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…
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment