Creational Thinking

I wrote in my book that I wanted to insert an autobiography chapter to provide more personal background about it. After I wrote the chapter, I realized that it was too long and distracting to be published in full but the book would lack some depth if I totally left it out. I “compromised” by choosing some excerpts that were the most significant and printing them in an Appendix at the back of the book.

In one of these excerpts (Excerpt 4 page 276) I related that the local Jewish day school that I attended in my early years was more of a Modern Orthodox, Religious Zionist type. It did not begin to teach Chumash until third grade and when it did, it only began teaching from Parshat Lech Lecha and skipped the previous two Parshas. I am not sure why, but I remember being told that this is when Avrohom Avinu and the promise of Eretz Yisroel come on to the scene, so that’s where they want to start.

As a result, I passed through third grade being totally clueless about our tradition of Creation!

To make things worse, I wrote that by that point, I had already been fully indoctrinated to the concept of evolution from the numerous magazines, TV shows, museums or what have you. Thus, when a year or so later, my father finally sat me down to fill in the blanks and teach me Parshat Breishis, I was intellectually (not emotionally) traumatized.

Here is what I wrote in the concluding lines of that excerpt:

The trauma of the event was not that I will have to shift gears, but rather, this is what initiated me to the fact that there are more than one set of gears to shift to. To this point I was not aware that religious people and irreligious people do not share beliefs on fundamental issues.

Religious people think very differently than irreligious ones and conservative people think very differently than liberal ones. It doesn’t stop there. I have observed that there are even liberal thinking religious people and conservative thinking religious people – and they think very differently.

Likewise it seems to be an established fact that males think very differently than females.

As for me, aside from being religious, conservative, and a male, I also happen to be left-handed. I am of the opinion that left-handed people think very differently than right handed people.

Left-handed people are vastly outnumbered. We are forced to live in a right-handed world. This gives us a bit of an advantage because we can see the world from the perspective of the righties and work with right-handed devices (except for those @#$%^& can openers), because we are forced to, as well as from our own perspective. Since righties are the overwhelming majority, it is very hard for them to understand how lefties see things. As such, it is hard for them to even acknowledge that there is another way to see things.

Let’s carry this up to the other discrepancies. In the Western world, secular people vastly outnumber religious ones and liberals outnumber conservatives. (Let’s keep males and females at even odds and disregard this factor.)

If we follow our trend, the minority group is certainly aware of the majority opinion. They understand there is more than one style of thinking. They are also aware that the way they think is the less popular style. In the face of all this, they consciously choose the one that makes most sense to them. There is a distinct aspect of conviction in the perspective of the minority.

As for the majority (secular, liberal) group, there is no dispute that they are also thinking in the way that makes most sense to them. The question is: is this likewise a matter of conviction or is it a matter of expediency? More accurately, have they chosen this way of thinking out of a group of alternative options or are they unaware that there even are any alternatives?

It’s very hard to tell.

When I wrote the excerpt in my autobiography chapter, the message I was trying to send is that it took me until I was about ten years old to realize that there are different tracks of thinking on fundamental issues. I was being a bit apologetic. I thought I was a late bloomer. But after ten years in the blogosphere, I learned otherwise. Not only was I a bit advanced to make this observation and to “get there” ahead of the competition, but a good portion of the competition still hasn’t gotten there even now!

The liberal thinkers just cannot understand that there is another way to look at things. And so, anyone who doesn’t think like them is not merely a minority opinion, he is totally wacko. He can’t be rational. He must be meshugga, insane.

As I have written repeatedly in the past posts, this is most of the feedback that I receive from the outside world. "Moron. Retard. Idiot. Twisted." "How can any rational person even consider that Chazal’s 'solutions' can solve today’s problems???" This is how a popular “Rabbi” originally from New Zealand can call me a “lunatic”. (This was on Facebook but has since been removed).

A lunatic is somebody who is out of touch with reality.

The most recent example appears in the comments section of a recent Emes V’Emunah post.  Rabbi Maryles seemed to feel there is a toelles to laud the words of some anonymous “chareidi” who thinks that the Jews of the Yeshivish/Chareidi sector are not truly genuine. In other words, this “chareidi” feels that everyone is just like him.

I proclaimed otherwise. We do not impoverish ourselves in schar limud for our children and more mehudar hechsheirim to impress anybody. And kollel people do not stay in kollel to impress anybody.

