Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh 4 - Mother in Pain

Author's note - This post is the final installment on the series about The Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse. If you are not up to date on the topic, please see Horseman 1 HERE, the Interlude post HERE, Horseman 2 HERE, and Horseman 3 HERE.

 

It’s high time to close the subject of the distressing Kol Koreh of the 200 176 Rabbanim and the Four Horsemen. For those just joining us, the Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse are four very common types of events in which it would not be advisable to adhere to the directives of this Kol Koreh (to take all cases of molestation directly to law enforcement). We discussed three of these Horsemen in the previous posts. We now have one more to go.

The fourth Horseman is the case of the Mother in Pain as described in first person by the letter that was published in the Jewish Press on February 20, 2017. It is worthwhile to read the entire letter. You can access it HERE.

To summarize, this woman writes about her son who she calls Yisroel (this is a pseudonym, but I think it is a very appropriate one because it seems to represent the kind of person who could be any one of us). This son had a challenging childhood and ADHD and - wouldn’t you know it? – was “picked up” by an older “friend” and was abused himself. At 19, he had an episode of being sexually abusive as a camp counselor. Yet, the mother claims, he seemed to straighten out, become a serious learner and get married.

After he was married for three years, had undergone therapy, and presumably was clear of abusive behavior, the camp victim unexpectedly set him up on a sting phone call to implicate him to the police.

Baruch Hashem, this vindictive act did not result in jail time – although it just as well might have. Nevertheless, as the mother writes, the long-term repercussions were devastating. This is what she writes:

There are many kinds of prisons. I am very grateful that my son is not incarcerated in jail. Instead, he is confined in the prison of community condemnation, from which there seems to be no release and no statute of limitations. And he is not alone; my husband, my other children, and myself are confined along with him. Our sense of banishment from a community where we have lived a lifetime and the terrible repercussions we and our children have experienced is devastatingly painful.

Before I go on, I need to state that I have no knowledge of this event outside of this letter written by the boy’s mother. I cannot vouch that this story really happened, and that this writer is not a perverted sensationalist making up this whole thing. That said, it appears to be totally credible, and I did not notice any holes that indicate a hoax. I am assuming it is totally factual and am analyzing it accordingly.

So, let us reconstruct a timeline for this case as well.

1983 - Yisroel is born. It was a chaotic time for his parents.

1993 (Approximate) – Yisroel is abused by an older friend. The mother does not reveal when her son was abused nor for how long the abuse lasted. She does indicate that it happened before high school. I will make an arbitrary guess of him being about 10 years old and this brings us to 1993.

2002 – Yisroel is 19 years old and engages in sexual abuse against a younger camper in his care.

2005 – Yisroel is 22 years old and is immersed in Torah studies. He is three years past his indiscretion at camp. This is when the victim’s mother contacts Yisroel’s mother. The situation is dealt with in a responsible manner and Yisroel enters prolonged therapy.

2008 (Approximate) – Yisroel is 25 years old. He has been in therapy for four years. He meets a young lady, marries and settles down to a normal family life.  It seems like he continues therapy for at least another two years.

2011 – Yisroel is 28 years old. He has been happily married for three years. The former camper pulls the sting operation to get Yisroel in trouble with the law. He obviously did not do it for any personal compensation or to protect anyone. It was for no other reason than to vindictively get him into legal trouble.

2017 – Yisroel is now 34 years old and has been needlessly living a hellish life for the past six years. This is when his mother took the time and effort to write about it in the Jewish Press. She does not elaborate on how this saga affected his marriage or any other specifics. All she writes is, “Now, almost 15 years later, despite being ostracized, shunned, and losing everything, he is still trying to be a contributing member of our society.”

This story has all the trappings of the precise type of person not to report to police based on my guidelines and on just plain common sense. From all the cases, this is the only one in which the alleged perpetrator is confirmed to be himself a victim of sexual abuse. Hence, according to the prevailing viewpoint (which I do not share) that a victim is entitled to “victim sympathy” for eternity, it certainly applies to this person. According to my position that a victim is no longer a victim after the abuse ends – although the term “former victim” may be in order – then the person who mosered him had no grounds to do so.

Some may want to respond that normally a victim is entitled to overwhelming sympathy forever; but that’s only until he or she becomes an abuser. Whereupon, all the “victim sympathy” becomes invalid. In response to this, I refer my readers to my post about Victim Turned Predator. According to my post, the one who mosered him is also an abuser, just a different sort. This applies to any former victim who resorts to unwarranted methods to persecute (or prosecute) suspected molesters – even their own.

Thus, I believe that those who respond this way are displaying double standards.

In addition to the fact that he was abused, there is the second consideration that this person acted out during his adolescence when he had no kosher way to address his personal needs. In this vein, he is similar to the young abuser portrayed in the Amudim Shattered clip, which was Horseman number 1. Indeed, when I discussed Horseman 1, I put in an elaborate discussion on the “youth” angle with a reference to the quote and statistics from Rabbi Yehoshua Berman. He stated that in his experience, the clear majority of offenders are adolescents.

This seems odd. Let’s call the “adolescent” stage from 12-21. This is a ten-year spread. According to the prevailing “wisdom” that “once a molester, always a molester” we should expect to see at least three times as many molesters in the 22–51-year-old range. It’s three times bigger and should contain all the incurable molesters from the past three decades who obviously are still molesting.

The obvious answer, if there are markedly fewer molesters in the three-decade 22-51-year-old range, is that adolescent offenders tend to grow up, get a life and straighten out. This does not mean that they are not responsible for the damage they did in the past, but it certainly means that getting them in trouble with the police will not get anyone’s damage fixed. It will only cause more.

