Sinas Chinam VII – Kalman the Konsumer

 

Author's Note - If you haven't done so, please see the previous post on this series: Sins of the Cross. It is helpful to also see these earlier posts:

Thinking Like a Jew

Double Standards – Part 2: Having Been There

I am gratified to see that my Sins of the Cross post actually inspired some comments. It seems like somebody featured my post on Facebook and Instagram and it got a ton of exposure. More than usual for my posts. I am aching to know the source Instagram post so I can see how it was presented. I will be grateful if someone could send me the link.

In any case, so far, I got four comments. All anonymous and not one of them is friendly. The first one was written by a Jewish person and the last by a non-Jewish person. I can’t determine the second or third. Aside from being antagonistic, all of them display the consumerist mindset that I am constantly battling.

What is a consumer?

I defined it in my book and again in some posts, such as this one (HERE). In short, it’s an uneducated person who has no clue how uneducated he or she is because they lack the education to know otherwise.

When it comes to Judaism, a consumer is somebody who thinks he knows what HKBH expects from us based on his or her personal sense of morality and/or what he was told by his parents and teachers in grade school and what he read in the Jewish Press, without ever making the effort to actually read and study what HKBH is telling us from the source.

I cannot blame the non-Jewish fourth commenter, but this is how [s]he preaches to me: 

 

If ANYTHING, it's your attacks on Nicole and her sisters that is bringing disrespect to your religion and to Y-H-W-H.

I hate to break it, but there is only one way to show respect to Y-H-W-H. This is to obey what He tells us to do and not do. (Shmuel I 15:22). Nicole is not very obedient. Y-H-W-H does not want to see sinas chinam, motzi shem rah, lashon hara, makkah re’ehu b’seter, malshinus, mesira, extradition to golus, gonev ish u’mecharo, gezel, nekama, netira, eid echad b’ish, chukos hagoyim, mitkabed b’kalon chaveiro, and above all, chillul Hashem.

It doesn’t matter who “started it”.

I can accuse Nicole of all of these because she is doing them proudly in public and announcing them to the world. Again and again. No reservations and not a drop of remorse. This is the exact definition of a chillul Hashem in Rambam Yesodei Torah 5:10.

רק אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה.

I posted succinct responses to all the commenters to convey that I read the messages and do not ignore or avoid them. But not everyone is brave enough to anonymously berate me online. Every so often somebody needs to contact me offline to put me in my place. People such as Reb Yid back in 2018. He bashed me relentlessly and I managed a few meek responses. That was a very relevant post, it is worth looking at (HERE).

After my Sins of the Cross post, I was contacted by a different Reb Yid. This fellow is actually a very opinionated blogger. My take on his blog is that it is aimed at showcasing everything wrong with Chareidi society and is out to make it look as dark as possible. I will not identify it. 

We had a previous email correspondence back in 2023. He made some very grandiose claims about some unknown “facts” in the Leifer episode. When I demanded he substantiate his claims, he abstained.

He recently contacted me again. This time, I asked him some probing questions to help me understand what type of person I am dealing with. These were questions such as how old he is, is he married, does he have a yeshiva education, does he have a personal connection to this episode (he indicated that he has inside knowledge), and, was he ever abused (like Reb Yid was). 

He did not answer any of them.

Like Reb Yid, he is a bona fide consumer as I defined it, and subscribes to the same lynch-mob herd mentality that I have been fighting throughout this fiasco. He believes that:

• An alleged molester is always a molester. He/she is totally and eternally irredeemable, is not considered Jewish, and has no rights. 

• Conversely, an alleged victim is always a victim, is immune from criticism, is exempt from being Jewish to their last day, and has unlimited rights.

• He shares the universal presumption of guilt that I am fighting against

• It is imperative to see to it that any miscreant is punished (to the extreme).

• שאר ירקות

In short, he does not know how to Think Like a Jew. 

I told him that I would like to respond to him in the blog and does he consent? 

He did not respond to this, either. So, I will not identify his email name or his blog, and I will not reprint his emails in whole, but I feel the need to respond to some of his misconceptions online. I will refer to him as Kalman.

In general, he writes the same apologetic “victims are always right[eous]” and “molesters are always demonic” glop that I got from Reb Yid and some others (like the four commenters). There are only two remarks that I want to respond to. Here is what Kalman writes to me:

Why do you keep defending a רשע?

Like so many others, Kalman has Mrs. Leifer pegged as a רשע and asks me why I keep defending her.

I want to answer him on three levels.

Level 1 – I never defended her 

This sounds strange because most people have very one-dimensional vision. If I defend any part of this episode, it is looked as if I am condoning and defending the actions that she is accused of. I have never done that in all of ten years.

I am defending the rights of an accused person as our Torah instructs us to do. I elaborated on this in my keynote blog post in June 2016. I clearly explained what the instructions of the Torah are. Nobody has ever discredited these instructions. They only refuse to acknowledge them. I do acknowledge them.

Level 2 – I suffer from a compulsion to defend people who are being prosecuted

In one of the introductory chapters of my book, I claimed that I am wearing three uniforms. One is that of a teacher and educator of Torah ideals. The second is one of a preacher of ethics. The third is the one of a defense attorney, to defend the Chareidi world and even some individuals from malicious “prosecution”. Defending the accused is in my bones.

In my Reb Yid post in 2018 I made the following remark:

As far as I am concerned, any Jew who is being prosecuted is worth protecting. Especially when it does not harm the accusers.

This is irrespective of whether they do or do not qualify as a רשע.

And why?

For one thing, the Torah that I follow says things like ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג and ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. I don’t think it is in Kalman’s version.

Secondly, this is the type of treatment I would hope to get if, for whatever reason, I would find myself in such a predicament.

Later on in that post, I listed three reasons to explain “why I have a sense of compassion for Mrs. Leifer”. They were: (1) The fact that allegations haven’t been proven. I believe this to be the case even today (see HERE). (2) The strong likelihood that Mrs. Leifer is also a victim of abuse. (3) As much as anybody knows, she may well have abandoned her alleged wayward ways and done תשובה.

To these, I will add a fourth consideration which I have mentioned in more recent posts: (4) It is very likely she is suffering from an untreated personality disorder which can be treated.

I concluded that segment of the post by stating:

None of this compassion hurts the “victims” in any way unless they choose to be hurt by it. This would be a very selfish choice. It is a shame that Reb Yid is not capable of this kind of compassion.

To this, I now need to add Kalman.

Level 3 – Will the real rasha please stand up?

The first two levels are not meant to dispute the contention that Mrs. Leifer is a bona fide rasha. It is meant to display my perspective regardless. But now we need to question the very premise.

To start with, I need to reference my post Thinking Like a Jew which is the Halachic digest that served as a preamble to this entire episode. This is the “moral compass”. I don’t believe consumers such as Kalman have one.

One entry in that post is the definition of “Giluy arayos” – se%ual immorality. I noted that, by definition, all giluy arayos must involve a male of some species or another. Two females cannot engage in giluy arayos. Although there is an implied prohibition of “maaseh Eretz Mitzrayim” for two women to “get it on”, the Torah does not list it as an act of giluy arayos. (Rambam Issurei Biah 21:8).

So, after this, all the complaints against Mrs. Leifer boil down to “coercive control”. Nothing more. Controlling another more vulnerable person is not a virtuous attribute. I get that. But, in and of itself, without any genuine sins, it’s hard to justify the designation of rasha on this alone.

So, let’s take inventory.

Is Mrs. Leifer mechallel Shabbos?

No such claim. Can’t say the same for some of the Sapper sisters.

Did she do avodah zarah?

Again, no such claim.

Eat non-kosher?

No such claim. And how do Dassi and Elly score on that?

Giluy arayos?

As stated, no. 

Sh'fichas damim - Did she murder anybody?

The Sapper sisters and any other possible victims are all alive and well and living the lives of their choice.

Did she shame anyone publicly like Nicole and her sisters have been doing?

She hasn't said or written a word.

Did she steal anybody’s money or bring frivolous lawsuits like the Sapper sisters did?

No.

Did she mahser anybody to non-Jewish authorities like Nicole did?

No.

Did she actively extradite a Jew from Eretz Yisrael like Nicole and her sisters?

No.

Did she cause anyone to be kidnapped from her family as did Nicole?

No.

Does she go about spreading motzeh shem rah and lashon hara and malshinus about another Jew like Nicole is constantly doing?

No.

Did she carry out nekama and netira like Nicole is doing?

No.

Did she voluntarily testify against another Jew in a non-Jewish court like Nicole did?

No.

Did she do anything to perpetuate any chillul Hashem like Nicole is doing?

Not at all (see Rambam Yesodei Torah 5:10-11).

So, Kalman, please tell me. Who is the rasha around here?

Why, oh why, Kalman, do you keep defending a rasha?

We now come to the second remark from Kalman’s email that I need to respond to. Here is what he wrote:

You talk about כל הכועס ? How dare you? 

She has every single right to be “cross”

Okay, Greta. How dare I what?? How dare I quote a passage from Chazal (Nedarim 22a)???

This guy claims to be Jewish. He did not object when I quoted a passage from Shakespeare three posts ago. But now, when I quote a Chazal in Nedarim, it’s “How dare you?”. Does he believe in Chazal? Does he believe in the Oral Torah? 

I have my doubts.

This brings back fond memories about another consumerist muckraker blogger who calls himself Jewish. His name is Yerachmiel Lopin. I wrote about it in this 2016 post. Here’s what he wrote to me:

As always, you find every possible reason to believe she is not a risk to others, and every halachic angle to argue against prosecuting her… 

This was my open response:

Get this? This person calls himself a frum Jew, yet he criticizes me for finding “every Halachic angle to argue against prosecuting…”. Note that he does not invalidate or dispute the Halachic angles. They may be perfectly valid but I am at fault for finding them!! They weren’t very hard to find, by the way. He probably could have done it himself – if he wanted to. 

Back to Kalman. Of course, by "How dare you?" he may just mean that I am not qualified to quote Chazal. On this he has a point. I confess. I am not worthy. I am not worthy.

In the introductory book chapter that I mentioned above, I wrote that I am playing the role of an educator, preacher, and defense attorney. Do I have the qualifications for any of these?

Absolutely not. Even then, I wrote that I am not worthy. But I also wrote that somebody needs to fill these roles, and as long as I don’t see anyone else doing it, it’s up to me. The same applies now.

 במקום שאין אנשים, השתדל להיות איש.

He further contends that: she has every single right to be cross.

Really?

I might concede that she has grounds to be cross, but a right?

Where do our rights come from? The US Constitution? Can’t be. She is Australian, not American. There is no Bill of Rights in Australia. But even if she were American, I don’t think she has such rights. This is because we need to talk about G-d-given rights. And G-d-given rights come from G-d.

So, what rights does G-d give us? Let’s check His rulebook.

In Vayikra 19:17,18 He writes:

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך...לא תקם ולא תטר את בני עמך ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני השם.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך – Do not hate your brother in your heart

It is forbidden to bear a grudge

לא תקום – It is forbidden to seek vengeance. No right to seek vengeance!

ולא תטר – It is forbidden to be cross. No right to be cross!

Who is this prohibition directed to? Is it to somebody who just won the Powerball? Someone who just gave birth to twins? Someone who was just handed the keys to their newly built 5-bedroom house? Someone who just married off their last daughter?

Obviously, it is directed to somebody who got a raw deal. Someone who had it hard and was taken advantage of. It is directed to somebody who has grounds to be cross and to seek vengeance. 

Unlike the consumerist pretenders like Kalman, G-d says she has no right to be cross.

The pasuk continues:

ואהבת לרעיך כמוך – Love your fellow as you love yourself.

One is commanded to learn how to love themselves. This is the only way one can learn to love somebody else. 

אני השם – I am G-d. 

All your trials and tribulations, all your successes and failures, all of your joys and tragedies, come only from Me. They do not come from anyone else. Only from Me. 

Do not blame anyone else. Do not bear a grudge. Do not seek vengeance. Do not be cross. 

How dare you??

You are aiming at the wrong target. You are barking up the wrong tree. It wasn’t them. It was Me – G-d. And I did it because I care for you. More than you care for yourself. I did it because I want you to flourish and become great. 

But you need to follow Me, says G-d, not fight Me.

Kalman and Nicole and her sisters believe that once one is a victim, they are a victim for life. And that they are now exempt from the entire Torah. For life. They can follow the herd of mindless consumers instead of following G-d.

My father, LOYT, taught me otherwise. He taught me that the minute the oppression ends, one is no longer a victim. And there is no escaping G-d. 

My father was all of 15 years old when he was liberated from Ebensee labor camp. This is after Auschwitz and after Mauthausen. His first act was to put on a tattered shel yad of tefillin before he even approached the food line (there was no shel rosh).

I once asked him why he chose to remain a mitzvah observant Jew even when so many others did not. He told me that it never entered his mind not to.   

The Nazis killed his parents and almost all his extended family (B”H, his two sisters survived and also stayed religious). But he just moved on. He did not bear a grudge. He did not seek vengeance and he was never cross. We are not referring to his peers and brethren but to the seed of Amalek. And, even so. He just went on with his life and rebuilt and didn’t spend a minute worrying about his oppressors. 

This was 81 years and about 70 great grand-children ago. He loves himself (and us) more than he hates them, and it’s paid off. To this very day, ad meah v’esrim, he is still up and around. He counts what he has, not what he doesn’t. Because this is what HKBH commanded us.

And as for Nicole and her sisters and the consumerist bloggers – one cannot have a dialog with them. They are so bent on what they believe.

How dare they?

The Malka Leifer Mesira Gang

 

I am very distressed that, about a year ago, the Israeli end of the Malka Leifer saga did not come to a happy ending. The forbidden extradition which I tried so hard to prevent was carried out nonetheless. I am at least gratified that, baruch Hashem, the affair is mostly out of the limelight, which is the way it should be. It should never have been a public issue in the first place.

All that transpired in this episode are things that nobody has anything to be proud of. Not the accused herself who I will assume is not totally innocent (although I claimed she is not as guilty as she is being made out to be), not the accusers, not their supporters and activists, and not the Israeli government and judiciary.

I personally believe that any Jewish person who had any role in promoting and carrying out the extradition - which was unmitigated mesira l’akum - should wear a badge of shame. To a large degree or a small degree, depending on their role, they are gulity of mesira as well as lo tasgir, gonev nefesh m’Yisrael, numerous other transgressions and, worst of all, chillul Hashem.

Certainly, for any of these people who had an active or vocal part in the extradition, to carry it around as a badge of honor is a further perpetuation of a tremendous chillul Hashem.

The saga is still not over as part two is currently being played out in Australia, yet the fallout from part one has been quite devastating.  I could compile a long list of “korbanos” (and I don’t mean the accusers), but there is one that I really want to focus on. The demise of JCW - Jewish Community Watch.

JCW, with Shana Aaronson at its helm, worked tirelessly to spend a lot of their donors’ money to carry out this mesira. But by the time it was done, JCW was not the same. Currently they are nothing but an inactive web site.

What brought this about?

Although JCW may have been born out of a sincere desire to alleviate the scourge of sexual abuse in the Jewish community, their methods were never fully sincere. I described their iniquities in detail in these posts (HERE, HERE, and HERE).

To summarize, JCW lost sight of the fact that, as menacing and detestable as Jewish sexual offenders may be, they are still Jews and must be treated as such. As Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, wrote (not in these exact words), every suspect and every case needs to be examined under a microscope: there are active threats and non-active threats, there are fixable people and non-fixable people, there are violent perps and non-violent perps, there are young immature offenders who can grow out of it and older hardened offenders who cannot, etc. We cannot put all offenders into one basket. Yet, from the lack of distinction in their Wall of Shame and their lead message, it is clear that JCW could not acknowledge this, nor could they care.

As far as guidance is concerned, either the Rabbinic advisory staff they claimed to have was not put to use or it led them astray. And they never even claimed to have any Rabbinic guidance in Eretz Yisrael.

As I wrote in this post, the offenders are all Jews and as such, as much as we may detest them we still have to want what is ultimately best for them, not what is the worst for them. Our goal must be protection and prevention for the public, but not punishment.

As I wrote, JCW’s primary focus was not helping the victims, although they were into that as well. It was mainly to catch and prosecute and to shame offenders. For this they did not need a team of psychologists and social workers but a “task force” of vigilantes.

In the United States, JCW did not have such a task force. As such, JCW only served as a bulletin board to display the names and faces (or silhouettes) of their list of “bad guys” for public consumption, and a phone number for victims to call for help and referrals. Most of their action work of catching and prosecuting (and extraditing) bad guys was really taking place in Israel.

But they had a problem, they never bothered to register themselves as a legal NPO (Amuta) in Israel.

Enter Magen Child Services.

Magen Child Services was founded in 2010 to do much of the same work as JCW. Only they were not foolish enough to maintain a Wall of Shame. Still, Magen became defunct circa 2015, I am not sure why. Nevertheless, they retained their NPO registration. In 2018, JCW merged with the defunct Magen to enable JCW to operate in Israel. Magen adopted JCW’s name in its Hebrew version and now called itself Magen Lekehilot Heyehudiyot (Magen for Jewish Communities). Shana Aaronson, who was listed as the Israel Chief Operating Officer at JCW was simultaneously the manager of Magen - which was one and the same for three years - even though, to this day, she is not and never was a board member.