In the course of this give and take a commenter broke in to contribute nothing except a reference to the controversy over my writings on the Malka Leifer episode. His reference revolved around the Judging the Judges Part II post. He did not link to it, so I did. He promptly volleyed (emphasis mine):

I doubt many sane people will have a higher opinion of you after reading that.

I promptly responded:

Depends on how you define a "sane person".
I highly suspect that you use the conventional "rosh kattan" definition of a "sane" person: "one who thinks just like you do".

There are people who like what I write. Not that many, but they are there. And there are people who do not like what I write (a much larger number). Those who like what I write will (and do) continue to respect me after reading posts like that. Those who do not like what I write will not change their minds from such a post.  That is, unless they are willing to change the way they think - which is why I wrote the post.

That would be a tall order and too much to expect from the average reader. They cannot handle the intellectual trauma.

I don’t think like this commenter and he doesn’t think like me. This much is clear. But, it’s not just that he doesn’t think like me. He is certain that no sane person would think like me. Anybody who thinks like me must be insane.

When I was a teenager there was a television series called Masterpiece Theater and my mother wouldn’t miss it. One series, titled I Claudius, was about the reign of the deranged Roman Emperor, Caligula – the ultra-perverted madman who fancied himself a god. In one bit of dialog, Caligula asks his uncle Claudius, “People, say that I am mad. Am I truly mad?”

The wise Claudius, one of the few insiders who actually stayed alive long enough to outlive Caligula, discretely answered, “Oh no, Caesar, that is not possible. You set the standards for sanity!”

So this commenter lives in a liberal, secular-minded world and, for him, his peers set the standards for sanity.

People like me, have a different set of standards for sanity. We define sanity as one who thinks like HKBH wants us to. In more practical terms, one who thinks how the Torah and Chazal instruct us to. This is why I wrote the post about Thinking Like a Jew before I wrote any of the Malka Leifer posts.  In order to understand how I think, take a look at how Chazal think. It’s really the same.

Of course, some misguided Australian “rabbanim” can call this list of marei makomos “fundamentally flawed” though, thus far, none has been able to reveal any of the fundamental flaws. The one who called me a lunatic on Facebook may be way more in touch with “reality” than I am, but he is hardly as in touch with Shas and Poskim.

I am a religious, conservative-minded, (left-handed) male thinker. I am a very small minority. But only religious, conservative-minded people think like Chazal (even if they are not left-handed).

Truth is not in the majority.

The whole world believed in self-gratification and gay rights for ten generations. Only Noach thought differently (was he left-handed?). Everybody thought he was insane. Building a big boat in the middle of the inland for 120 years! Nuts!

But he thought differently. He thought like Mesushelach taught him to think. Everybody knew Mesushelach, but nobody emulated him. He was an old fogey. Of course, he was the only one in town who personally learned at the feet of Adam HaRishon, but he wasn’t up to date. A bit senile by now, don’t you think? Insane.

Only Noach withstood the test of time (and of the Tahom Rabba).

After the flood, the masses were a tad better behaved in the debauchery department. But they were big on paganism and idolatry and human sciences. We can hold up the sky and control world events. A New World Order!

After another ten generations, only one person thought differently. He stood on the opposite side against all popular opinion. Avram the Ivri!

Nobody thought like him. He must have been insane (or, at least, fundamentally flawed). “We can’t let some unseen G-d or some ‘Torah’ tell us what to do. It’s way too imposing on our personal agendas. Let’s see how much heat this fellow can handle…”

להודיע...שכל הדורות היו מכעיסין ובאין עד שבא אברהם אבינו וקבל שכר כולם!

This tells us that all of the generations were [increasingly] angering HKBH until Avraham Avinu came and received the [potential] reward of them all.

There is power in numbers. But truth, and sanity, is with the few and the brave. Noach and Avrohom Avinu were not trying to win any popularity contests. They won much better things.

Likewise, I do not write my posts to win any popularity contests.

There are better things to win.

Judging the Judges - Part 3: The One Big Happy Family Court

Author’s Note – This is the third and final portion of the current multi-part post about how to think like a defense advocate. To appreciate this post, it is essential to first read the first half of the opening post – Part 1.