You don’t have to take all of this from me. Our Mother in Pain did her own research, and this is what she reports (added emphasis is mine -YH):

To a community of loving families, fear is understandably the ruling factor, but we need a fact-based understanding of the issue rather than allow panic to rule the conversation. The research data available to date, indicates that the prevailing belief that “once a sexual offender, always a sexual offender” is not true in the case of adolescents. Dr. Elizabeth Letourneau, Director of The Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins University and her colleagues conducted a survey of first-time sexual offenders which found that upwards of 90% adolescent offenders do not re-offend. A Justice Department report (2009) on adolescent offenders analyzed data from 29 states and found that contrary to popular belief, 85% to 95% of these juvenile offenders are not re-arrested for the same category of crime. Dr. Letourneau explained that the expansion of sexual offender laws to include children and adolescents is based on the assumption that adolescent offenders cannot be reformed, but subsequent research has shown this assumption to be false. Understanding, evaluating and punishing any crime involves many considerations, including the age of the perpetrator, the frequency of the crime, whether the offender sought help, expressed remorse, provided restitution, asked for forgiveness, ever committed the offence again or his likelihood of reoffending.

A third consideration in this particular case is, that in this case, we see clearly that the alleged offender did indeed for real get therapy, straightened out and took responsibility for his dark days. It’s not just speculation. And the alleged victim and his mother were certainly aware of this.

I must assume that the victim turned predator made the sting call with his mother’s blessing. Despite the cooperation from the offender and his family, they had no qualms about reporting this person to the police and turning his life and that of his totally innocent family members into purgatory.

What exactly did the mother of the subsequent victim accomplish with her initial contact? What was her objective? Was she acting upon any Rabbinical advice?

Of course, according to our timeline above, it seems that this grand mesira took place circa 2011, which is a solid four years before this Kol Koreh was published. Hence, it cannot be said that the Kol Koreh directly influenced this event. Yet, I can only wonder, what took the Mother in Pain until early 2017 to write a letter to the Jewish Press? The letter doesn’t tell us. Could it be that the Kol Koreh of 2015-16 unleashed all of this pain?

Even though it came out later, the Kol Koreh of 2015-16 indicates that, if the informer did it then, he would have the blessing of 108 Rabbanim, or 176 Rabbanim as of 2022, plus HRHG Rav Dovid Cohen and Reb Dovid Lichtenstein and of anyone who supports it from the outside.

It’s clear that this attitude is not productive and needs to stop. When the average person thinks with his or her emotions, it is the job of our Rabbanim and community leaders to think with their heads.

What will it take? How many other mothers in pain are out there?

How many does there have to be?

 

Conclusion

As I stated throughout this series, the Four Horsemen are four types of situations where most rational people will agree that it is ill-advised to report to civil law enforcement as a first course of action.

While there are doubtless similarities between some of the cases, each case has something unique about it. In fact, I presented the four cases in a fixed order based on urgency. As follows:

Horseman 1 – Shattered – The alleged offender is currently menacing the victim. This cannot be ignored. It is imperative to deal with the offender. Even so, civil authorities are not the proper address.

Horseman 2 – Rav Ratzon Arussi – On one hand, the alleged offense was a one-time event that happened months before. On the other hand, there is no indication that the offender will not menace other people since he was never exposed. It is questionable whether to deal with the offender.

Horseman 3 – Malka Leifer – Here, as well, the alleged offense is a thing of the past. In addition, the accusations against the offender are already known and the alleged offender is banished from where it took place. The accusations and public exposure can serve as a warning to other people. Therefore, it is unnecessary to deal with the offender.

Horseman 4 – The Mother in Pain – The alleged offense is likewise a thing of the past. Moreover, there is every reason to assume that the offender will not re-offend. Hence, it is truly forbidden to deal with the offender.

I guess it goes from bad to worse.

When the initial printing of this Kol Koreh came out, I contacted one signatory who I am friendly with and asked him his reasons for signing. I reported it at that time (see HERE). As reported, one reason was: Too many predators are just getting away scot-free because they do not fear being turned over to the police.

My response was that even though there is some sense to that, it still has to be done properly. Interestingly, Rambam, in Sefer HaMitzvos (Frankel edition) Lo Taaseh 290 on the pasuk ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג (Shmos 23:7) writes the following:

ולזכות אלף חוטאים יותר טוב ונכסף מהרוג זכאי אחד יום אחד

It is better and more desired to exonerate 1000 sinners than to execute a single innocent man on any given day.

The wisest of all men wrote (Koheles 3:3) that “There is a time to kill [other people] and a time to heal [other people]”. There are certainly many ways to interpret this. In a simple sense, if the other person is a lethal threat, the time is right to kill him. But if the other person is only broken, it is time to heal him.

But we can take this a step further. It depends on how you relate to the other person. How connected you are. Is he or she some kind of foreign alien that you have nothing to do with, or are they some kind of “family member” that is in some way your flesh and blood?

If they are a foreign alien, it is easier to just kill them and not to heal them. But if they are one of your family, one of your community, one of your people, then, if you kill them, you are killing part of yourself. And if you heal them, you are healing part of yourself.

A wise person always knows what time it is.

Loose Lips Sink Ships

 

It’s been a week since the Israeli elections and it’s time to move forward. In general, virtually all of the religious Jews in Eretz Yisrael are pleased with the results. As it stands, all of us won.

In my previous post, I took exception to the way certain prominent members of the Degel HaTorah camp were carrying on. I called it totally inappropriate for the Torah elite and that I cannot join forces with this kind of conduct, so I needed to distance myself from it. I wrote that I am going to vote for Shas, and I did (as did my eishes chayil).

The only commenter I had on the last post enlightened me that, just a few months earlier, the leaders of Shas also publicly expressed the Lashon Hara or Motzi Shem Ra – depending on one’s hashkafa – that I was protesting against. I responded that I didn’t know this, and I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I had. It seems like in this country there is always some reason to hold a grudge against everyone.

Now that the elections are over, and I can truly hope that this will bring us to a stable and rational government that will endure an entire term, and that there won’t be another election anytime soon, I hope we can put our grudges aside.

I don’t regret what I posted and don’t retract what I posted, but since, whether rightly or wrongly, it ultimately tarnishes the image of Degel HaTorah and the Yeshiva world and at least one prominent Rosh Yeshiva, it is not worth keeping up.

