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.

Shidduchim XIV: Shidduch Pictures – The 5 Mems and Hevel HaYofi

 

Corona has set the world of shidduchim upside down. Restrictions and lockdowns have added new challenges to an already challenging sugya. The way things are going, every shidduch resume will begin with the following information:

Name: Mimi Klein

DOB: 01/15/2000

Height: 5’ 4”

Green Status: Pro-Vax/ Anti-Vax

Hashem yerachem!

More seriously (as if the above isn’t serious), there are imposing issues of logistics. If hotels and cafes and public parks and malls are not open for business (perhaps this is not such a problem in the US), where to go to date? Also, how to date a favorable prospect who is located in another place – city, town, country, continent?

Now the latter problem was just as prevalent before the pandemic crisis. As early as 2008, I was preaching to the world that we should be implementing webcam dating (previously Skype and currently Zoom) to overcome this hurdle. I did not get much of a following for this idea in 2008 and not even when I revisited the issue around 2016 when my son was learning in the US and Skype that much more advanced.

Now, with this crazy pandemic, things have certainly changed. All types of social interaction have been compromised. We are regularly using Zoom – or whatever system – to participate in simchas and funerals and even in schooling, shiurei Torah and chavrusas. Actually, for chavrusa learning, Zoom is a G-d-send. I have an official daily seder with my son in Tel Aviv which was born of this pandemic. Likewise, my nephew in Ashdod learns regularly with my Dad, LOY”T, (his grandfather), who lives in the US.

I have no idea to what extent online dates are being implemented in frum shidduchim and I would certainly like to have one. I am not talking about couples who have been dating for a while or who are already engaged. I am talking about using online technology to meet for the first time – perhaps, second or third as well – before actually meeting mask to mask.

I must assume that it probably happens on occasion and more often than it used to but, for the most part, even now it is eschewed as a normal way of initial dating as much as always. I don’t know about the boys, but it seems like it is something that the girls cannot come to terms with.

And this brings me to the main subject of this post – Shidduch Pictures.

Throughout the month of Adar, Mishpacha magazine was fielding a slew of correspondence on a new trend which many find disturbing. It is the matter of boys or shadchanim requesting – or demanding – that girls release a picture of themselves as a prerequisite to agreeing to date the girl. Is this appropriate or not?

This series of letters stirred up so much publicity that Reb Dovid Lichtenstein dedicated a podcast episode of Headlines to this topic featuring a number of outspoken people who spoke out. Finally, in the grand Pesach edition of Mishpacha magazine, some anonymous activist put out a full page ad on page 205. The ad comprises big bold white letters, all caps, on a totally black background that scream out, “STOP THE SHIDDUCH PICTURES!” Aside from an email address “For more information”, there is nothing else on this page.

Seems like some folks are taking this very seriously. Should they be?

I don’t think so.

Why?

As distasteful as it may be, it has its place.

In order to understand this topic, we need to understand shidduchim. And no discussion about shidduchim would be complete without a discussion of the 5 Mems.

To state my credentials, I never got semicha, so it could be that I don’t know a word of Shas and poskim (I have nearly finished Shas, I have completed all of mishnayos more than twice and have completed all four sections of Shulchan Aruch - Mechaber and Rema – cover to cover but never took tests for semicha) but as an alumnus of the BMG Shidduch Factory (pre-freezer) with almost five years of active dating on my record, I can proudly claim to be an expert on the 5 Mems.

Now, the 5 Mems come before the 2 Mems of Maarava that are graced in the renowned gemara in Berachos 8a:

במערבא כי נסיב אינש אתתא אמרי ליה הכי מצא או מוצא? מצא דכתיב "מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה'" מוצא דכתיב "ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה וגו'".

In Maarava (Eretz Yisroel), when a fellow would marry a woman, they would ask, “Is it Matza or Motzeh?” “Matza” refers to the pasuk that says (Mishlei 18:22) “One who has found (matza) a wife has found something good”. “Motzeh” refers to the pasuk that says (Koheles 7:26) “And I find (motzeh) more bitter than death a wife…”

They are asking: Is this a good woman, a good find? Or is this a toxic woman?

But these 2 Mems come after the shidduch is done, once the plate is broken. Before we get there, we have the 5 Mems, and they are these:

1.    מראה – Mareh – Appearance

2.    ממון – Mammon – Financial status

3.    משפחה – Mishpacha – Family status (Family background, yichus, stability)

4.    מחשבה – Machshava – Mind (Basic intelligence, opinions and personality)

5.    מידות – Midos – Values (ethical and religious)

These five attributes characterize the things a boy is looking for in a spouse. Each boy has the standards for each of these attributes that conform to his needs and the girl much get at least passing grades in all five categories. As such, the way this list was usually applied was as a retroactive diagnostic tool. This means that after the boy dated the girl, if he wasn’t sure he wanted to continue or was sure that he did not want to continue, the shadchan would present this list and ask which of the “5 Mems” did not meet his expectations? This information helps the boy zero in on what is bothering him and to determine if it is “adjustable” with this girl, or at least to help get him a more fitting match the next time.