I am back from an exceedingly long unplanned cyber adventure to and from the Outback of Australia. I hope it’s done.  At long last, I am ready to move on and close my 3 part series which began last May.

So now, let’s talk about:

Episode 3 – Zvia Gordetzky

Before I begin, it is really important for the reader to understand the purpose and the premise of these posts.  So I must repeat once again, exactly what it says in the Author’s note above, that if you haven’t been following these posts, you really need to read the first half of the original post up to the sub-heading “Episode 1”.

In a word, the premise is that before we can make a valid judgment, we need to look at the whole picture. If we cannot do so, the judgment isn’t really valid. In my first post, I called this "thinking like a defense attorney".

I want to expand this into the medical field (since I mentioned forensics in my previous posts). Let’s learn an acronym:

WNL

What does this acronym stand for?

Several years ago I was taking classes on Psychology and counseling under Professor Joshua Ritchie (unemployment has its perks). He taught us that this is a well-known acronym in medical jargon and it means: Within Normal Limits.

In internal medicine it applies to things like vital statistics – temperature, heart rate, blood pressure or things like white cell count, cholesterol, blood sugar or even eyesight or hearing. If any of these attributes are WNL (within normal limits), then we can rule them out as not having an influence on the patient’s condition.  

In psychology, psychiatry and mental health, it refers to behavioral attributes that cannot be empirically measured. Thus if we want to determine if a patient is OCD, bi-polar, depressed, narcissistic, prone to violence or something along those lines, there are no precise measuring techniques. All we can do is administer behavioral tests and see if we feel the patient is WNL (within normal limits), or if they exceed normal limits (also WNL – Whole Nother Level).

Thus, if somebody has "WNL" marked on their chart for a given attribute, it means we can overlook this attribute when making a diagnosis, it is Within Normal Limits so it is not abnormal and so it has no influence.

But Prof. Ritchie told us that there is another meaning to the acronym WNL that is a bit more cynical and facetious. It likewise explains why a given attribute is ignored and not factored into the diagnosis. It stands for: We Never Looked! In other words, we never bothered to check.

Cynicism is just that, but if a medical practitioner makes a misdiagnosis because he accepted the “false” WNL in place of the true WNL, he will soon be an ex medical practitioner.

We all know that there is one more factor that any skilled diagnostician must take into account to ensure an accurate diagnosis. This is the patient’s medical or psychological history. This usually includes family background, as well. In short, for any diagnosis to be well grounded, we need to know where the patient is coming from, where he’s been and what he’s gone through.

Whenever these factors get written off as “WNL”, it’s supposed to mean that it’s because it’s “Within Normal Limits”.  But too much of the time it’s because “We Never Looked”.

In what I earlier called The Court of Public Opinion (Episode 1), I have learned that WNL is the standard. The public assumes that the aggressor is just like they are and we are not dealing with extenuating circumstances. They assign an automatic “WNL” to convince themselves that the circumstances are Within Normal Limits. That is why they are quick to judge this phantom fellow exclusively by their own standards. They are saying, “My behavior is 'within normal limits' (by my own standards) and if I were there, I wouldn’t act out like he did, so he is not entitled to act out that way, either (because he is also evaluated by my 'normal' standards). Since he unjustifiably acted out, he is surely a miscreant!”

In theory, they might concede that if this villain is coming from somewhere else and has a different background and history (as I suggested), he can’t be judged the same way. But this is all in theory because they never entertain such thoughts. Hence, their WNL means – "We Never Looked".

In the second episode, Kangaroo Court, I basically wrote the same thing. I entertained the idea that we do not know enough about this alleged miscreant. Perhaps she is likewise a victim of abuse and, if so, now that she is no longer an active threat, we need to look at her status from this angle. (Actually, one commenter on that post boldly confirmed this suspicion straight out. Nevertheless, I have no idea who he is and I cannot consider his statement reliable on his say so alone.)

The feedback I got was more sinister than I expected. The WNL notation in this case did not really mean “Within Normal Limits” and it didn’t even mean “We Never Looked”. It meant “We’ll Never Look”. “We don’t care. We don’t want to know. We may find out something that will force us to retreat from our vindictive position, so let’s not look!”

So now we can finally discuss Episode 3 – the case of Zvia Gordetsky. As in the previous two cases, we have a blameless victim – Little Red Riding Hood - looking for sympathy and justice who thinks it’s a good idea to bring their cause to the public domain, and we have a villain who is undoubtedly the big bad wolf.