Around April 2021, Shana and the entire Israeli staff of the JCW/Magen alliance broke away to make Magen independent. As a result, JCW ceased all operations. Ironically, now Magen is active and JCW is defunct.

I cannot claim to know with certainty what caused the breakup. Yet, my gut instinct plus some little “tidbits” of inside information that I have gathered, lead me to believe that the internal backlash from the Malka Leifer episode had a lot to do with it.

So now, we have the current resurrected Magen for Jewish Communities which teamed up with Lo Tishtok (an ex-Amuta) to be the current Israeli successor to JCW. They have built up a formidable staff, including many of the old JCW group, and invested into a state-of-the-art web site and they have their phone lines and their services. This seems to include advocacy services, victim support services, and awareness (educational) services. Looks like they are open for business and thriving.

Bracha v’hatzlacha!

But, what are their chances for success?

I’ll tell you right now - it all depends on if they learned from their mistakes.

For one thing, thank Goodness, they officially do not have any shameful Wall of Shame - although they unofficially have one right HERE. Also, on the administrative end, there are several improvements. They are a totally legal Israeli amuta - Amuta number 580528230 - they claim financial transparency and they present a phone number and even a quasi-address (perhaps it’s a PO box number but there is no street called Givat Sharet). They display their staff members and board members. They seem to have everything they should have. Except...except...

Well, I’m just getting to that...

The issue is not on how they play defense. They probably do an excellent job in helping and supporting victims. The question is on how they play "offense", which is, once again, how do they deal with the alleged miscreants?

I was hoping that by now they graduated to taking the Rav Elyashiv approach, which is to take a tough stand when you must do so and a much softer stand when you mustn’t. Actually, after the previous incarnation of Magen, one of the founding mothers, Mrs. Miriam Friedman, wrote (Dec. 2016) about a program called COSA which, she wrote, Magen advocates. COSA works on two mottos - (a) No more victims and (b) No one is disposable. In short, as long as the [potential] victims are safe, our next job is to help helpable offenders and not to hurt them. In fact, most of them are hurt people with dark pasts of their own.

My thoughts entirely.

Sadly, the current “new improved” Magen shows no signs of following this path.

How do I know it?

I know it from a very recent blog article that was published in Times of Israel on February 17, 2022. This article was written by a woman named Rachael Risby-Raz and it is titled The Malka Leifer Court Gang.

(Interestingly, Ms. Risby-Raz who is so proud about her participation in prosecuting Mrs. Leifer for female-to-female horsing around on nothing more than the say-so of the accusers, was very quick to defend ex-PM Ehud Olmert on a similar charge of male-to-female - i.e., true sexual - harassment. In the Olmert case, the accuser claimed she told people at the time of the incident. She also claimed there were two other victims who messaged her about being harassed by Olmert. Yet, Risby-Raz, who incidentally was indicted for corruption together with Olmert, said that this couldn't be true because he respects women and is "not that kind of person".

The Australian-born Risby-Raz, who is so much in favor of extraditing Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael said publicly in 2010 she was "sorry I immigrated to Israel" and immediately afterward burst out crying. Well, then, why wasn't she deported?)

This blog post is primarily a fundraising appeal for Magen for Jewish Communities trying to convince us to give them lots of money because of all the wonderful things they do.

Indeed, she does present an overview of all of the activities of Magen - “providing education, awareness, mental health support, advocacy, and investigations around sexual abuse and its effect on individuals, families and communities” - which are all very nice. But she builds the post around the incident that “pulled” her into the cause - the high-profile Malka Leifer extradition saga.

Yes, indeed. The great chillul Hashem. The great mesira, lo tasgir, gonev nefesh m’Yisrael episode which has caused a lot of damage and hasn’t helped a single person.

She rightly refers to all the activist perpetrators as “the gang” and so wrongly flaunts this debacle as some kind of badge of honor. And who does she name as the main hero of this extradition expedition? Need I say it?

Shana Aaronson.

Two statements that Ms. Risby-Raz wrote made a deep impression upon me. I will quote the second one first:

Shana was the one who “found” Malka Leifer after she had been released feigning mental incapacity, brought the police back in to the picture and got Leifer back in to court and on her way to extradition to Australia.

This says that, according to my assessment that the Leifer incident meets all the criteria of Choshen Mishpat 388:9 and is therefore a bona fide case of mesira l’akum, that Shana Aaronson is the moser[et] par excellence. And all the rest of her “gang” are her partners and associates. See Targum Yonasan Shmos 20:13.

Of course, none of this should not come at any surprise. On the new Magen website there is a section of Magen in the News where it lists five twenty news articles. All of the articles involve alleged Ultra-Orthodox miscreants with eighteen out of twenty concerning Mrs. Leifer and her extradition. (Can you imagine? Eighteen out of twenty news items about a single person who is at most guilty of  מעשה ארץ מצרים and only two articles about miscreants who are alleged to have engaged in actual niyuf!!!)  The YNet article from Jan. 25, 2021 is the only one that doesn’t quote Shana by name but releases a statement from “Magen”:

The Magen Association for the Protection of Children, which has been aiding Leifer’s alleged victims, also welcomed the extradition.

So as a matter of policy, Magen is in favor of extraditing Jews out of Israel into the hands of the “akum”. They continue:

 

"We stand by the victims and encourage them ahead of the next fight within the Australian justice system… We will fight with all our might so that Israel ceases to be a refuge for sex offenders and that a similar extradition saga will not be repeated.”

In case you didn’t understand the closing line, it means they hope that the next extradition of a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael (lo tasgir) to the hands of the non-Jews (mesira l’akum) should transpire without any resistance.