Despite the fact that I “abandoned ship” on Degel HaTorah for this election, I am very happy for the seven seats they got and would have been even happier to see them get an eighth seat, which they almost did.

I read in one report that they lost that eighth seat by a mere 990 votes. Just a bit less than 1000. As I wrote, they certainly lost at least two of those votes from me and perhaps some other members of my immediate family. I think I can state that I am not the only person who got turned off and alienated from the harsh negative advertising of the Rosh Yeshiva, Shlita. Plus, I always stumble upon people who have other reasons to hold grudges. Sometimes those other reasons are borderline and then something like this just nails the coffin.

The point I am trying to make is that, aside from Torah guidance and inspiration from our leaders and Roshei Yeshiva, we also like to see wisdom, foresight, and good “business acumen”. Straight thinking and common sense.

So, the question looms, who was this Rosh Yeshiva addressing and what was he trying to accomplish? It seems that he thought he was talking to the Yeshiva students who have been won over by Otzma’s political message and had decided to vote for them. He was trying to win them back.

How? By "upgrading" a safek lahv to a safek Kares? By employing religious scare tactics about losing olam haba just because one votes for Otzma?

How many of those people fell for that? How many changed their minds? How many even heard what he said?

Ironically, I think that those who were linked to the news media outlets and heard there what he said, were mostly disillusioned from these tactics. I know I was, and I can’t be the only one.

All told, I don’t think he gained anyone back and he certainly alienated quite a number of those who otherwise would have been loyal to Gimmel.

How many voters was it? Two? Ten? 100? 990? More?

We’ll never know, but if anything, this outburst may have cost UTJ their eighth seat. Only 990 votes. If not all of that, it certainly contributed to this loss.

And if the entire right-wing majority would have been standing on just one seat, and didn’t make it because of the 990 votes, what a disaster!

I don’t even want to think of it.

I am removing my previous post, but I meant what I wrote. There are lessons to be learned here. And some of these lessons need to be learned even by Gedolei Yisrael.

Sinas chinam will ruin us and must be avoided at all costs. Those who think they’ll gain from it will be the biggest losers, and they can sink the entire ship along with them.

כלנו בני איש אחד נחנו, כנים אנחנו

As Elon Musk said, “Let that sink in”…

...before we’re all sunk.

Color Wars in our Camps – Sadly, I Must Protest

The contents of this post have been removed.

For more details, see the ensuing post: 

Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta: Loose Lips Sink Ships 

Parshas Breishis: In His Likeness and Image - A Challenge for Shlomo Hamelech

 

    ויחי אדם שלשים ומאת שנה ויולד בדמותו כצלמו ויקרא את שמו שת    

And Adam was 130 years old and he fathered in his likeness and according to his image.

Parshas Breishis teaches us the “way of the world”. How the world was created, how mankind was created, and how we are meant to replicate ourselves.

The Navi (Yeshaya 45:18) tells us that a primary mission of creation was for all mankind to reproduce.

כי כה אמר ה' בורא השמים הוא הא-להים יצר הארץ ועשה הוא כוננה לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה

For so says Hashem who created the skies, He is the G-d who formed the earth and made it, He established it - He did not create it to be desolate, He formed it to be inhabited.

And we all learn, some way or another, that there is a very natural way to accomplish this mission.

והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו ותהר ותלד את קין 

And the Adam knew (was intimate) with his wife Chava and she became pregnant and gave birth to Kayin.

This two-makes-three system is a total marvel. So much so that I see it as absolute proof that G-d created the world. How could such a complex multi-faceted system evolve by “accident”?

As an aside, for decades, I have been continuously perplexed about how evolutionists can even begin to explain this phenomenon. I Googled it up now (and I have done it several times in the past), and I still can’t get any clear answers. There is talk about why sexual reproduction is beneficial and when it originated (about two billion years ago) but every serious site seems to dance around the subject of how it originated.

One site seems to portray a very objective essay on this question. You can see it HERE. The following excerpts are the main points from the Conclusion:

Darwinists are no closer to solving the origin-of-sex problem today than they were in Darwin’s day. The advantages of sexual reproduction are well-known, and include the production of enormous genetic variety compared to asexual reproduction...

 

Theory aside, sexual reproduction is almost universal in the higher plant and animal world, even if evolution cannot explain it in Darwinian terms. This serious gap in evolution was largely ignored by Darwin, and by most evolutionists today, because they have not been able to propose even plausible “just-so” stories to explain the evolution of sex. Like many difficult evolutionary questions, the best strategy is to ignore the entire problem, which is what evolutionists have done. ... The problem of how reproduction occurred before both systems were evolved concurrently has never been answered.

 

The peer-reviewed literature effectively documents the fact that the evolution of sexual reproduction is a major unsolved, and unsolvable, problem for evolution. The former editor of Nature, John Maddox, writing about the question of when and how sexual reproduction evolved, stated that “Despite decades of speculation, we do not know” how sexual reproduction evolved (Maddox 1998, 252). This classic study of the origins of sex concluded, “how or why sex [evolved] is a deep mystery” (Judson 2002). As Professor van Rossum has concluded, “a salient characteristic of living beings, sexual reproduction, defies Darwinism, and [is] not based on an improbability, but on an impossibility of explanation” (van Rossum 2014, back cover). The fact is, evolutionists admit that they are perplexed about the whole question of [origin of] sex (Eckholm 1986, Section C, 1).

So we have a marvelous system of reproduction. But it doesn’t only get us here. It also gives us families and “clans” together with family identities and family traits. It let’s us know who we are and what our outstanding traits are as well as our vulnerabilities. We call this ethnicity. We also call it genetics.

The Torah calls this בדמותו וכצלמו  - in their likeness and according to their image.