The basic story is that Zvia Grodetsky is a 53 year old Ukranian Jewish olah whose marriage went sour after 17 years and has spent an additional 17 years trying to obtain a get. Her husband has not been overly cooperative and so, the Beis Din ordered him to be locked up until he complies. After a 16 year standoff, Mrs. Grodetsky appealed to the government to annul her marriage. Unfortunately for her, the government has no authority to do such a thing; not legally and not Halachically. After spinning her wheels for eight days and suddenly discovering that she is not feeling well and is losing pay time for work, she ultimately abandoned her hunger strike.

This episode occurred last May and made headlines for about 10 days. It doesn’t look like there was any press coverage prior to May 2017 in the English language media and there doesn’t seem to have been any since then. I did manage to find a few earlier references to this case in the Hebrew media. The story was primarily carried in two Times of Israel articles, one on May 8 and the second on May 15, both of which written by Marissa Newman. Emes V’Emunah picked up the story on May 10 and that’s where I saw it.

At first glance, this case seems to be much more cut and dried than the other two episodes. In contrast to the Miriam Shear episode, we know precisely who the villain is. In contrast to the Malka Leifer episode, this case was litigated in a bona fide Beis Din. Beis Din heard the case and ordered a get b’keffiya – the strictest kind – apparently based on the claim of violence which seems to have been substantiated.

In the wake of all of this irrefutable information provided by the immutable Times of Israel, Rabbi (Dayan) Maryles at Emes V’Emunah passes his judgement:

I know that there are always 2 sides to every story. And we haven’t heard his. But anyone who is as evil as this guy is has lost his right to have a side! 

So the ruling of Dayan Emes V’Emunah is that (1) We know he is evil even though we haven’t heard his side and (2) since we are sure that he is evil even though we haven’t heard his side, he has lost his right to have a side!

Did you get that? (Me, neither.) This is taking Within Normal Limits beyond We Never Looked to a Whole Nother Level!

But this is not anything new. This is precisely the slippery slope that I was discussing in my post about Victims Turned Predator - the moment an individual is merely accused of indecent behavior, he becomes an automatic pathological liar and anything he says must be discounted even if it makes perfect sense. Conversely, some of the most ludicrous, irrational accusations are swallowed whole because they were stated by upstanding people who, of course didn’t witness them, but will swear they heard them from anonymous “reliable sources” (who, of course, didn’t witness them…).

It is gratifying to see that I am not the only sane meshugenah left in the world. At least three commenters on the Emes V’Emunah post called out Dayan Maryles on this paradoxical psak (saved me the trouble). And several of them pointed out some of the other issues that I have with this story.

Commenter A simply wrote:!קשיא רישא אסיפא. 

Commenter B wrote:

What in the world is the basis of your assessment of evil?...Because you fathom that he must be doing this to simply cause her to suffer? You have NO idea! Perhaps he's horrendously hurt and humiliated by whatever way she may have treated him that he simply can't (from a very sad and twisted emotional place) participate in the divorce process. This would be tragic, but far from "evil."

These were my thoughts exactly. I once heard Rabbi Berel Wein say in a tape: We all have our demons. It is how we deal with them that determines who we are. We are very quick to draw our own red lines in accordance to our personal standards and set our parameters for WNL – Within Normal Limits – and this is how we rationalize labeling anybody who crosses those lines as “evil" or “delinquent” without any regard for where they are coming from, what dilemmas they are facing, and what their true intentions are.

With regard to this particular case, here is another commenter – Commenter C - that reflects my thoughts (edited for typos – emphasis is mine): 

This [good] for nothing husband may deserve his jail sentence and other husbands probably cough up gittin quicker [once] they know the [chance] of incarceration exists. But this jail sentence obviously isn't working. Perhaps different approach should be attempted. … there are psychological methods of changing a person's mind. No torture necessary…

To be sure, nobody is exonerating this husband and nobody is, chas v’shalom, criticizing the Beis Din. The Beis Din is acting by the book and using its full arsenal which, unfortunately, is quite limited in this age of galus. But there is a reality here that we must acknowledge: “this jail sentence obviously isn't working…” and if you read my earlier post about the futility of prison, you may wonder over the fact that Beis Din is keeping this guy in jail...and who is paying for it?