Well, I have very surprising news for those who “will fight with all our might so that Israel ceases to be a refuge for sex offenders”. Our Halacha thinks differently. It is quite accepting of all types of “offenders” to get a new chapter in Eretz Yisrael. This is clearly stated in Makkos 7a (codified in Rambam Hilchos Sanhedrin 13:8):

Rabi Yehuda ben Dustai says in the name of Shimon ben Shatach - One [convicted felon] who flees from Eretz Israel to chu”l we do not overturn his conviction. One who flees from chu”l to Eretz Israel, we overturn his conviction [and retry his case] because of the merit of Eretz Israel.

Sorry about that.

It is unfortunate that sex offenders do exist among our numbers. But this is our lot. Our lot. And, when necessary, they should be prosecuted for the sake of prevention. But what more appropriate place to do it than here in our “Jewish” country? What hetter do we have to export our miscreants to chu”l to the hands of un-Halachic non-Jewish “justice” (which is nothing of the kind)?

So we have now exposed Magen’s - i.e., Shana Aaronson’s - policies about extradition and mesira to non-Jews: The sooner the better.

It’s JCW all over again. And why?

Let’s go back to Ms. Risby-Raz’s article and check out the earlier statement that caught my fancy:

The gang didn’t really have a leader, 

What does it mean that they didn’t really have a leader?

It means they didn’t really have any guidance.

It means that they were just a group of inflamed fanatics bent on ridding our communities from any type of miscreant and doing it their way. Not necessarily the right way.

They had no mentor, no sagacious Torah scholar or Beit Din to tell them what they may do and what they may not do. No objective leadership. No head.

עשה לך רב והסתלק מן הספק.

A group without a head cannot think because it has no head to think with. Only a boich - a gut. And this is how it makes its decisions - gut reactions.

Let's go back to the new improved Magen and their web site. Yes, they have a hotline and a staff and a board and a terrific lineup of services. So, what don’t they have (at least not on display)?

Oversight.

They don’t have: Rabbinic endorsements. An intrinsic Rabbinical advisory staff. A full-time connection to an objective and G-d fearing Beis Din. Objective so as not to be dominated by raw sensitivities and emotions but nevertheless fully accessible and responsible for overseeing the steps Magen takes when dealing with suspected or accused miscreants.

Magen may have a heart and a soul, but they don’t have a head. Sure, they have Rabbi Blau to make it look Jewish but so does JCW. Shana is a crusader for closure and “justice”, but this comes at the expense of level-headedness, yashrut, and the laws of our Torah. She is nobody’s Rabbi. And there is no indication that in her eyes a Jewish offender is still Jewish. As long as there is no objective body for “checks and balances”, Magen stands to become another totalitarian dictatorship as was JCW.

Shana does a lot of good work and has helped many unfortunate people. She may have a good deal to brag about and for which to be supported. Yet, her role in the Leifer affair and her moser status is not one of them.

Ms. Risby-Raz is barking up the wrong tree. If someone wants to sell Magen to potential supporters, it is advisable to do so on the wings of helping victims, not on how it treats offenders (real or imagined). There may be some excellent reasons to throw one's support behind Magen, but as long as they have Shana Aaronson and her emotion-laden, anti-Torah policies of mesira, extradition, and chillul Hashem at the “head” of the posse, they are just ridin' down the same ol’ dusty trail.

 

החפץ לה' בעלות וזבחים כשמוע בקול ה'? הנה שמע מזבח טוב להקשיב מחלב אילים.

The "Fall" Guy plays Simon Says

David Stav - Chief Rabbi of Shoham

Before I wrote my primary posts about the Malka Leifer episode, I wrote two preamble posts to set the stage. The second of which is titled Thinking Like a Jew. This is basically a digest of all the Halachic concepts that relate to this case, with sources and everything. It was meant to serve as what people call a “moral compass”. If one reads and understands the Halachic foundation, all of the positions I make fall into place with Halachic support.

This is not the only time I have written such a digest. Way before I wrote Thinking Like a Jew, I wrote a very comprehensive two-part Halachic digest on the halachos of mesira – the 3 Ps and the 3 Cs. And, even before that, I wrote a comprehensive digest on the halachos of rodef titled Blood Labels.

The purpose of writing all these posts is two-fold: (1) To help the reader understand all the relevant halachos that apply to these cases. (2) To dissuade dissenters. Once these halachos are cited and catalogued, we have established what a dissenter must dispute if he thinks otherwise. This ups the ante and makes life harder for him.

Any lawyer, posek, dayan, or toen knows that anything he writes as a claim or a ruling must reference the exact legal or halachic source material. If one wants to file a lawsuit, he must write in the suit that the defendant is in violation of Article 7, Section 2a, Subsection 8, Paragraph 6, Line C, twelfth word, indicated by the comma, of the criminal code or the tort law or whatever. He is even expected to quote it. And a respondent must do the same.

Same goes for Halachic litigation. The nitvah should say, “I am not obligated because the Rema in Choshen Mishpat 123:4 (according to the SMA’s clarification) clearly states that this is called an asmachta…” or say “kim li like the distinction of the Noda Beyehuda cited in Pischei Teshuva 15 in siman 87:6 which says that the Shach is really arguing with the Mechaber…”

When a legal professional states: “The law says…”, or a posek says “the Halacha is…” and they cannot quote the law or the Halacha, it’s as good as saying “Dr. Seuss says…” or, as we did in nursery school, “Simon says…”

A lawyer or judge who cannot quote the law is a fraud and a “Rabbi” who cannot source the Halacha is an am haaretz – especially if the true Halacha says differently. Hence, when a genuine Orthodox Jew says “Halacha”, he means what is stated in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Berura and all those teshuvos seforim from renowned poskim – those guys. When an “open” Orthodox Jew (i.e., a Hellenist) says “Halacha”, he means what it says in “my book”.

