post, we should examine her following post which was essentially a link to an interesting supportive write-up in the Age of Victoria authored by one Rachel Kleinman.

I mentioned that both her interview with R. Dovid Lichtenstein and her recent Facebook posts were full of revelations or “confessions”.  Many of these confessions are really only confirmations of significant details that were already presented by other sources. Until now, I dealt with them as unconfirmed speculations, but now she is herself confirming all of these details. In the Headlines interview, she said these things straight out and in her recent Facebook post, she is linking to a report in the Age of Victoria for which she herself provided almost all of the details – so everything written there carries her imprimatur.

Here is the short list of revelations:

1.   She came from an abusive home (Headlines 22:30 and 28:55). The Age article puts it this way:
Sadly, the seven children lived in a physically and emotionally abusive home, where they existed in constant fear of their cruel and extremely controlling mother.

With this, she confirms my charge that she had emotional issues for 15 years before Malka Leifer came into her life. Even if Malka Leifer did everything she is accusing her of, she is certainly not the sole cause of her problems.

2.   The school “had no idea” that something was going on (Headlines 31:30) and “no one had ever dealt with anything like this before” (Headlines 32:20).

With this, she is confessing that there is no justification for her to sue the school and to take any money from whoever it is that is paying it (which is not Mrs. Leifer).

3.   The three sisters gave their initial statements to the Victorian police only in 2011. (Age article).

This raises two very important questions:

a.  Malka Leifer was already gone from Australia for three years. As such, there was no rhyme or reason certainly from a halachic standpoint and even from a logical standpoint to involve the Victoria police. She is gone. If she can be considered an active threat in Eretz Yisrael in 2011 then it is perhaps justified to give a statement to the Israeli police, but to the Victorian police? Why? Did they do this on a whim or did they get any professional or Rabbinic guidance to do this? Why are the masses applauding this wanton behavior?

b. As long as no "statement" was given to the Victoria police, then she can certainly not be considered a potential or wanted criminal - or fugitive. Hence, when the Adass people shipped her out of Australia in 2008, they weren't shipping out an official fugitive and there was no act of obstruction of justice. As such, what is the justification of anybody to take them to task for doing the responsible thing and getting her out of Australia? And what are the grounds of Justice Jack Rush to incriminate them and fine them money?

4.   Her sister Nicole is two years her senior (Age article).

This was a real shocker!  Until now, I thought Dassi was probably the oldest. Earlier articles claim that she was abused from the age of 15-18. I found this to be perplexing in itself.  For four years into adulthood she didn’t know she was being abused? All this was non-consensual? But now I discover that for all this time she had a sister that was even two years older! 17-20! Where was she during all of this? Wait, there’s more! Another sister 12 years older! (Passed away three years ago at 39. Dassi is 30.) Where was she? Didn’t Dassi say in the Headlines interview (29:20) that she has six siblings and “I am very close to all of them”?

Something definitely does not add up here.

5.   And the last thing is something that I had heard from unverifiable sources and strongly suspected but was only now confirmed. In the Headlines interview she mentioned twice that she “was struggling with my religion” which is not conclusive, but the Age article closes the issue:
She had already endured the tricky transition from a life in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, where every move was governed by severe rules and rituals, to a secular life in Melbourne's suburbs. (Age article)

It’s confirmed. Dassi is no longer religious!

Actually, this was quite obvious to me from the start. Back in my post about Judging the Judges I wrote, "My suspicion is that she is no longer religious." And I wrote it again in my post about Flirting with Danger. After I repeated for the third time the list of issurim that are involved, I commented:

All of the above should rile up any yarei shamayim, people who believe in the 11th principle of emunah that HKBH will punish people for their transgressions. There is serious danger here… I was hoping this alone would reach the Australian Jews. But it seems to me that most of these Jews, the victims and their supporters, are not really yarei shamayim. So they will not acknowledge this danger.

In short, Dassi is not fazed by her involvement with mesira, and gonev ish, etc. She is not religious and no longer believes in Heavenly retribution. She does not use Torah principles to make her judgments. Her “bor” is void of water. By default, it is full of vengeful snakes and scorpions.

We can now return to her earlier post about Chillul Hashem, and I have a question of my own:

If she is no longer observant, why does she care if “They” think her campaign is a Chillul Hashem?