Along with this ethnicity, it gives us a sense of belonging. As we say, “Blood is thicker than water” or “We can pick our friends and we can pick our enemies, but we can’t pick our relatives”. Another related maxim is, “Home is the place where they have to let you in.” I, you, or he is a descendant of this or that ancestor. We are one of the bunch, a MOT (member of the tribe), blood relatives. Nobody can change this.

It’s in our genes.

Along with this comes the motherly instinct and maternal love. When a woman carries a fetus in her body throughout gestation, she is naturally bonded to whatever comes out. No matter what.

This is the upshot of natural, biological reproduction; and this is how it was meant to be. And this is what all of us want. We do not only want offspring, but we want our offspring to be like us – in our likeness and according to our image. We want them to carry our genes.

Most of us are blessed to be able to reproduce naturally without much effort and without any intervention. Sadly, there are a select few who are not so fortunate. For this group, the road to reproduction may be long, arduous, emotionally draining and prohibitively expensive.

For some, any type of natural reproduction is virtually impossible. If they still want to be parents, their only option is to adopt or foster children born of others. They can be parents and have quasi-offspring. But they will not be in their likeness and according to their image.

Others suffer from conditions that make conception or gestation difficult but are still able to reproduce with the help of modern medical intervention. If things work out, they can have the natural genetic offspring that everyone wants.

A common and widely practiced method of medical intervention is to combine the actual seed from the male and female in a laboratory procedure and induce conception outside of the womb. When successful, an embryo develops and is reimplanted inside a willing female. This is known as in-vitro fertilization or IVF.

Many married couples resort to this method wherein the female seed (egg) is extracted from the actual wife and the male seed is extracted from the actual husband. The resulting embryo is a true genetic biological offspring of this very couple with all the requisite likeness and image and ethnicity. Typically, all parties are overjoyed and continue life as any natural family. Also, although there may me some collateral Halachic questions when Jewish people need to do it, the technique itself involving the actual seed from a kosher Jewish husband and wife for their own use is not a question at all. It is a blessed undertaking.

It doesn’t always happen that way.

We all know that, medically, it is not necessary for the woman seed to come from the actual wife nor the male seed to come from the actual husband. Medically, any viable woman seed and any viable male seed will do the trick. Indeed, for many couples, there can only be successful IVF if the seed of one or parties is obtained from an outside source. Any non-Jews and irreligious Jews go this route. For us Torah observant Jews, it opens up a big slew of Halachic issues.

The primary issue is in a case where the male seed comes from an outside source if such a thing can me permitted at all. Can a married Jewish woman knowingly artificially implant the seed (or an embryo seeded) by another man?

But even if the embryo is the husband’s seed and another woman’s egg, or if it was the seed of another man and was implanted nevertheless, there are a myriad of Halachic concerns. I voiced these concerns in one of my previous posts about the subject of DNA testing for mamzeirus. What is this baby’s status for geirus, kahuna, yichus (mamzeirus), mitzvos Kibud Av v’Em, yerusha, yibum and chalitza, bechorah, and more.

All of the above relates to a couple that knowingly implanted such an embryo with the blessings of the relevant outside donors – who are usually totally detached from a relationship with this offspring. But what if the IVF from outside sources was a mistake? What if this couple successfully created an embryo from their own seed but the wife was implanted with a different one from another couple who did the same? 

 

Who gets custody of the baby?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-orders-genetic-test-to-identify-biological-parents-in-embryo-mix-up/

Apparently, this is exactly what happened here in Assuta Hospital about eight months ago. The wife of a couple who seemingly had a viable IVF embryo of their own was mistakenly implanted with an embryo that was not theirs. So far, it hasn’t been pinpointed to whom the embryo belongs, but it seems to have been confirmed that it was not that of this couple.

This means it is the genetic biological issue, and the likeness and image of other people. Yet this woman is carrying it and will, IYH, give birth to it. Very soon.

Who are the true parents of this child? Who gets to keep the baby? (Note – we are talking about conceptionally challenged couples who invest much blood, sweat, tears, prayers, and probably a ton of money into their treatments.)

This question will certainly be looked at from a legal perspective. The article states that the pregnant “mother” has thus far refused to have the fetus genetically tested and has no intention of relinquishing custody to anybody else without a court battle. No telling where this one will go in Israeli court.

The important thing is that, at long last, the Israeli court indeed ordered a genetic test. Personally, I think this is the right move.

Of course, my mandate is to look at this from a Halachic perspective. If this would go to a Beis Din (note- I have no idea if either of the couples are religious or even Jewish), who would Beis Din give custody to?

I think this is a tough one that would even perplex Shlomo Hamelech. The old wave the sword trick isn’t going to work here. And duct tape won’t fix it either.

On the one hand, as I wrote in my previous series, Beis Din is not too keen on letting genetic testing establish Halachic status over the basic guidelines we have employed for generations when such testing wasn’t available. Of course, in those generations, IVF wasn’t available either. As such, many opinions will say that the mother who carried and birthed the baby is the halachic mother, at least for geirus purposes, and consequently should be entitled to keep the baby.

I believe there are other Halachic opinions on this, as well.

The bigger question is, would Beis Din be agreeable to undergoing genetic testing at all?

They almost never allow it in a case of potential mamzeirus, but if we are dealing with two properly married couples, the issue of potential mamzeirus should be off the table (I think). If so, why not allow genetic testing?

What does genetic testing establish anyway in Halacha? Would the results be considered eidus? Umdenah d’mukchach? Raglayim l’davar?

Another interesting question. The only thing that is established is that this embryo did not issue from this couple. They are [currently] “benefiting” from an embryo paid for and produced by another couple. Assuming that we know who the other couple is, are they not obligated to cover the expenses put out by the other couple?

I certainly believe they are. See Choshen Mishpat 375.

Would a genetic test that identifies the real biological parents be sufficient to enforce this claim?

If so, is it fair for the couple to withhold genetic testing in order to evade this obligation?

To resolve these questions, let’s look at how this problem is being handled in court. I know nothing about the details of the court order and what the arguments were that made it take until now (the baby is almost due) nor of the court's considerations in its ruling. But I do know this. In Israeli court, one factor overrides all other factors in child custody disputes: What is the best interest of the child.