An unrealistic boy who is not himself a superstar may insist on a high score on all fronts and will very likely be on the market for a while, but a normal level-headed boy will understand that he will very likely not find a perfect “ten” across the board. With this technique, we can see which attributes are more important to him so that if the girl is outstanding in one of those attributes he will be more flexible in some others. This can apply to any of the attributes, even the appearance.

I noted that, as a diagnostic tool, the list would be analyzed retroactively – i.e., after the date. But clearly, every boy (and most girls) has their personal “5 Mems” search profile tucked into their subconsciousness from the get-go. Remember that the 5 Mems includes appearance and, quite often, it is at the top of the list.

We all know that the system, and just plain common sense, dictates that we find out as much information as is readily available before we make the investment of going out on real dates. The reason for all these resumes and references and phone inquiries is to be able to make an informed decision and to choose from a number of available options those that have the best chances of success. Family is looked into, education is looked into, personality is looked into and money is looked into way more than it should be. This is all based on the degree of importance to the boy and his family. There is no reason not to look into appearance on the same scale.

Incidentally, none of the information that we get in shidduch inquiries can be considered accurate. Perhaps her name, birthdate and height are empirical items but everything else can be manipulated, distorted, overplayed or underplayed as much as a photo. So, to me, the argument that a photo does not give a true “picture” is totally meaningless. Neither does any other piece of information. But it does give one an idea and works into the composite picture of things.

(One of the great folk tales is about a bochur who put his dormitory number as a reference for his shidduchim. A prospective father-in-law called the number and the boy himself happened to pick up the phone. The inquisitor, who had no idea he was speaking to the bochur he was investigating, asked if the boy shows up to minyan on time. The bochur truthfully answered, “I will tell you the truth, I personally am not always on time for davening, BUT… whenever I get to minyan, he is always also there.”)

Recall that I have been preaching for years about holding preliminary webcam shidduch dates before actual face-to-face meetings. Apparently, this did not really take off. A large part of the reason is that it does not sit well with the female side of the mechitza. The girls want the real thing from the start. They want the boys to take out the time and money and tremendous energy to meet them without even having any idea what they look like.

I don’t look at this as being fair to the boy. I think that as long as providing a picture (on request) it is so readily doable, once requested, it is only fair to accommodate the request. And I believe that for a boy who has many options and wants a certain type of appearance (or, more likely, wants to rule out a certain type of appearance that does not appeal to him), he has the right to ask.

This brings us to the Halachic perspective of all of this.

I followed the discussions in Mishpacha magazine to a large extent. Don’t know if I read everything. Like much of what I see in the world at large, it was much more emotion than intellect. It goes without saying that the overwhelming consensus is not in favor of it. For those who got this far in this blog post, it may surprise you that after all I have written, I am also not in favor of it. I feel that the system is better served without it. But this is my feeling. The question is, there anything wrong with it from a Halachic perspective? If not, then any boy who requests a picture is within his rights. As such, the public has no right to denigrate and vilify anybody who is in favor of it.

This brings us to the discussion in the podcast episode of Headlines. I listened to the entire podcast. My verdict:

I have a great deal of respect for Rabbi Henoch Plotnik (full disclaimer, he is a close friend of mine from Yeshiva and more) though I think what he discussed is not relevant to the issue. And I also greatly respect the statements of Rabbi Shlomo Goldberger. What is more important is that I think Mrs. Bella Beer and “Reb Meir” were right on the money.

Mrs. Tova Weinstein, although she means well, is barking up the wrong tree. She is focusing on the potential, or perhaps actual, abuse of the situation. We all agree any “practice” can be abused but this is no reason to actively oppose those who see a toeles in it. I do not support her campaign nor do I think that anybody should. [Incidentally, she claims not to be connected to the full page black and white ad in the Pesach edition of Mishpacha magazine which I think is a waste of Yiddishe gelt. Chaval not to put that money in some Hachnasas Kallah fund.]

I was very impressed with Rabbi Plotnik’s discussion and the fact that he brought up the money issue and I agree with all his thoughts in general. The only thing that gave me pause was his emphasis on the gemara in Sanhedrin 75a which, as Reb Dovid Lichtenstein noted, does not deal with shidduchim and his totally overlooking and omitting the well-known gemara in Taanis that does deal with shidduchim.

