Sinas Chinam XI – One-way Correspondence – Emails 3 and 4: Mesira, Extradition, and Justice

We are back to comparing notes with Zvi Gluck, director of Amudim, for his remarks on March 8, 2026. As I have mentioned, he does not look to be on the same page as I am and as is the Torah perspective that I present as the integral mission of One Above and Seven Below (Achas L’Maala V’Sheva L’Matta). I am attempting to clarify which of us is the misguided one.

In the previous two posts we were first seeking clarity about the significance of false allegations and then on his lack of presumption of innocence. After sending him two emails for this purpose, we received clarity on neither.

In this post, I want to cover the next two emails. In them, I wanted to get some clarity on his perspective of mesira, his stand on extradition from Eretz Yisrael, and the Jewish definition of "Justice".

The 3rd Email - Mesira

Reb Zvi Gluck, in his “educational” talk on March 8, 2026, makes a very bold statement (19:00):

The number one tool used to silence victims is the Torah

He may be correct. After all, for frum Jews, the number one tool to guide us in any task is supposed to the Torah. This should be seen as a great compliment. Alas, it doesn’t look like he meant it as a compliment. I inferred this from his inciteful choice of words, “to silence victims”. He is of the opinion that victims are not to be “silenced”. So, with his statement, he is making an indictment on using the Torah as a tool.

He could have been a lot more honest. He could have used more respectful and earnest terminology. He could have said, “The number one tool used to restrain victims from doing things that will cause more harm than good and doing things that they may later regret doing is the Torah”. But he chose otherwise for the sake of self-righteously making a spurious and callous indictment against people who are really yarei Shamayim and know what the Torah really says.

Where I come from, we call such spurious indictments motzi shem rah.

Of course, he is correct that the Torah is a tool and any tool can be misused. One needs to know how to use it and, in extreme cases, even, challila, read the instructions. Yes, indeed, the Torah is sometimes misused but, in my opinion, it is not misused nearly as much as he is implying nor as much as he is misusing it.

It goes the other direction. The purpose of the Torah is to protect people from being wrongly persecuted. There is no pirush of לא תעמוד על דם רעיך that is presented as a hetter to harm anybody, unless it is the ONLY way to save somebody. There is no place in the Torah where we can do anything that hurts another person whether financially, socially, or physically, without a din Torah and a psak din that allows it. 

One thing I have witnessed repeatedly, is that this preposterous, open-ended, bogus, hetter to ignore the Torah, which Zvi Gluck not only advocates but also justifies by misrepresenting the words of Gedolim, is the number one “tool” used to create, support, and perpetuate false accusations and all the needless irreversible damage that they cause.

The Torah is our guide and we need to follow it faithfully. But, first, we need to know what it says. It seems that the 181 signatories of the celebrated Kol Koreh, including Rabbi Daniel Coren, missed a few sedarim in Yeshiva. To fill in the gaps, I wrote my post about Blood Labels almost exactly 11 years ago.

I also wrote for the public a 2-part post titled A Concise Guide to the Laws of Mesira (see Part 1 and Part 2). This was in 2017. Part 1 were several prerequisites before being able to permit to “lawful” mesira and it was called The 3 "P"s. Part 2 were mandatory conditions of actually carrying out this “lawful” mesira and it was called The 3 "C"s. I believe a brief review of The 3 "P"s will be very helpful at this time.

The 3 "P"s are three steps to implement so as to protect a real or potential victim. Only, they must only be done one at a time and in order. The 3 "P"s are:

1. Proximity – Keeping the abuser and the victim away from each other.

2. Publicity – Alerting the public that a certain person is a threat

3. Punishment – Applying forceful means to prevent an abuser from abusing which may include legal sanctions and incarceration.

As I emphasized at the time, our goal is protecting the victim. We are not allowed to punish or take nekama. If step 1 by itself gets the job done, there is no hetter to go any steps further. In many cases, step 2 needs to be added to step 1 to protect unwary individuals from becoming victims. In these cases, we can advance to step 2 and no further. Only in extreme cases where steps 1 and 2 are clearly not sufficient, can we advance to step 3. This is all explained in detail in its place.

It is imperative that any person who voluntarily takes on the mantle of being a Child Abuse Advocate must be in sync with the 3"P"s (and 3 "C"s). This includes people such as Reb Zvi Gluck. 

All of this is expressed in the email that I sent to Zvi Gluck dated April 30, 2026. I asked him if he ever heard of the 3 Ps and 3 Cs in any type of variation. As usual, he refused to respond or to acknowledge it. 

Here is the full text of the email:

Hello Reb Zvi, LOY"T

Shalom u'bracha

Once again, it is a pleasure to see how you eagerly acknowledge and respond to my emails. I feel like I am getting special treatment.