I am! And you are (if you live here). And the dayanim of the BD are. (Though, Dayan Maryles is not.) And Zvia Gordetsky is - in more ways than one. One article says she may lose her house due to mounting debts.

So, I don’t see how it is in anybody’s interest to label this guy as “evil”, even if he is, and be eager to throw this guy in jail and throw away the key. Of course we don’t really want to let this guy play his game and manipulate his opponents, but, if we are all losing out, it may just be the sensible thing to do! And, in order to do so, we may need to change our WNL from "Within Normal Limits" to "We Never Looked" and look at the things we have not bothered to look at until now.

Without "looking" we won't really know all that much. As to be expected, the TOI article leaves out a lot of very fundamental details. Its goal is to shine the spotlight on the plight of the chained wife but not to waste much ink on how she got there. It tells us that her husband has been violent toward her but nothing else. It doesn’t even tell us her husband’s name, nor his age, nor where he’s from.

For the most part we can live without these details. But there is one additional missing detail that needs to be included in order to make any “judgements” about this story: 

WHY? Why doesn’t he want to give her a get?

The TOI articles don’t even tell us that. And, of course, it certainly is not getting involved in what kind of role the wife played in this drama. To Emes V’Emunah and, I surmise, to most of the world, even this doesn’t matter. Who cares? Beis Din heard the case and ordered a get b’keffiya. And our villain hasn’t delivered it. He is “evil”. So now we must sympathize with her cause to get the government to override the “system” or find some other way to change it.

What details can we uncover if we really "look"? (Note- these details all assume that the stated facts in TOI and other media are accurate.)

What is the husband’s name?

From the research I did, it seems that his first name is Meir.

Where is he from?

Let’s see. His wife was married (to him) 34 years ago when she was 19 – works out to 1983 – and she only made Aliya from the Ukraine in 1990. So the wedding in 1983 was in the Ukraine. Ergo, he is from the Ukraine, as well.

How old is he?

It doesn’t say, but let’s guess. The TOI article says that Zvia Grodetsky, now 53 was 19 when she got married. It is hard to imagine that Meir was younger than that. I don’t know what the typical age for marriage would be but a fair guess is the mid 20s. Let’s be conservative and say that he was about 24 (I suspect even older). This would make him 5 years older than her or 58 now and having been born about 1959 or earlier.

So we have learned that Meir Gordetsky was born in Ukraine most likely before 1960. This means he was born during Nikita Khrushchev’s watch and, as of 1964, grew up under the thumbnail of Leonid Brezhnev (who was in business until 1982). These guys were no Jimmy Carter. The Ukraine is not Toledo!

We also know that currently, he is observant. He wears tefillin and prefers mehadrin kashrus. One Hebrew article seems to say Zvia wanted to send their boys to a more Dati Leumi yeshiva where they could do bagrut and he insisted on a no-bagrut chareidi yeshiva. Although it looks like all the boys are doing army service.

These few facts open a plethora of other questions (that I don’t have the answers for).

Is he a full-fledged two sided Jew or is at least one of his parents not Jewish?
What kind of life did he have in the Ukraine during the Khrushchev/Brezhnev years?
Did he have any kind of Jewish education when he grew up?
What kind of person was his father? Easygoing? Tough? Religoius? Communist?
Is he still alive? If not, how old was Meir when he died?
What about his mother?
What kind of household did he grow up in? How well did his parents get along?
Did Meir serve in the army in the Ukraine?
Did he have a kosher wedding? Who was misader kiddushin? Who were the eidim?
Were they shomer Torah and mitzvos and Mikveh at that point?
Did they redo their wedding after they made Aliya?

Unless we know the answers to all of these questions, I don’t think we have an inkling of who we are dealing with. One thing is certain – he doesn’t come from the same place as does anyone who is reading this blog or Dayan Emes V’Emunah and even Times of Israel.

Let’s get up to date and ask the two big questions:

1)   What went wrong with their marriage?

2)   Why doesn’t he want to give a get?

For question #1, the TOI tells us that he has a tendency to be violent. The fact that Beis Din seems to have ordered a get b’keffiya indicates that their assessment confirms this assertion. Of course, we still know that it takes two to tango. Even somebody with a very short fuse can be a very pleasant person if others are not careless about setting him off. So the TOI tells us of a vague episode with a tragic aftermath. But we don’t know what triggered this episode to begin with.