In my travels through the laws of rodef, mesira, and extradition, I have stumbled across a few charlatans who cannot quote Halacha. The main culprits to date are the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (RCANZ) who range from Open Orthodox to quite Modern. These am haaratzim released a ridiculous statement in June of 2017 that posited my “Halachic assertions” to be “fundamentally flawed” and “misguided”.

When I asked them very nicely to point out the “fundamental flaws” and explain what is “misguided”, they went eerily silent and remain so to this day. I am still waiting for them to explain or retract.

Well, it looks like the RCANZ has a sister MO/OO organization here in Eretz Yisroel and it is called Tzohar, run by David Stav, Chief "Rabbi" of the settlement of Shoham. Like most of the RCANZ members, I cannot call this fellow a “Rabbi”. A Rabbi is one who knows and disseminates actual Halacha.

David Stav is an ultra-liberal left wing “Rabbi” who is a colleague and disciple of ultra-liberal Shlomo Riskin (Mr. Marriage Annulments). He serves in the spiritual advisory board for Rabbi Riskin’s Ohr Torah Stone Institution. In 2013, David Stav announced his candidacy for Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of the Israeli Rabbinate, R”L. At the time, he claimed, “I am flexible with people, I am not flexible with Halacha.” Seems like he’s changed his spots.

The Sapper sisters who just now concluded their visit, are having a hard time contending with folks like me who can point out the Halachic infractions they are violating (as well as encouraging others to do). To offset this, they are searching for someone who carries the title of Orthodox Rabbi who can overlook everything it says in Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and Chofetz Chaim and make up new halachos. And one who has very little regard for the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel, owing that it is an essential factor in this case. They certainly found one in Israel Chief Rabbi candidate David Stav who seems to have become a bit more flexible with Halacha since 2013.

After a meeting with the Sapper sisters, David Stav wrote a letter he should be totally ashamed of. The letter was posted in Dassi Erlich’s Facebook page and hardly anywhere else. It is not on Tzohar’s FB page, not on their web site, nor is it on David Stav’s FB page. I couldn’t find a copyable version, so I needed to use Google Voice Typing (a great tool!).

As I have done in the past, I will first post the entire letter and then rewrite the key points with my comments. Here is the letter:

Following a meeting with Dassi Erlich, Nicole Meyer and Elli Sapper, three sisters from Australia who have accused Malka Leifer of sexual abuse while the three were her students, the Tzohar Rabbinical Council issued the following statement:

Halacha does not allow us to forgo the pain of victims nor can we shamelessly protect the actions of an accused criminal who has not been forced to face a system of justice. Halacha requires that the accused be afforded a fair trial but that if proven guilty they must be punished for their crimes. Halacha also mandates those who are aware of abuse of any kind, to report this to the relevant secular authorities.

In today's day and age, it is the responsibility of secular authorities -  the police and the secular courts -  to enforce and prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place. In this case, in the interests of Halacha and caring for Torah values and the integrity of each and every person, we call upon the Israeli authorities to immediately allow for Malka Leifer’s extradition to Australia.

The pain that these sisters, and others, have experienced at the hands of this woman require that all who appreciate justice and love their fellow man, support this campaign.

We call upon all fellow rabbis, In Israel, Australia and across the diaspora to join us in this effort and together bring Justice to the accused and a measure of closure for the victims.

[Signed] Rabbi David Stav

Chairman of Tzohar

To lighten the mood, it’s time for a joke:

Four youths were brought to the security head of the local zoo for rowdy behavior. He wanted to create “records” of these guys so he could inform their parents and maybe ban them from future visits. So he asked each one for his name and why the security officer brought him here.

Says the first: My name is Steve, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.

Says the second: My name is Bob, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.

Says the third: My name is Ernie, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.

Says the fourth: My name is Pete, but all my friends call me “Peanuts”.

End of joke. [Laugh now!]

I gather that David Stav has a close friend whose real name is probably Simon who he likes to call by the nickname “Halacha”. So when David Stav says “’Halacha’ does not allow…”, “’Halacha’ requires…”, “’Halacha’ mandates…” he is really saying “Simon does not allow...”, “Simon requires…” – “Simon mandates…”

Simon says...

I am past nursery school so I don’t play this game. I don’t do things just because “Simon” says so even if he calls himself “Halacha”. Simon, or Halacha, needs to display his credentials and prove that he is authentic. David Stav doesn’t do this in his letter. He knows that the unschooled masses (Dassi’s supporters) will blindly trust him. But a genuine Torah scholar will not.

So let’s look at David Stav’s Halachic chiddushim and check out their credentials:

Halacha does not allow us to forgo the pain of victims…

What "Halacha" is he citing? Lets open Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and try to find out. I am thus far totally stumped. What does he mean by “forgoing the pain of victims?”

The true Halacha does not allow us to address anyone’s pain or injury at the hands of another without a din Torah.

ואצוה את שופטיכם בעת ההיא לאמר, שמע בין אחיכם ושפטתם צדק, בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו.
and
 כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים ונגשו אל השופט ושפטום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע. 

There are two parties at odds here and they are both just as Jewish. Halacha (real Halacha) does not allow us to lynch anybody just because someone cries foul even if there are grounds to believe them. But this is what spiritual advisor David Stav is “calling for”. (See my first preamble post - Justice is Blind) David Stav does not  claim that he met with Mrs. Leifer who is sitting put in Neve Tirtza. This is in Ramla which is a mere 16.5 km from Shoham (25 min in current traffic) and only 5 km (walking distance) from Lod where Tzohar offices are. Mrs. Leifer is very accessible and I am sure she would love visitors, especially if they are compassionate people and have any ahavas Yisroel.

Now I have seen many piskei din from Batei Din and they usually begin with “לאחר שמיעת הצדדים” which means “after we heard all the sides”.  David Stav’s Halachic claim makes no mention of such a thing. Note that the Chief Rabbi of Israel is expected to be a dayan and know how to conduct a dispute between Jews!