For those who did not hear the podcast, Rabbi Plotnik brought up a gemara in Sanhedrin 75a which tells us how far we must stay away from giluy arayos – a dvar aveirah. The gemara tells of a fellow who was physically lovesick for a woman he evidently had seen and the doctors said he will die if he cannot gratify his craving to be intimate with her. It was a case of life or death.

The sure cure was actual intimate relations and the Rabbis ruled that this is out of the question even to save his life. The doctors suggested it may be adequate if he merely sees her unclothed. The Rabbis said we cannot allow this, either. The doctors said perhaps if he merely hears her voice from behind a barrier. The Rabbis said that even this shadow of giluy arayos we must prohibit to save the man’s life.

This is a very powerful Chazal and an apt lesson on how far we must stay away from a dvar aveira. Even a shadow of one. As Rabbi Plotnik correctly states, we see the sensitivity we must have to this subject. However, Rabbi Plotnik does us one disservice and he tells us so himself – “I am not talking about Halacha, I am talking about sensitivity.” He discussed the “hashkafic” aspect but tactfully avoided the Halachic one. I think he had no business avoiding it.

It is important to know the sensitivity and he does a great job. But it is just as important – if not more so – to know the Halacha. As he said, this issue is racked by emotion. It is the sensitivity that causes this. But we need to stay focused on the Halacha. The problem with the gemara in Sanhedrin 75a is that it is telling us the sensitivity, and the Halacha, we must follow when faced with a dvar aveirah. Alas, our subject is not dealing with a dvar aveirah. It is dealing with a dvar mitzvah. We need Chazal to tell us the flexibility we may have in order to accomplish a dvar mitzvah. For this we have a different Chazal which was not mentioned at all throughout the entire Headlines podcast! The omission troubles me.

The gemara I am referring to is very well-known and it is located in Taanis. Most of us know the Mishna in Taanis (26b) that states:

There were no better days for the Jewish nation than the 15^th of Av and Yom Kippur. For on those days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out wearing white dresses that were borrowed so as not to shame those who did not have their own dresses… And what would they say? Young man, raise your eyes and look at what you can choose… Do not look at beauty but rather look at family pedigree…

Later on, the gemara elaborates (31a – Ein Yaakov version):

The pretty ones would say, “Set your eyes on beauty for a woman is only for beauty.” The pedigreed ones would say, “Set your eyes on pedigree for a woman is only for children.” The affluent ones would say, “Set your eyes on those who are wealthy (for a woman is only for Kollel – YH).” The homely ones would say, “Make your acquisition for the sake of Heaven but you must adorn us with jewels.”

I am very fond of the Ein Yaakov version because, with it, we see at least 3 out of 5 of the 5 Mems – Mareh (appearance), Mishpacha (yichus), and Mammon (gelt). I would venture to say that when the gemara mentions the “homely” girls who want the boy to make his purchase “for the sake of Heaven” it was referring to the smart ones (Machshava) or outgoing ones (Midos) who had a lot to offer but couldn’t compete in the looks, yichus or money department. As such, it really covers the entire list.

As I noted in previous posts, we don’t always take the agaddic parts of Chazal at literal face value. This maypole dance may not have been as “hefker” as it seems, but it does clearly indicate that when it comes to making shidduchim, we loosen the reins to some extent.

And it tells us something more – different strokes for different folks. HKBH gave every girl their strengths and weaknesses and part of His plan is that He gave a girl what she’ll need to catch the right man. If it’s looks it’s looks. If it’s money it’s money. If it’s brains it’s brains.

The Taanis maypole dance was a yearly event. A type of speed dating where the bochurim can go out without renting a car and without buying a coke and evaluate the “merchandise” (sorry ladies but even the gemara calls it a “purchase”). And, by the way, it took place during bein ha’zmanim! We don’t have this anymore. Nowadays, to meet a girl, a bochur needs to painstakingly close his gemara, dress up, travel out, buy at least two cokes and put in at least an hour or two before taking the girl home and only then traveling back.

No ben-Torah should go through all this without feeling that there is a reasonable chance that his efforts will bear fruit. It is for this reason that each person checks out the resume and calls references and ask the questions that are important to him. This applies to anything that should be important and the gemara in Taanis as well as the famous Chazal (Kiddushin 41a) – noted by Rabbi Plotnik – that it is forbidden to betroth a woman before one evaluates her appearance, tells us that checking out the girls appearance is a fundamental part of the process. Actually, the gemara in Taanis puts it at the top of the list.

In my day, before we had Internet, email and digital photos, we still wanted to get an idea of what the girl looks like. The Yeshiva joke was about the “chanyaki” iber-frum Yeshiva boy asking the shadchan, “Nu, so tell me about how’s the hevel hayofi?” If the shadchan was related to the girl or a friend or classmate and had a picture we would certainly want to look at it. We would ask the “scale of 1 to 10” question and feel out from the way the shadchan described her appearance if there was an emphasis on how she looks and dresses or if other factors were emphasized more. We would turn down suggestions just as much if the shadchan was not emphatic enough about the girl’s looks even though perhaps we would like what we saw. That’s the way it goes. We also got really mad at shadchanim who played up the girl’s looks and knew it wouldn’t meet the expectations of the boy.