For question #2, TOI doesn’t give us a clue. But a KanV’Achshav video interview on May 11 does. In the video, she says that he is withholding the get “l’tzorach nekama” which literally means “for the purpose of taking revenge”. Indeed, it may be just a way of saying “just for spite”. But if she really means for the purpose of taking revenge, what does he seek revenge for?

She continues in her statement that he contends “if I cannot be his, I cannot be anyone else’s”.

So, according to Zvia at least, he is violent, vengeful, and possessive. Not a positive resume. For those who have read up a lot about spousal abuse and narcissistic disorders, this looks like a textbook case. And it may be.

Of course, firstly, we have only heard her viewpoint. But, more importantly,  we are used to making these diagnoses based on Western cultural norms. When somebody is brought up in a healthy family setting in Queens or Toronto or Golder’s Green and their background statistics are really WNL – Within Normal Limits, then it is easy to determine that their current behavior is outside of the normal limits and this person is an outcast.

But when somebody comes from a place where the “Normal Limits” are different, where the threshold for what is considered “violent” or “possessive” may be on a higher scale, we need to know what the rules in his rulebook are before we can be sure that he is breaking them. At the same time, he may not be aware that in his current environment, which is not his native one, the tolerance level for acting out is much lower.

Is Meir Grodetsky evil and is he irrational?

Meir Gordetsky is a Jew who was born and raised on the dark side of the iron curtain in the days of Khrushchev and Berzhnev and is fundamentally shomer Mitzvos today – even if he doesn’t know how to treat his wife. He’s been through a ringer that most of us cannot imagine. He has never had it easy. There is a lot to be said for that. He is not a nobody.

I can't see how we are qualified to judge him.

What seems certain is that we are dealing with a typical domestic spat that escalated beyond the point of no return. Not necessarily the "cycle of abuse" but the "cycle of vengeance". We all know it. Wife messes up, like, let's say,  she doesn’t have supper ready on time. Could be her fault could be not. Doesn’t really matter. Husband overreacts. She responds to his reaction. He responds to hers…etc., etc.

Nobody addresses the initial grievances but rather how wrong the other was to react that way. And the couple winds up in court or BD claiming irreconcilable differences.

Once, I was shocked to hear that a close family member of mine was going to give his wife a get. When I saw this fellow’s mother, she simply told me, “It was a small fire that grew into a big fire.”

This condition comes from a combination of anger, pride, misunderstanding and unresolved grievances. But definitely not evil. He may be a tough "nut" to crack, but I am not convinced that he is a nut!

Like everyone else outside of the arena, I don’t know what really happened between Meir and Zvia. Same goes for the other two episodes I wrote about. But, as in the other two cases, I can make an educated guess based on the scanty information that was presented on the Net. But let me first clarify something that most people don’t realize about divorce.

Too many people think that divorce is a method of ending a bad marriage. Like euthanizing someone who is terminally ill. And that’s how they implement it; to put the marriage to death.

This is not what it is meant to be.

Divorce is a funeral for a marriage that has already died.

You don’t bury someone who’s not dead, no matter how poor are his chances. So, if the marriage isn’t dead, don’t bury it!

So, when is it dead?

For the death of a person, we have clinical definitions. We can all agree that if someone has no pulse, no brain activity and doesn’t breathe, he’s dead. From the Jewish standpoint, if he has one of the three, he’s not dead. It’s too early to bury him.

A marriage involves two people and doesn’t have such clear indicators. So it becomes very subjective. I think a marriage is only dead when both sides think it is. As long as one side doesn't think so, it's not 100% dead and not  time to bury it.


It often happens that it may be dead to one party before its dead to the other; so one party goes on his or her own to prepare for the funeral while the other still wants to resuscitate it. In the eyes of Party B, Party A is burying a marriage that is not yet dead; essentially euthanizing it.  

Beis Din is meant to be the chevra kadisha for a dead marriage - not the ones to put it to death. If one feels that there is absolutely no hope for their marriage (i. e., that the marriage is dead), it is a good idea to make sure that the other side agrees to the status before transferring the “niftar” to the "morgue". Divorces are always much smoother when both sides acknowledge that the marriage is dead. In this case, the BD “chevra kadisha” is doing both sides a service.