She has left the frum community, so it would seem that she is not really interested in what “They” think. She is docheh “Them” with both hands. There is no Torah. In her [secular] book, there is no Halacha. There is no mesira, malshinus, Lo Tasgir, Gonev ish. No nekama and no Chillul Hashem.

So, what’s her problem?

Her problem is the makka b’patish in Line 3.

Even though she is asking two separate questions, emotionally it is really only one question:

Why do I have to stay quiet and (at the same time) she doesn't have to give herself up? It isn't fair!

Why are “They” telling only her that she is perpetrating a Chillul Hashem. What about Mrs. Leifer (who hasn’t crossed any lines in over nine years)? Aren’t “They” also telling her she is doing a Chillul Hashem? Why only Dassi? Why can she go to Meron on Lag B’Omer? (Note - Dassi can go, too!) How can she get away without being extradited? Why are “They” protecting/supporting Mrs. Leifer and not her?

Oh, Teacher, why do I get sent out for disrupting the class?? She's the one who was making the funny faces!

It’s not fair!!!

She is tormenting herself. She cannot sleep nights. She sees Mrs. Leifer everywhere she looks (evidently, she looks everywhere for Leifer). Just like I wrote in my post about Judging the Judges, after the confirmed abuse from her mother and the alleged abuse from Mrs. Leifer, Dassi is abusing herself. She has no peace. And why?

Because she has no “water” in her “bor”. It is full of snakes and scorpions.

So she goes into her Facebook sanctuary and listens to her choir sing her praises. They unanimously tell her she is a tzadeikes. She is amazing. Strong. Inspiration. Chillul Hashem? How dare “They”? Everything she is doing is a Kiddush Hashem! The only one making a Chillul Hashem is that “vile vile animal”. Keep it up! Hatzlacha Rabba! Etc. etc. etc…

They are soothing her injured psyche. They are easing her pain. They are encouraging her and empowering her…for today.

But for tomorrow (and the next day), they are helping her abuse herself and helping her to perpetuate her torment. And they are helping her to lose both worlds – chas v’shalom – and to take her daughter and two sisters and everyone else with her!

Snakes and scorpions are very dangerous creatures. They will destroy her. I wrote in my June 7 post: Nekama always destroys its master. It’s a boomerang!

הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הוא מלאך המות

End of Part III

Prenups VI – Midway through the Seder

Author's note - Please see my previous post HERE.

As I ended my last post, I promised to make some “seder”. My intention at that point was to serve up the other half of the Trei Gadya post (the afikoman?). But I am not going to complete that post just now. I need to make a slight detour from my initial flight plan.

The reason for this is that, in the interim since my last post, I received some behind-the-scenes feedback from a few sources. Based on some of this information it behooves me to make some corrections and clarifications on things that I wrote. So I will be making some “seder” but not in the way I originally planned. I hope to get back to the Trei Gadya post right after this one.

One of these sources corresponded to me under a pledge of confidence, so I cannot reveal a lot of what I learned but there are some side points that I do need to reveal since they impact upon my previous post.

The first of these side points is that this person cleared up a gross misconception that I had until this point. I believe the bulk of American Orthodox Jews share this misconception with me. It concerns the relationship between the BDA (Beth Din of America) and the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America). 

I assumed that the RCA is a parent body and the BDA is the judicial arm of the RCA. In effect, the BDA is a subsidiary of the RCA and, as such, the RCA governs the BDA. My confidential correspondent told me that this is not so; it is not close to a parent-child relationship. They are two separate organizations. It’s more like two cousins with the same last name. 

This is not a total misconception. They did begin as a parent-child relationship. The RCA established the BDA. It says so right on their website:

The Beth Din of America was founded in 1960 by the Rabbinical Council of America. In 1994, the Beth Din became an autonomous organization, headed by an independent board of directors.

So, many of us are aware of the “founded” part not aware of the “autonomous” part that happened 34 years later. Still and all, they are both offspring of the same grandfather – REITS (Yeshiva University) – and, perhaps, most of the BDA members have RCA membership as well. Nevertheless, they are currently two independent bodies and one does not govern the other.

In terms of what I have written, there are two major ramifications:

·        The 2013 resolution that claimed that the BDA prenup (referred to by name) is 100% effective, was stated by the RCA and not the BDA. The BDA never made such a claim in writing. (I suppose parents like to brag about their "children".)