What’s just as important is that here is what the Halacha really says: If two people are having a fight and a third party intervenes in favor of one side and takes measures that do not need to be taken – i.e., below the belt (literally) – the interloper pays dearly for this. In fact, according to the Sifri, Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and other rishonim, the interloper is called a rodef!

This is in the Torah I live by (Devarim 25:11,12), but it must not be in David Stav’s Ohr Torah Stone edition.

Now, he may be referring to the Halacha of Lo taamod al dam reyecha, but it is hard to believe that even David Stav is that misguided. Lo Taamod simply means that we must come to the aid of a Jew who is in danger and make sure they are not harmed. Certainly, we cannot forgo their distress of danger and cry for rescue. But nowhere does “Halacha” say that we should not forgo someone’s lingering (self-perpetuating) pain for long ago events to help them harass and prosecute a fellow Jew. It doesn't matter what he or she claims the fellow Jew did ten years ago.

nor can we shamelessly protect the actions of an accused criminal who has not been forced to face a system of justice.

This one really baffles me.

When an accused criminal is actively engaging in criminal actions, we ought not protect those actions. However, if the accused criminal is no longer engaging in the criminal actions, then there are no criminal actions to “shamelessly protect”.

David Stav is reframing the situation in a very deceptive and distorted manner. This is disgraceful.

All this has little to do with the accused criminal himself (or herself). In today’s day and age, we have no authority to force anybody to face any system of justice. Today there are no punishments of knasos (punitive financial cases). According to the very first Halacha in Choshen Mishpat (1:1), we can only take a person to Beis Din – or any court – for financial disputes, unpaid debts, spousal payments, inheritances, and personal injury or property damage. We can also turn to courts to be mesalek (neutralize) an ongoing damage or threat. This includes reporting an active sex offender.

But for punishment or “justice” for bygone events, we have absolutely no authority or permission. We cannot try or report crimes that happened yesterday. Not in our generation. You don’t need to hear it from me. You can take it from HRHG Dovid Cohen, one of the leading advocates of turning in molesters, that we can only do this for protection and not for punishment (3:30 and 4:16).

It’s a shanda that Israel Chief Rabbi candidate David Stav does not know siman 1 of Choshen Mishpat and he doesn’t know siman 388, either.

Halacha requires that the accused be afforded a fair trial but that if proven guilty they must be punished for their crimes.

I dealt with this just a minute ago. There is no such Halacha in all of Shulchan Aruch. David Stav is living in the past. In the past, Beis Din (and BD only) was authorized to punish people for crimes if they were proven guilty. Not now. Regardless, we were never authorized to invite non-Jews to punish any Jew for a crime under any circumstances in all of our 3300 years of nationhood.

But, let me play along with this for a moment. My Torah tells us, even in the good old days, what punishments people get for whatever crimes. And it says that if a woman should engage in another woman, this is called “maaseh eretz mitrayim” and is punishable only by Rabbinic lashes after being warned to desist. If a woman “molests” another, it’s no more than personal injury from a Torah perspective. The Sappers and their supporters don’t like this, but this is what the Torah and poskim say. See Rambam Issurei Biah 21:8.

David Stav must have a different version of Rambam.

In any case, it is forbidden and disgraceful for any Jew to advocate using the goyim to carry out punishments for crimes at any time under any circumstances, and more so, if the punishments are way, way, way beyond what a Beit Din would do in Talmudic times. Prison is much worse than getting Rabbinic lashes and going right back home.

Halacha also mandates those who are aware of abuse of any kind, to report this to the relevant secular authorities.

“Halacha” mandates nothing of the kind. Perhaps Simon “Halacha” but not Shas and poskim. I mentioned Choshen Mishpat 388 which clearly states in seif 9:

It is forbidden to turn in a Jew to the hands of the non-Jews neither his person nor his property and even if he is wicked and even if he causes an individual personal distress…and anyone who turns in a Jew…has no share in the world to come.

This is the default. It was written a mere 500 years ago and nothing about it has changed. There are indeed conditions where we may overrule the default which basically hinges on the halachos of a rodef. So when there is abuse that meets the criteria of rodef, there is an exception to the law of mesira. But when it does not meet the criteria of rodef, it does not overrule the law of mesira. And one who performs it is subject to the repercussions stated in Shulchan Aruch (R”L).

This is the Halacha.

As such, David Stav is quite wrong when he writes that the Halacha mandates those who are aware of “abuse of any kind, to report…” It only applies to the “rodef” kind. Not the not-rodef kind. I already wrote why there is certainly no rodef in Australia (as if such a discussion should really be necessary).

What is just as troubling is that David Stav writes “those who are aware…” Now, a victim can be considered aware, but one who is not a victim is certainly not aware even if they heard things second hand or from a victim. The Chofetz Chaim writes this as does Rav Elyashiv, ZT”L. This is what is called Halacha.

Of course, we know that many governments mandate such reporting, but the Halacha does not. Mandated reporting is a very complicated sugya. I haven’t covered it yet, but it may be next on my list (I haven’t finished techeiles or prenups). In a nutshell, the halachos of mesira that I covered in my posts stand firm. When the mesira is permitted it is permitted with or without mandated reporting laws and when it is forbidden, it is forbidden with or without mandated reporting laws. One cannot be moser another Jew to keep himself out of trouble. This will obviously cause a number of cases of people in tight spots and in each and every case, a qualified Rav must be consulted. This is clearly stated by Rav Elyashiv ZT”L. There are no blanket global hetterim and no shortcuts. Sorry.

In today's day and age, it is the responsibility of secular authorities -  the police and the secular courts -  to enforce and prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place.

I do not think David Stav grasps that precisely because "it is the responsibility of secular authorities to enforce and prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place", that this is why the Halacha forbade us from voluntarily cooperating with these authorities. This is called “mesira” and it is unequivocally forbidden anywhere in the world for the sake of “justice”, punishment, or closure. It is only permitted for protection from continued activity, when there are no other options.