The secular world does not recognize biological parents. There are only “legal” parents. However, in most normal cases, the biological parents are the legal parents. Where some other people are designated as the “legal” parents for whatever reason, they have all the trappings of parents and the biological parents are out. As such, the issues of yerusha, bechora, Kibbud Av V’Em and yibum are non-issues to them.

Left to this alone, the courts may feel it is best for the kid just to stay where he is.

On the other hand, the courts don’t have the rules of eidus and motzi m’chaveiro alav haraya (burden of proof) like we have in Beis Din. To them, genetic testing is eidus gamur and if a couple who is very likely to be the real parents want to sue for monetary damages, they can win with genetic testing or circumstantial proof that the child is theirs. Thus, if another couple, or a group of couples, demand them to undergo genetic testing for this purpose and, since this is not a question of mamzeirus, the court will not seek approval from the Rabbinate.

If another couple is positively identified as the true biological parents, then the court should be practical and use common sense (though I wouldn’t bet on it).

In this case, the biological parents who are positively identified will not be quiet. They will make noise and court cases and demand a part in this child’s life. And, as being the true parents who invested so much to have their own child, they will never give up. Ever. This child is in their likeness and according to their image.

We can assume that every child truly wants and deserves to be raised by his biological parents and to be a part of his clan and to interact with his blood relatives. The child in this case will certainly be aware that there was a mixup at the lab and he was implanted into his non-biological mother. He will also know that his biological parents want him and always wanted him and fought for him and they were denied the opportunity to raise him.

This is the worst thing that can ever happen as a child. Personally, I see this as a recipe for long-term emotional trauma which can lead to a dysfunctional life at best and depression and suicide, at worst.

All this is in a case where the biological parents can be positively identified. And, especially in the courts, they can certainly be positively identified with a genetic test.

In the current story the birth mother was refusing, and the court has just now ordered it. The court may have asked itself - Is it fair to the child to withhold genetic testing from him/her and deny him/her a relationship with his/her biological parents, extended family, and not to be aware of his heritage and family medical conditions when necessary?

Let’s just go one step further. It is a sure thing that at some point in the future, the kid will discover that his parents are not his biological parents. He will grow to be an adult and, faced with uncertainty in his life, the odds are that he will all on his own take a genetic test to find out the truth.

What happens then?

Clearly, at least from the perspective of the court, it is in the best interest of the child to be genetically tested so that he /she may know the truth. He is certainly entitled to it.

Yet, after all of this, it only makes sense for the court to order the testing if they are inclined to grant custody to the biological parent. My prediction is that this is what will ultimately happen.

So, let’s get back to Beis Din. What would happen there?

Now that I come to think of it, maybe Shlomo Hamelech can guide us in this case. Without a sword.

Firstly, Shlomo did not open up a Choshen Mishpat and preach about  המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה. There are some cases that need to be determined by a  לב שומע, לשפוט את-עמך, להבין, בין-טוב לרע

The “birth” mother is refusing to undergo genetic testing because she wants to keep the child. Not because this is really what is best for the child. My guess is that if she were that child, she, like most children, would want to grow up with her biological family. I know I would.

Hence, she wants what is best for her. Not what is best for the child. She is a selfish person not a selfless one. She is just like the mother who switched babies in the case of Shlomo Hamelech.

Shlomo Hamelech did not only grant the child to the second woman. He also declared “She is his mother”. We understand this to be extra words with additional meaning.

What did he mean?

Firstly, there is a known Midrash that says that Shlomo didn’t really say it. He only granted the baby and it was a heavenly voice – bas kol – that proclaimed “She is his mother” to confirm his judgement as accurate.

But, if we look at the simple text, that Shlomo HaMelech said it, what was he trying to say?

What he was saying is that she was capable of being his mother. She showed the attributes of a mother that qualified her for the job even if the baby wasn’t really hers. Conversely, the other claimant clearly did not want what was best for the child and, as such, wasn’t even qualified to be anybody’s mother.

I see the same behavior here. As distressing as it is for a woman to relinquish a child that she carried, it probably no more distressing than being guilty of killing one’s own child as was the case by Shlomo. Yet, a true mother must be capable of overcoming her distress for the benefit of the child.

Once we understand all this, I think that if this case would reach the Rabbinate, Beis Din should take all this into consideration and do what is best for the child. I believe they should approve a genetic test before the child grows up and does it himself. The results would be no less than an umdenah d’mukchach. The true parents should get custody of the child and the birth mother honorable mention.  

There is a reason why HKBH created man to reproduce in their likeness and according to their image. Blood is thicker than water.

It’s part of the gene pool.

 

Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh 3 – The Malka Leifer Debacle

 

Author's note - This post is the continuation on the series about The Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse. If you are not up to date on the topic, please see the opening post HERE, the Interlude post HERE and the previous post HERE.

 

 

Onward with the Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse.

So far, we discussed Horsemen 1 and 2. We will now embark upon Horsemen 3 and 4. All the Horsemen have a primary common denominator. In all the cases, it figures that to take the case directly to the law enforcement authorities is bound be counterproductive. That said, there are some important factors that distinguish the first two types, Horsemen 1 and 2, from the second two types, Horsemen 3 and 4.

The first distinction is merely technical.

The first two Horsemen are fictitious. They are dramatizations of scenarios that frequently occur in real life in various ways; nevertheless, the specific scenarios that were portrayed did not actually occur. As such, there is no way to tell how they were actually handled, since they weren’t handled, and what were the short-term and long-term results. They are not real events, so we can’t know how they really panned out. We can’t know who benefited and who “lost”.

Also, without real live occurrences, I cannot conclusively “prove my case”.

Conversely, the second two Horsemen are real-life events. And because they each really happened, we can take stock. In both cases, the alleged victims filed police reports. To the best of my knowledge, in neither of the cases did the complainant seek out objective Rabbinical advice before filing the complaints. Of the two cases, one ended in unmitigated disaster. For the other, the jury is still out, literally, but it isn’t going anywhere it should; I can tell you that.