·         The 2016 resolution that requires RCA Rabbis to compel a prenuptial agreement was likewise put out by the RCA and not the BDA. Truth be told, after they laud the greatness of the BDA prenup, they say in their resolution to use any kind of prenup.

Despite this, it is very hard to say that the BDA does not carry responsibility for these two matters. After all, the two organizations are cousins who share the same last name and are both offshoots of RIETS and they are affiliated and I am not the only person who thinks they are one body (by far). (It's an honest mistake.) Moreover, the BDA prenup is referenced by name in both resolutions. So if they (the BDA) are not backing up these two resolutions, they have an obligation to disassociate themselves from them, just like Rabbi Rosencrantz in the Eiruv saga.

Another side point is that it seems that the state of California mandates reciprocity in all prenuptial agreements. This is what distinguishes the BDA “California” agreement from the Standard one. Hence, BDA no longer displays a “Reciprocal” agreement since this is identical to the California one. If a couple wishes, they can use the California agreement in any other state but they cannot use the Standard version in California. (Advice, if you live in California, put your prenup and your real Ketuba in a fire-proof box.)

The last side point that emerged from our correspondence was that it is possible that I have been living away from America for far too long (thank G-d), and I am not up-to-date with the current situation in the diaspora. Here in Eretz Yisroel, things are a lot simpler because we have a Rabbanut Beis Din which is not an arbitration panel, but rather a state empowered judicial body. Hence, it has all of the jurisdiction of the secular court. It has the power to summon spouses to appear even if they did not sign any type of agreement. They can also issue a tzav ikuv (no-exit order). Since we live in a very small state and a police state, at that, there is nowhere to run.

A Beis Din in the diaspora, even if it calls itself THE Beth Din of America, has no such power. Apparently, the primary function of the prenup is to force the couple to show up to Beis Din. Once they are there, BD can really make binding mezonos requirements even without a prenup. Since the BDA is merely an arbitration panel, it has no jurisdiction to force anybody to show up unless they have a previously signed arbitration agreement to do so. So, in America, it is a lot harder to get a husband who has gone OTD and abandoned his wife for an Italian shiksa (or a Mexican one for the California version) to show up to Beis Din than it is here in E”Y. (Besides, there is an acute shortage of qualified shiksas here in E”Y. I know, I looked – okay, just kidding.) This is why it is so important to have an arbitration agreement up front. The “Halachic concerns” can be addressed in Beis Din after they show up.

End of side notes and corrections.

The picture that emerged from all the feedback was as follows. Marital discord, like most things in this world, works on a spectrum of extremes and all the points in between. At one end of the spectrum is the scenario where the husband is the “shtinker” and the wife is a saint in comparison. This is the case I was referring to above where the husband abandons his family and possibly all of Yiddishkeit. He has his needs met by other women (let’s hope they are women) and is not interested in revitalizing his social status in the Orthodox community. In short, he has no impetus to give his wife a get.

When it comes to this type of marital discord that winds up in a courtroom (or Beis Din), it is certain that the wife is fully entitled to, as HRHG Rav Asher Weiss says, “reasonable support”. Moreover, in this case, it is very easy to dismiss the issue of get meuseh. This is because the husband is voluntarily neglecting his obligations toward his wife (a mored) and is megaleh daas that he has no interest in continuing his marriage to her. So, even if he is not very cooperative about a get, as long as he is not forced at gunpoint, zapped by an electric cattle prod, or hung out of a six-story window by his ankles, any indirect pressure can be seen as “rotzeh ani”.
[Update - After rechecking even HaEzer 77:1, it seems that there is no din of get meuseh and, depending on how we define the term "kofim", it may even be permissible to threaten him with a gun and zap him with a cattle prod!]

The other end of the spectrum is the exact opposite. This is the scenario where the wife is the “shtinker” and the husband is the saint in comparison. She may be sick of wifehood or of his corny jokes and leaving the seat up and is just not into him and very possibly into somebody else and she wants out. Especially if he is struggling to make a comfortable living (and the other guy who doesn’t have to pay tuition for five kids is loaded). In short, she is a moredes. He is willing to do anything to make things good. He doesn’t want to give her up. In some cases, she is the one who refuses to go to the mikveh and goes OTD.

In this scenario, the wife-to-was is technically not entitled to mezonos and any undue pressure put upon a husband to divorce a wife that he sincerely wants to keep can and should be construed as a get meuseh.