So, from our perspective, the hetter for mesira, when it is permissible, is on account of potential future activities, not past ones. Thus, the only secular jurisdiction that we are allowed to cooperate with is that of the potential future activities, not the secular jurisdiction of the past activities.

Now that we have cleared this up, here comes the most horrendously appalling issue with David Stav and what he calls “Halacha”.

David Stav actually once upon a time announced his candidacy for Chief Rabbi of Israel. Of Israel! Sounds a bit nationalistic, doesn't it? One would expect such a person to at least know the halachos that pertain to kedushas haaretz and harbor a love for this land. One who does not, sincerely deserves the epithet “am haaretz”.

So, all throughout this episode I have been incessantly quoting the Halacha clearly stated in Yoreh Deah 267:84-5. The Halacha clearly states as follows:

(84) A canaani servant who wishes to immigrate to Israel, we force his master to go with him…if the master wants to emigrate from Israel, he cannot force the servant to go unless he agrees. This law applies even in our times when the land is under the rule of the non-Jews.

(85) A servant who fled from the diaspora to Israel, we do not send him back. And this is the Torah prohibition of Lo Tasgir eved…

From these two Halachos together we learn that:

·         A “partial” Jew (canaani servant) cannot be forcibly extradited from the land.

·         This is not just a Rabbinic “Halacha” but an overt Torah prohibition (לא תעשה מדאורייתא).

·         This even applied in pre-1948 and certainly it applies after 1948.

A Torah prohibition on a partial Jew that is clearly in effect today! Is a full Jew any less protected?

In case you may believe so, in defiance of all logic (see Choshen Mishpat 420:1), let me cite another Halacha that I have thus far overlooked (hat tip my soldier son, Eli). It is not in Shulchan Aruch, it is only in the Rambam from the gemara Makkos 7a. Rambam states (Sanhedrin 13:8):

One who was convicted in a Beit Din in chutz l’aretz and he flees to another Beit Din in Eretz Yisroel, his verdict is automatically overturned and he must be tried anew [in Eretz Yisroel]…

Jurisdiction “in which the alleged acts took place”?? David Stav, are you kidding me? Even if the accused was totally convicted in the “jurisdiction in which the alleged acts took place”, if he comes to Eretz Yisroel, he gets a brand new trial here in Eretz Yisroel! How much more so if he (or she) was never tried in the first place and is now here in Eretz Yisroel!

Mr. Stav, do you have another version of Rambam? Do you have another version of gemara Makkos? Do you know any Halacha whatsoever?? (I am quite a bit perturbed at this point!)

In this case, in the interests of Halacha and caring for Torah values and the integrity of each and every person, we call upon the Israeli authorities to immediately allow for Malka Leifer’s extradition to Australia.

No, my friend. You are not speaking in the interests of Halacha or kedushas Eretz Yisroel. You are speaking in the interests of yourself and of the Sapper sisters. And, don’t you dare speak for the integrity of genuine Torah observant Jews. 

The pain that these sisters, and others, have experienced at the hands of this woman require that all who appreciate justice and love their fellow man, support this campaign. 

Ahem, how do you know they suffered any pain at the hands of this woman? Were you there? Did you hear the case from both sides? Did this woman confess? Is there any physical evidence?

In any case, neither the Halacha nor their pain requires this campaign to violate our Halacha forbidding extradition.

I am done with this letter. But to conclude, I want to comment on what David Stav said in a J-Wire interview:

"I don’t have the words to express my embarrassment for people who would use Torah to defend the actions of people who have acted in such a way,” he said. Comparing sexual abuse to a type of emotional murder, Rabbi Stav said, “Those who prohibit a man or woman to complain to the police are responsible for future cases.  They will not be able to say we didn’t know.  The blood of the future victims is screaming from the earth to say ‘you are responsible’”.

I will, for now, skip the first line and deal with the rest.

Comparing sexual abuse to a type of emotional murder,…

Romantic comparisons are nice, but one cannot turn them into Halacha if they are not genuine.

Murder means when you kill someone and they are dead. Not breathing or eating or maintaining a normal family (re: Nicole), or jet setting and taking holidays to Ventnor, Phillip Island and going around making public appearances and TV documentaries. DEAD! These girls are very much alive physically and emotionally (though not spiritually, but that is their own doing). Nobody was murdered. Not physically, not emotionally. At best, injured, but not murdered.

The Torah compares some types of sexual abuse to murder to teach the laws of rodef but there are two main stipulations: it must be giluy arayos, and it must be forced. Neither of these apply here. 

“Those who prohibit a man or woman to complain to the police are responsible for future cases…etc.

It is the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and Chofetz Chaim and even Rav Elyashiv who prohibit a man or woman to complain to the police in cases such as this. If you wish to blame them for future cases, be my guest, but do so at your own riskin’.

Now, the first line:

“I don’t have the words to express my embarrassment for people who would use Torah to defend the actions of people who have acted in such a way,”

I do have the words to express my embarrassment for people like David Stav. Disgraceful, appalling and  מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה.

Here, once again, David Stav is reframing the situation in a very deceptive and distorted manner. This is equally disgraceful.

My friend, nobody is using Torah to defend the alleged actions of 2002-2007. I am only using Torah to criticize the actions of the Sapper sisters and their supporters in 2018 and to bemoan the wanton and unjustified chillul Hashem that is occurring as a result of these 2018 actions.

Sof davar, I call on (Rabbi) David Stav, if he has any Halachic integrity and any regard for kedushas haaretz, to either verify his Halachic assertions in the face of my challenges – i.e., refute my Halachic sources – or to retract his letter.

As for the Sapper sisters, if they want to make a Halachic case to justify their activities, they need to find someone who is really a Rabbi and really Orthodox.

כי הנה הסתיו עבר הגשם חלף הלך לו...וקול התור[ה] נשמע בארצנו!