There is a lot of gneivas daas (deception) in this game. Believe it or not, the photos actually reduce that.

The argument that – “Let them go out and he will see if he likes her looks” is valid but at the same time it is also shallow and futile. It can apply to any other attribute on the list and as much as he has a right – and perhaps responsibility – to investigate these characteristics עד היכן שהיד מגיע before he invests his time, money, and energy, there is no reason it applies to this attribute any less. This is exactly what Mrs. Bella Beer said in her interview on the podcast and I could not agree with her more.

Likewise, I agree with what the bochur Meir said in the podcast that, contrary to the nay-sayers, one can see a lot of personality traits in a picture. Sure, they can be misleading but so can real life meetings. Serious bochurim will not pass pictures around like baseball cards (really serious bochurim won’t even have smartphones to do it with).

All told, on the one hand I am not a fan of asking for or sending pictures. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that we cannot escape modern technology nor should we. I believe like the gemara in Taanis says – every girl should put their best foot (feature) forward and try to snag a guy who values that feature the most. As much as a picture may “hurt” some girls who may not be photogenic but have other good qualities, they may actually help many girls who come from checkered backgrounds or families or did not do too well in school or have other issues. For example, a boy from a stable family may be hesitant to get involved with a girl whose parents are divorced but if she shines in a photo, it may turn the tide in her favor. For some, a picture will level the playing field, not tilt it.

We cannot turn the wheel backwards and we do not perform the Masechet Taanis maypole dance anymore. There is a shidduch crisis going on and anything that gets the job done is fair game. But it needs to be done right.

Sof Davar

After carefully examining both the Halachic and Hashkafic angles of this issue, here is “Rabbi” Yechezkel Hirshman’s “psak”:

1. Any boy who wants to know what the girl looks like before he goes out on an actual date is totally within his rights. As such, his request should be respected and, at the very least, not disparaged or vilified in any way. Note that seeing what the girl looks like does not mean storing it on disk or smartphone and passing it around.
   
   
2. Conversely, any girl who is not comfortable to submit a photo should not be pressured into doing so.
   
   
3. The photos should not be standalone jpegs or tifs. They should only be embedded into her resume as part of a PDF.
   
   
4.  The wise thing is for a girl to have two versions of her resume in PDF or Word (preferably PDF), one without a photo and one with. Unless specifically requested otherwise, she should only submit the one without the photo. If a specific boy who is seriously investigating the suggestion requests a photo and his details seem good, it is wise to comply BUT do not send just a photo but rather send the second resume with the photo embedded. This way her photo does not go anywhere without the rest of her resume.
   
   
5. For the photo, do not primp up like a movie starlet. Believe it or not, most serious Yeshiva boys don’t want to marry girls that look like starlets and need to primp up. They only want natural chein and that is what you want to capture in the photo.

Personally, as noted above, I am not in favor of a boy requesting to see a picture, but I am likewise against actively opposing it. It has its place.

Currently, I have two daughters in the parsha. I send regular resumes without photos but, upon request, if the shadchan requests a photo, I will without hesitation send a photo of my daughter looking “baalabatish” and certainly not “dressed to kill”. The purpose of the photo is to let the boy know what she looks like, not to “sell the product”. So far, I have not followed my own advice about sending an embedded photo because I only deal with serious Torah-diga people and am not paranoid about their pictures being passed around.

Take it from the man with seven daughters:

אִם אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְצִוְּךָ אֱלֹקים, וְיָכָלְתָּ עֲמֹד; וְגַם כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה, עַל-מְקֹמוֹ יָבֹא בְשָׁלוֹם. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Dassi's Lament - The Pitfalls of Vengeance

Part I – A Short Vort

והבור רק, אין בו מים (בראשית לז,כד)

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

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

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

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

The first two are very concise and almost identical:

Insight 1 (מפי השמועה)

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

Insight 2 (מפי השמועה)

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

Insight 3 (אזנים לתורה)

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

Baba Kama 17a

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

Yoma 22b

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

Avoda Zara 13b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let us put it all together.

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

They passed a sentence of bor.

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

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

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

End of sermon.

Part II – Dassi’s First Post

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

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

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

The pit is empty. There is no water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part III – Dassi’s Second Post

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

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

Here is the short list of revelations:

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

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

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

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

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

This raises two very important questions:

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

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

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

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

Something definitely does not add up here.

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

It’s confirmed. Dassi is no longer religious!

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s her problem?

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not fair!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הוא מלאך המות

End of Part III