 

To move on, you stated in your presentation (19:00):

The number one tool used to silence victims is the Torah

I hate to tell you that the number one tool used by CSA advocates to overstep their boundaries and enact unwarranted mesira and prosecution and to deny accused people of their defense mechanisms is also the Torah. 

This comes from implementing the exact same methods - misquoting Gedolim and teshuvos (such as Rav Elyashiv and Tzitz Eliezer) and modifying them for your goals.

Yep, כמים פנים אל פנים, this corrupt world is a two-way street. And there is corruption on both sides of the equation.

So, I need to know if you really have a grasp on the Halachos of rodef, lo taamod, and mesira. As such, I implore you to read these two posts and to spell out to me, what, if anything you do not agree with (and why?).

Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta: Mesira XVIII(a): A Concise Guide to the Laws of Mesira (1) - Mind Your “P”s and “C”s

Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta: Mesira XVIII(b): A Concise Guide to the Laws of Mesira (2) - Mind Your “P”s and “C”s

I maintain that if one cannot relate to the 3 Ps and 3 Cs, he is not qualified for your line of work.

It sadly looks like you have entrenched yourself into the left-wing secular-minded camp together with other secular minded Jews such as David Stav and the RCANZ  who believe that our Torah - as written with no misquotes -  is expendable, not the right path, and need not be obeyed. According to them and you, anybody who calls themselves a victim, is a verified victim, and is automatically believed, no questions asked, and anyone who is accused is automatically not to be believed and must be silenced. The "Torah" says so. 

Tell this to the fellow you grew up with. (I did not see this in the Tzitz Eliezer.)

Please tell me if I am correct or not.

Once again awaiting your prompt response.

Hatzlacha rabba v’kol tuv, sela.

Very sincerely yours, 

Yechezkel Hirshman

To Reb Zvi Gluck who claims to know something about what it says in the Torah, I have one last question:

Reb Zvi Gluck, have you once in your life opened up Choshen Mishpat 388 and studied the entire siman? Have you once in your life actually studied Sanhedrin 73a? (I don’t mean Daf Yomi, I mean learned it for real.) How about Rambam Hilchos Rotzeach 1:12,13?

It doesn’t look very likely to me.

The 4th Email – Extradition and the Jewish meaning of Justice

Zvi Gluck’s presentation on March 8, 2026 was given as a call of support to Nicole Meyer. This means to say that he fully supports Nicole’s actions and has no problems with them. 

• He has no uncertainty about the possibility of a false allegation.

• He has no doubts about her status of guilt.

• He has no qualms about being moser another Jew to non-Jewish authorities for punishment.

• And, evidently, he is also in full support of extraditing Jews outside of Eretz Yisroel.

• He also subscribes to the mistaken belief that in Judaism, punishment is what is called “justice” just like in the secular world.

עובד כל העבודה זרות.

But I will not abandon my penchant for being dan l’kaf zechus. Maybe he just wasn’t coached in the rules of extradition. Maybe he had the flu when they reached Gittin 45a and Bava Kamma 83a. After all, it comes from the same Torah that is used as “a tool to silence victims”.

So I thought I should ask him. On May 3, 2026, I sent him another email. Here it is in full:

Hello Reb Zvi, LOY”T 

Shalom u’bracha.

It looks like we are on a roll with our mutual dialog.

Let’s just move on and we’ll keep this one short. Two quick questions:

1. Here is a statement – It is strictly forbidden in Halacha to extradite a Jew out of  Eretz Yisrael to any other land under any circumstances whatsoever.

Do you agree or disagree?

If you are uncertain about this please see all the attached mareh mekomos and teshuvos.

2. Are you aware that in Judaism – which you claim to practice – the term “justice” (צדק) does not apply to any form of criminal prosecution, imprisonment or corporal punishment? It means paying compensation.

Agree or disagree?

Note – If you have trouble with this concept, please see Bava Kamma 83b and what I wrote in this post (HERE).

Once again awaiting your prompt response.

Hatzlacha rabba v’kol tuv, sela.

Very sincerely yours, 

Yechezkel Hirshman 

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

You can bet that I attached a number of mareh mekomos and teshuvos. 

Once again, no response and no acknowledgement. One cannot have dialog with these people.

The final email was the Shevet Dan email. מאסף כל המחנות. The caboose on the freight train.

We’ll check it out next, G-d willing.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

So I asked them.

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

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

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

Hello Reb Zvi, LOY”T

 

Shalom u’bracha.

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

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

Whereas:

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

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

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

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

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

 

In light of all the above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again awaiting your prompt response.

Hatzlacha rabba v’kol tuv, sela.

Very sincerely yours,

 

Yechezkel Hirshman

 

 

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

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

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

Stay tuned…

Sinas Chinam IX - The Fifth Horseman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But so do I.

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

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

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

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

And HERE he wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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