Of course, as noted, there are all kinds of scenarios in between, but these two extremes cause a tremendous conflict in the rationality and legitimacy of the BDA or any other PNA. I believe that this is the crux of the controversy and I will need to get back to this dichotomy when we really do reach the “afikoman”.

But it is not yet chaztos and we are not there yet. I still need to partake in a little bit of Shulchan Aruch.

Prenups V – Trei Gadya, Trei Gadya: Part One - Is the Shunra Guarding the Goat-pen?

Author's note - Please see the previous posts about the BDA Prenuptial Agreements - Part 1 , Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

In this week’s Parsha, Rivka Imenu instructs Yaakov to go to the goat-pen and take “for me” two kid goats. Rashi tells us that Rivka was instructing Yaakov to take what was rightfully hers to take “...for this is what Yitzchok wrote to her in her Ketuba, she may take two kid goats each day.”

Yes, I took that last written test in the Toen Rabbani cycle two days after Rosh HaShannah. It takes quite a while to get the results of one of these tests. They usually come out about a week before the next test on the cycle – close to Chanukah. I won’t know if I passed the test until then but I have a good feeling about it.

In the meanwhile I am prepping myself toward this line of work and am learning new things all the time. And the more I look into the concept of the BDA prenups, the more concerned I am.

For starters, it’s been a full year since I opened this series. The results of my previous analyses indicated that the language of the document, at best, needs at least two corrections. None have been made.

One language problem is that the term “and I recite that I shall be deemed to have repeated this waiver at the time of the wedding” is useless. This is because the groom has no intention for the waiver to take effect at the time of the wedding, only at the time of the separation. So this is what the contract must say. Even after this, it is not certain that the waiver takes effect and it is almost certainly revocable until the time of separation. Details HERE.

The second language problem is that the clause about “through the Jewish law mechanism of Kim Li” in the last paragraph is likewise faulty. If anything, it must say: “through the Jewish law mechanism of Kol Tnai she’b’mammon kayam”.  Details HERE.

So a year has passed and I have seen no changes. I know for certain that my posts have reached the eyes of some of the chief architects and promoters of this document and it would surprise me to learn that it hasn’t reached the attention of Rabbi Willig, Shlita. Although I can understand a dissenting position on the first correction, there is absolutely no room for dispute on the second correction.

The fact that the document continues to remain uncorrected tells me that the BDA does not take these issues seriously. I think this undermines their integrity. The impression I get is that they maintain that their document has been tried and tested and endorsed by some prominent Gedolim so they can ignore all the detractors. It doesn’t matter if someone brings up issues that haven’t been addressed – if it ain’t fixed, don’t break it.

What frightens me more than their complacence is their claim in a 2013 resolution that “the BDA prenuptial agreement maintains a 100% success rate in preventing get-refusal in the context of a divorce following marriages where it was properly signed and notarized”. Firstly, this sounds like propaganda. How can they verify this "statistic" to the public?

Secondly, there are two scenarios where, even according to the BDA (and Reb Shalom Spira’s prenup, as well) the prenup would not be effective. One is a case where the husband is flat broke, and more likely in debt, and he doesn’t really care about how much money he needs to pay his wife for mezonos. He doesn’t have it and he won’t pay it. Let her hair turn grey.

The second is the case of moredes - a rebellious wife - where the woman is not entitled to mezonos. It won't matter how large is the support allowance; she is not entitled to it. I intend to elaborate on the moredes issue in Part Two of this post.

Now, Reb Michael J. Broyde, in a guest blog post in Emes V’Emunah on August  20, 2017 addressed the moredes scenario. He had two responses. His first response is to promote the controversial Halachic position that even though a moredes loses her rights to support, if the husband withholds the get, he is still liable for the support. There are numerous problems with this position that I hope to discuss in Part Two.

The other response is that, “since the BDA Prenup is an arbitration agreement, the bet din panel hearing this matter could decide not to order the payments…” This says that they have the absolute power to decide whether or not the wife is a moredes. 

What this means is that the “husband-to-be” is entrusting the moredes status into the hands of the BDA Beis Din who have a vested interest in somehow making sure the woman is not ruled a moredes if only to keep up their flawless track record. This may be so even where, under more objective conditions, a typical Beis Din would rule that she is a moredes. Bear in mind that for the mezonos part of this contract, the basic Halacha is that any questionable case (sefeika d'dina) has to be ruled in the payer's - the husband's - favor. It is very questionable to say that the bizarre kim li clause at the end of the agreement overrides this privilege.

The shunra (cat) is watching the goat-pen.

For now, I only want to comment that, in light of these limitations, can the RCA really claim the PNA to be 100% effective? You mean in 26 years they never had to deal with a deadbeat husband? In all that time there was never a bona fide moredes? Or, are they fudging the numbers the same way the unemployment office does – if you simply gave up on looking for a job, you are not called “unemployed” so you don’t count for the statistics; here, too, if she is disqualified for being a moredes or if the husband is a deadbeat, it was not meant to work so it doesn’t count for the statistics?

100% is just too “neat and clean”; like the Beis Din that votes 23-0 to convict (Rambam Sanhedrin 9:1). Clearly, the BDA is not an objective Beis Din (we already established this with the "kim li" clause), and this is very troubling.

However, time wounds all heals. The claim of 100% was made in a resolution dated 2013. It’s been five years since that time, and perhaps their record is not so impeccable. So, what if the statistic is no longer 100%, would they have the integrity to tell us? Or do they want us to think that what they claimed in 2013 is in effect forever even if it isn’t?

My experience is that when conditions change away from one’s preferred position, he doesn’t bother to update his followers. (Like on all those Jewish sex offender lists. When a person who was listed as “Arrested” gets fully acquitted, somehow this development is never noted on the list. More on this in upcoming posts.)  In fact, the RCA added another resolution about prenups in 2016. This is the one about mandating their Rabbis to require them. For some strange reason the 100% claim is notably absent. What does this say to me?

While we are discussing updating things and the 2016 resolution, there is another serious issue that, to date, nobody has brought up. Endorsements.

To understand the problem, I need to go back to my tale about the Eiruv in “Hammerstone Hills”. I wrote that one of the supporting Rabbanim rescinded his support about 2 or 3 years after the eiruv was constructed. He gave a public speech in his shul to explain why he rescinded and he gave numerous reasons. 

The first reason was that he initially supported the eiruv because he knew that it could and would be erected according to the Halachic standards of Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZT”L. However, after the construction, when certain defects and shailos came up, instead of making the necessary repairs, the “committee” used some lower standard bidiavad kulos to consider the eiruv valid. What came out was that, although the eiruv was built in accordance to the standards of Rav Moshe, it was not being maintained at the standards of Rav Moshe.  It’s like when a kosher food product changes its formula and loses its hechsher or the mashgiach retires and isn’t replaced. If there is no Kashrut Alert, it stays “Kosher” forever.

His second issue was that they had plans to unite this eiruv with new eiruvim being built for adjacent neighborhoods. Those eiruvim were not planned to comply with the standards of Rav Moshe even from the get-go. This Rabbi was afraid that the tzibur will use the reputation of the first, more proper eiruv, along with his endorsement, to falsely imply that the other eiruvim were just as kosher (and that he endorses them). This is the old “Kosher by association” trick where one product or restaurant/bakery is certified kosher and then the owner opens a second restaurant or bakery with the same logo but no such hechsher. People will think the baal-hamachshir on the first establishment also endorses the second one.

The 2016 resolution that mandates all RCA Rabbis to require a PNA for every wedding they officiate at, or refuse to officiate, is very scary. As it is, the PNA is treading on thin ice in the area of coercion and many are those who invalidate it for this reason. But even those who do not – and we know that Rav Asher Zelig Weiss’s letter of endorsement only addressed the issue of coercion – may feel that this resolution crosses the line. It certainly invokes the words of the Rema in Even HaEzer 134:4 who stated that bidiavad, if the husband gives a get while under the influence of a self-imposed penalty, the get is still valid “since initially he was not compelled to do this…”. The obvious implication is that if the fellow was compelled to accept this fine, it is a forced get by all opinions. In line with this remark in the Rema, even though we are now dealing with mezonos and not a fine, for one to be compelled to accept upon himself an exaggerated amount of mezonos is very problematic to say the least.

But wait! This PNA is endorsed by such great men as Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, Rav Ovadiah Yosef and (supposedly) Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, no?