A second major distinction is that the first two Horsemen portrayed situations where, arguably, mesira to authorities could be Halachically sanctioned. The first Horseman, the Shattered video from Amudim, was a clearer case of an active threat and one who could be considered a rodef and, theoretically, a “911 situation”. The second Horseman also indicates one who can be deemed as an active threat to the community under the banner of meitzar ess harabim, i.e., a Chaim Walder or Meshi-Zahav in the making. These types of cases may have Halachic support.

Even so, we determined that the conventional wisdom would be to refrain from running immediately to the police in each of the cases, as 21 out of 27 Rabbanim have told us.   

The second two Horsemen are both real-life cases where it clearly wasn’t a “911 situation” by any stretch. At the time of reporting to authorities, they were both events of several years in the past. Whatever claim of rodef or meitzar ess harabim that might have been made at show-time was long gone and there definitely were not enough grounds to assume them to be still in effect.

Although it could readily be said that this Kol Koreh wasn’t targeting these cases, it is hard to say that it did not influence what happened.

So, let’s now discuss these two Horsemen. We will resume with Horseman #3, the case of Malka Leifer.

Certainly, anyone who has followed my blog from June 2016 until early 2021 knows the basic details of the saga, as well as my position. For those who are clueless or would like to review it, the story is told in detail HERE. As a public service, I will reprint the basic timeline from this Dec. 2017 article:

2001: Israeli teacher Malka Leifer arrives at the Adass Israel girls school in Melbourne's south-east. The following year she is appointed principal.

 

March 2008: The school is alerted to sexual abuse allegations against Leifer by a social worker who Dassi Erlich has been seeing for treatment. The Adass community allegedly pays for Leifer and her family to flee Australia.

 

2011: Elly Sapper gives a statement to Victoria Police regarding allegations of sexual abuse by Leifer. Her sisters make statements shortly afterwards.

 

2014: Sapper receives a confidential out-of-court settlement after suing for damages. Victoria Police announce that Leifer is wanted on 74 charges of sexual assault and rape relating to girls who attended the Adass Israel school. Leifer is placed under house arrest in Israel as extradition proceedings begin.

 

2015: Erlich endures a two-week trial in the Supreme Court, after the school refuses to settle out of court. She receives a record $1 million payout for damages.

 

March 2017: Erlich launches her #BringLeiferBack campaign, an effort to pressure the Israeli and Australian governments over the extradition.

 

August 2017: Nicole Meyer is awarded a confidential out-of-court settlement for damages.

This timeline gives us some critical details. It says that Mrs. Leifer was accused and expelled from Australia in March 2008. After she had been gone from Australia for a full three years, and had totally ceased being any kind of threat, rodef, meitzar ess harabim or anything of the kind to anybody in Australia, the three accusers instigated an indictment in Australia.

Why?

It was so that she can be punished in Australia by the Australian goyim.

The timeline also says that all three sisters sued the Adass school and received judgements or settlements. In short, they all received financial compensation. Thus, they cannot claim they are seeking justice for their injuries. That claim already went to civil court and they have been financially compensated. Consequently, as of then, all they want is vengeance at the hands of goyim.

In February of 2018, Mrs. Leifer was re-arrested in Israel and held in an Israeli prison for three years. At the end of 2020, Israeli Judge Chana Lomp finally ruled that Mrs. Leifer can be extradited back to Australia. The extradition was carried out in January 2021.

Since that time, Mrs. Leifer has been incarcerated in Australia. There were some preliminary hearings in September 2021 and again in March of 2022, but the main trial was set to take place beginning August 1, 2022. It was expected to last five weeks. This was initially pushed off two days and then until August 22. Nothing seemed to happen even then, and on Sept. 12, it was announced that the trial will actually commence on February 7, 2023.

Don’t hold your breath.

We are now up to date.

I’ve been writing about this case since June of 2016 when Dassi Erlich and her supporters posted petitions by which to involve the unwitting public. My goals at that time were to educate the Orthodox world that extraditing any Jewish person from Eretz Israel is a strict Torah prohibition. This was in the hope that the Orthodox world would desist from voicing their support and perhaps the accusers themselves will come to their senses and desist from this colossal Chillul Hashem.

Here is a short list from among the numerous posts I have written which explain in detail what is wrong here:

Thinking Like a Jew - The Halachic premise for my position. The “moral compass”.

There is No Ex-Tradition in our Tradition – The keynote post that says it all.

Victim Turned Predator – As it sounds.

Judging the Judges Part 2 – Understanding the backgrounds of the accused.

Flirting with Danger – Where this is all leading us to.

Dassi’s Lament – What does HKBH think of all this?

By Your Hand - TheSin of Nov – What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

EinMerachamim B’Din – Why not to apologize.

Revisiting Kamtza and Bar Kamtza – Sinas chinam in our time.

As a public service once again, I will reprint the main points that were listed in the Flirting with Danger post which make this campaign illegitimate:

1. It has not been established on Halachic grounds that Mrs. Leifer is guilty of anything. There was no confession and there is even no evidence that there was a crime. Note that not one of her accusers reported an assault, not to the school and not to the authorities, at the time that it allegedly happened. And they were all capable of doing so.

 

2.   Even if she is guilty of what she is being accused of, the activities are not felonious by Torah standards and don’t call for any extreme penalties. Not even judicial flogging. Claims of emotional and psychological injury to the victims are only personal injury claims and are monetary and not criminal.

 

3.   It is strictly forbidden to turn over any Jew to secular authorities for punishment that is not called for in Torah law. This is called mesira and is one of the gravest offenses possible. How much more so if no guilt or crime has been established.

 

4.   Transporting a person away from his home for enslavement or imprisonment when not sanctioned by the Torah is called Gonev Ish U’Mecharo and is a capital crime.

 

5.   There can be dispensations to the above two Halachos in the case of one who is currently and actively endangering others (rodef). Yosef’s brothers [mistakenly] thought so about him. [Un]fortunately, in our case, there is no situation of rodef currently in effect.

 

6.   Even in a case where mesira and or imprisonment could be justified, there is an independent prohibition of transporting the subject outside of Eretz Yisroel. This is extrapolated from the Halacha of the eved canaani in Yoreh Deah 267:85. (Note this is an extension of clause 267:84 which tells us that this prohibition applies in our day and age).

 

All of this does not add up to a pretty picture. And when you add to all this that the efforts to violate the Halacha with this extradition campaign and all the publicity that it generates is causing a colossal chillul Hashem, R”L, it doesn’t really make this campaign look like a good idea.

 

These are not “Halachic assertions”. They are basic Halacha. There is no room for debate.

 

It is sad to see misguided advocates and Rabbinical councils misuse their prestige and stature to fundamentally flaw the primacy of Halacha in the eyes of the Jewish consumer.

 

Indeed, I noted in my previous post when I referred to the Chaim Walder and Meshi-Zahav cases, that Mrs. Leifer cannot be compared to them for at least three reasons. According to the above list, there are at least four. Point 1 says that there is no proof of guilt. Point 2 says that this is not a case of sexual offense by Torah standards. Point 5 says that there is no situation of rodef nor meitzar ess harabbim, certainly in Australia where the mesira took place. And point 6 says that we are talking about extraditing a Jew out of Eretz Yisrael and this is forbidden in itself.

Now, I did note in some posts that if one could genuinely determine that Mrs. Leifer is an active threat in Eretz Yisrael, there may be a hetter to approach law enforcement here in Eretz Yisrael. Not only wasn’t this done, but ironically, Shana Aaronson and her [then] JCW staff spent thousands of shekels of their donors’ money to have Mrs. Leifer followed and tracked for 200 hours by a private investigator. While the investigator was able to substantiate that Mrs. Leifer is not psychotic and can function as a normal human being, he did not manage to capture a single minute of molestation.

I want to dwell for a moment on Point 2 from the 6 points of the Flirting with Danger post. This is the one that says that her offense, even as accused by her accusers, do not meet the standards of sexual assault by Torah standards. I explained this clearly in my preliminary post about Thinking Like a Jew that any activity that does not involve an adult male, human or animal, is not an act of giluy arayos (sex). Two women cannot engage in sex.

In today’s Western, woke, egalitarian world, this is not acknowledged. They can’t even define a woman. But we must behave in accordance to the standards of our Torah. As such, it is worthwhile re-examining HRHG Rav Elyashiv’s directives on handling these cases as he wrote to HRHG Rav Feivel Cohen, Shlita.

In his first letter, Rav Elyashiv mentioned the basic rule that for anybody (presumably except for the victim him or herself) to get involved in support of prosecuting a suspected Jewish miscreant, there needs to be firm evidence of the perpetrator’s guilt at the level of umdenah d’mukchach (irrefutable circumstantial evidence. Note- some want to nitpick on the language that implies that a lesser level, raglayim l’davar, is sufficient. Regardless, both umdenah d’mukchach and raglayim l’davar refer to indications that come from sources outside the sole testimony of the accuser. When all we have is the testimony of the accuser which is compromised by being a nogeah b’eidusan, as in this case, then there is not enough neemanus even to establish a raglayim l’davar).

In the second letter, he wrote two more stipulations. One is what I have repeatably written that each specific case must be vetted out by a qualified Talmid Chacham. Yet, in that letter there is a second stipulation which all parties overlook and, thus far, I haven’t quoted it either. In his letter he writes:

גם יש לשקול בגדר של ההתעוללות שבהשקפה שלהם היא אחרת לגמרי משלנו.

It is likewise necessary to assess the definition of abuse which, in their viewpoint, is totally different than ours.

As Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, so keenly writes, the non-Jews have different definitions of “sexual abuse” than we do. We are not allowed to prosecute our own people by their definitions.

This sentiment, which is clear daas Toras, is not original. This was clearly stated in the Chofetz Chaim’s Hilchos Lashon Hara in Klal 10:2 where he lists the conditions that are required for reporting one to civil authorities. As condition number 7, he states that it is imperative that this report to authorities does not bring about any type of repercussion more severe than if this same infraction were reported to a Beis Din at the height of its power.

In other words, if this is an infraction which at most would incur makos d’rabbanan (judicial flogging, usually only carried out after a warning was ignored) in Beis Din, and one is now subjecting the subject to long-term imprisonment at the hands of the non-Jews, this is out of the question.

In addition to all the above, I want to point out that the Malka Leifer case does not involve small children, but rather older teens who actually extended into legal adulthood. By our torah standards, the “age of consent” for a girl starts at 12. This is basically the same age that the perverts of the western world want to allow people to decide for themselves that they are eligible for transgender surgery.

Whether the accused took advantage of their vulnerabilities or not, nobody was actually forced into anything. Despite the denials of the accusers, there were plenty of people at the school to complain to in real time. The proof is that these are the same people they later sued in civil court for being responsible for their ordeals.

What is even more astounding is that the youngest of the three sisters, Elly Sapper, admitted in this article that she ignored her older sisters’ advice and voluntarily went to Mrs. Leifer in full knowledge of what was in store. And, yes, this very sister, Elly Sapper, who voluntarily approached Mrs. Leifer, was actually the first of the three sisters to file a complaint to the Australian police (see timeline above), and as such, she is the one who initiated the illegitimate indictment.

All the above teaches us that the Malka Leifer episode does not meet the standards that can be justified with this appalling Kol Koreh. Of course, here again, the promoters can claim that the Kol Koreh has nothing to do with the Malka Leifer episode. After all, the Kol Koreh was written in 2015 and the Mrs. Leifer was reported to the Australian police back in 2011. That’s four years earlier.  Did the Kol Koreh have any influence in the Malka Leifer saga?