Well, it is definitely true that Rav ZN Goldberg, Shlita, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, ZT”L, Rav Chaim Zimbalist and Rav AZ  Weiss, Shlita endorse the concept of the PNA. Further, the basic language of the agreement, more or less a copy of the Toras Gittin, was endorsed by Rav ZN Goldberg, Rav Ovadiah and three others back in 1992. Rav Asher Zelig Weiss wrote an undated letter where he outlined the mechanics of reasonable mezonos and ruled that there is no problem of coercion in this case. He clearly implies that if the allowance for mezonos is not reasonable, we are in trouble. We have no idea from his writing at what point the mezonos are considered unreasonable. Of course, we can always ask him (AMV”Sh).

However, there have been a few changes since 1992. Did anybody endorse those? There was a strong resolution in 2006, another in 2013 and the strongest yet in 2016. Each one takes the question of get meuseh up one notch. Did any Gadol endorse any of these resolutions?

Other Halachic issues were raised such as the issue of asmachta raised by Harav J.D. Bleich, Shlita. Of course there is the system of “meachshav” and Beis Din chashuv but there are other issues. Rav Shalom Spira in his essay mentions opinions that hold that meachshav and Beis Din chashuv only apply if there is a single unknown condition. But when there are multiple unknown conditions, even these mechanisms do not help.

Beyond this is a similar asmachta issue that nobody has yet brought up (you heard it from me first): There is a question if one can make a binding undefined obligation (התחייבות לדבר שאין בו קצבה). If one cannot, this would be a big problem for the BDA prenup. Of course, it is no problem because only the Rambam holds it is not binding and all other rishonim say it is binding, and we go with the majority (kim li is still an issue). The Mechaber tells us this in three places in Choshen Mishpat.

But wait! Comes the SM”A in one of those places (CM 131:13 sk 25) and says that this is only when the obligation is unconditional. But if it depends on a condition which makes it an asmachta together with the undefined obligation, then even where an asmachta would normally work (like meachshav or BD chashuv), the rishonim will agree with the Rambam that with this double whammy, there is no binding obligation!

Did Rav ZN Goldberg and Rav Ovadiah and Rav AZ Weiss address these issues and give their endorsement in the face of them?

And, finally, I am back to where I began this post. In the first three parts of this series, I raised the issue of flaws in the waiver of the wife’s earnings. I summarized them earlier. Rav Willig, Shlita, in his famous shiur conceded that this waiver is a "very sticky" issue. He mentioned that Rav ZN Goldberg addressed the issue of a hodaas baal din on a future event (exceedingly novel and controversial). But the issues I raised are different ones. There is no indication that Rav ZN Goldberg addressed them. The BDA doesn’t want to acknowledge them (they have a lot on their plate with this PNA). But they do not have any outside Gedolim who examined these issues and were able to dismiss them.

We like to think that all major poskim are flawless geniuses who, without fail, take all Halachic angles into account whenever they rule on an issue, and so, all of these issues are covered. The truth is, they only deal with the point of the question that is being asked. Very often, they do indeed bring up collateral issues but not always. They are all very human and don’t think of everything.

It looks to me that the 1992 endorsement certificate is long expired but the BDA is holding it on life support.

I have spent this entire post complaining about corrections, changes and updates that needed to be made but were not. I want to comment now on one change that was made. 

When I examined the BDA PNA a year ago to analyze them, there were two versions: a regular one for a unilateral commitment by the "husband-to-be" and a reciprocal  bi-lateral one which included a commitment by the "wife-to-be" to adhere to the rulings of the BDA court under penalty of a fine to her husband (women can pay fines to their husbands). The reciprocal agreement was more balanced and, consequently, more practical. The financial risks to the husband stay the same, but since there are also financial risks to the wife, it is less likely to be abused. As a bonus, this version serves as a sop to reassure mankind that this isn't all a liberal feminist plot to artificially empower the women in divorce cases. 

When I checked the forms on the website of late to confirm that the language had not been changed I was astounded to discover that the reciprocal version is nowhere to be found. It vanished!

Where did it go - and why?

The lack of this version (especially after it was initially in circulation) now presents the opposite effect. It confirms to mankind that this document is indeed a liberal feminist instrument. With all its other problems, this does not help matters.

Believe it or not, all the above was the intro for what I really wanted to write in this post. But, it’s getting late and I can only make a post so long. I have discovered that once in a while there are people who actually read them.

So I still haven’t let on what I want to discuss now and what it has to do with the Rashi about Rivka and the two kid goats. But, let that be its own hint and we will leave it for the next post (I hope).

In the next post, I hope to make some “seder”…