I believe so.

For one thing, although there was only sparse coverage of the case over the first six years (2008-2014), it was only in 2016 which was a half year after the Kol Koreh, that the supporters posted the petitions with which to draw in the general public. The Halachically illegitimate petitions had overwhelming success as I reported in some of my posts. I believe that the Kol Koreh contributed to this to a large extent.

Sure, one could claim that those who signed the petitions are the non-chareidi Westernized consumerist Jews who do not incorporate daas Torah into their decision-making. They are those who don’t even read Mishpacha magazine and do not need their imprimatur to sign petitions like these. But did it influence the chareidi world?

I am not sure how directly, but I do know that the universal plague of automatic presumption of guilt which is strongly promoted by this Kol Koreh has poisoned the chareidi mind no less.

I think that this is evidenced by the way R. Dovid Lichtenstein carried the story in his Headlines radio program on Sept. 23, 2017. In the part of his program where he interviewed Dassi Erlich, he presented her claims as undisputed fact. He didn’t say, “We’re going to hear from a girl in Australia who claims she was molested by Malka Leifer…” but rather, “We’re going to hear from a girl in Australia who was molested by Malka Leifer…”. He is so positive about it that he feels justified to tack on the epithet שם רשעים ירקב in regard to Mrs. Leifer not once, but twice. On air!

Reb Lichtenstein does not question her narrative in any way, nor does he claim that he even made any attempt to contact Mrs. Leifer or anyone on her behalf to see if there is another version of the story. To him, the accuser’s story is automatically all true, no questions asked, and the accused is automatically a שם רשעים ירקב!

What is so disturbing is that it is very clear that Reb Dovid Lichtenstein is familiar with the teshuvos of HRHG Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, to Rav Feivel Cohen, Shlita since he discussed them on air in his interview with HRHG Rav Nachum Eisenstein, Shlita, on Jan. 23, 2016. The Malka Leifer case does not have umdenah d’mukchach and it does not even have a raglayim l’davar if all we have is the accuser’s testimony, it does not follow the Torah’s definitions of abuse, and it was not vetted out by any qualified Rabbanim prior to being reported in Australia. Incidentally, the definition of qualified Rav is one who knows the other two stipulations put out by Rav Elyashiv as well as the conditions of the Chofetz Chaim.

On top of this, in her interview, Ms. Erlich duly noted how her experiences made her question her religion. Not once did she mention consulting with any Rabbinic authority – qualified or not – before she, or her younger sister who is also irreligious, were moser Mrs. Leifer in Australia. No question there was no Beis Din that heard the case and sanctioned this mesira.

Dovid Lichtenstein’s self-imposed mandate is to explain and promote the Halacha, not to abrogate it. Even if her story has important lessons, I think it is disgraceful for him to proffer any type of support to an irreligious aggressor who is clearly not acting within darchei Torah. But I suppose, the flawed Kol Koreh and the other flawed sources that he quoted on his program gives him the “justification” that he wants.

The last issue to analyze in this case is, once we are dealing with a real-life occurrence, what kind of damage has it really done?

Before we take it on, we need to revisit the words of the Chofetz Chaim in Hilchos Shmiras Halashon 10:2 condition 7 (noted above) that it is imperative that this report to authorities does not bring about any type of repercussion more severe than if this same infraction were reported to a Beis Din.

We noted that one who is caught engaging in illicit female to female activities is first warned to desist, nothing more. If the warning is violated, there are makos d’rabbanan. This is carried out at the local Beis Din (בכל שעריך), after which the miscreant is sent back home to family life.

Halachic judicial punishments do not incarcerate people. They do not break up families and they do not send people to other localities and most certainly to outside of Eretz Yisrael to the hands of non-Jews. They are meant to discipline but not to destroy, to chasten people while preserving their lives and dignity and general well-being.

And all this is strictly when the punishments are warranted.

Not so here. We see with our eyes the alleged miscreant hounded, shamed, tormented and literally destroyed, kidnapped from home, sent out of Eretz Yisrael, incarcerated among the non-Jews and deprived of a life. Her family is forcibly broken up. Loss of any kind of parnassah and tons of legal expenses on all sides that do nothing but make lawyers rich.

None of this is sanctioned by the Torah or any Halacha. There is no rodef. There is no meitzar ess harabim. There was no Din Torah. And there is no justification for extradition even if the previous factors were in effect. There is no excuse for this damage.

As for the accusers, even if there is no social or financial damage to themselves (and I suspect there is plenty), by walking into the police station in Victoria to moser a person who left the country three years prior, and more so by actually bringing her back, they have entwined her into their personal lives in ways that can never be undone. The extradition and subsequent trial are dragging on and on and on. The accusers will be picked apart by the defense team and any dirty laundry that can be found will be put on display. If they get their conviction, they will have to live with the fallout of their unjustified mesira for the rest of their lives. If they don’t get their conviction, they will probably need to pay for it.

There is also damage to the supporters on both sides of the aisle. Jewish Community Watch (JCW) is now totally defunct. Both JCW and Shana Aaronson are in the hot seat for lawsuits if the accused is acquitted.

On the other side of the aisle, people who stood up for due process of law, for basic compassion, and for the kavod of Torah and Halacha and kedushas Eretz Yisrael, and who were basically doing their moral and civic duties, were publicly defamed and maligned. This includes Mrs. Leifer’s legal team, Rav Yitzchak Grossman, Rav Mendel Shafran, Rav Yaakov Litzman and even yours truly.

Worst of all, all this has resulted in a horrific Chillul Hashem and bizayon Hatorah. The Satan is laughing and the Shechina is crying.

And the most horrifying thing is that most people I hear from are celebrating this wreckage and rooting for it. I suppose this includes Reb Dovid Lichtenstein, Reb Dovid J. Nyer, the promoters and signatories of the Kol Koreh, and even some close friends and relatives of mine.

Sadly, all who are in favor of this nezek and Chillul Hashem have a cheilek in it.

I will not.