But if Party A takes the “body” to the morgue before Party B acknowledges that it is dead, then Party B will forever think that Party A killed a marriage that could have been saved and that Beis Din is their accessory to the killing. It doesn’t matter what the truth is because once the body is buried, nobody can prove that it wasn’t still alive when it was brought to the morgue.

I have a feeling that Zvia Gordetsky brought the case to Beis Din a bit too soon. She may have convinced herself that there was no hope for her marriage, but he wasn’t convinced. And, who knows? Maybe he was right. He wasn’t born in Toledo or Queens or Golders Green or Eretz Yisroel. He is from Communist USSR. It could be that however he dealt with his wife over here does not typically spell the end of marriages where he comes from. In his eyes, she ran to Beis Din when there was still hope for their marriage. And Beis Din did her bidding and declared the marriage dead without his agreement. So he is angry at her and even more angry at Beis Din. As far as he is concerned, these two entities conspired to kill the marriage before it was really dead.

He is angry at them. Very angry. He won’t let them “break him” and he is even willing to forgo tefillin and mehadrin kashrus and minyanim and everything else to defy the people who buried his marriage before [he could acknowledge that] it was dead.

We will never know if his grievance is justified or not but it could be. In any case, I think this is what Commenter B in Emes V’Emunah was saying: “Perhaps he's horrendously hurt and humiliated by whatever way she may have treated him that he simply can't (from a very sad and twisted emotional place) participate in the divorce process.”

And Commenter C joins in: But this jail sentence obviously isn't working. Perhaps different approach should be attempted. …

It looks to me that both Zvia Gordetsky and the Beis Din are treating Meir like a “nobody”. And, if this is so, I can assure you that “nobody” is going to give her a get. I think all sides need to acknowledge that he has a grievance, whether it is justified or not. And perhaps they need to address his grievance on his terms.

Maybe if she stops using Beis Din as an accessory and lets him out of jail (at least for now) and stops running to the media and the Knesset so he can be painted as “evil” and does some honest professional gishur (mediation) like the new law dictates, just maybe her dead marriage can be brought to a proper burial.

Or, even better, maybe we can even see a techiyas hameisim.

Judging the Judges – Part 1: Court of Public Opinion

Author’s note – The new series of posts that I have been writing from after Pesach (starting May11) was originally intended to discuss the issues of Agunahs and recalcitrance. It was inspired by the May 10 post that appeared in Emes V’Emunah concerning a woman named Zvia Gordetsky. The previous two posts were meant to provide the context. Although I still intend to follow through on this subject, I felt compelled to digress and discuss a side issue that is touched upon in that post. This sidetrack grew into a very long post that I must split into two or three parts. Here is part 1.

In the Foreword of my book, I wrote that in the course of my project I am wearing “three uniforms”. This means that I am assuming three types of roles. One is that of an educator, the second is that of a rabbi or preacher, and the third is that of a legal advocate – a defense attorney. Accordingly, most of the blog posts that I have written are in the capacity of at least one of these roles.

Of these roles, I would say the most challenging, and perhaps most fulfilling one, is that of the defense attorney. It is also the least glamorous. The defense attorney defends those that currently stand accused. Even if final judgment has not yet been passed, the accused is usually already seen as guilty in the eyes of the prosecution and, consequently, in the eyes of the spectators. The defense attorney’s job is to sway a public opinion that may already have dried and hardened.

My first and primary “client” is chareidi ideology, behaviors and conventions. Essentially, this was the entire theme of my book. As such, I defended the entire chareidi community (link) after Rabbi Harry Maryles publicly accused us of fomenting “divisiveness” (link). I also defended (link), when he accused us of creating a “world of chumros” (link). I defended the Kollel system (link) after criticisms by Rabbi Harry Maryles (link) and Rabbi Wein (link) about a "dependency class". I defended our approach to geirus (link) during a country-wide outcry after Rav Avraham Sherman nullified the geirus of a woman who never observed any mitzvos whatsoever and challenged the authority of Rav Druckman (link). And, of course, I defended the advent of Mehadrin buses (link) after it had been attacked by almost everybody (link).

I defended individual chareidim or chareidi sympathizers from personal attacks such as defending Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky (link) after being needlessly maligned by Rabbi Maryles (link). Likewise, I defended Rabbi Aharon Feldman, shlita, (link) after his book was criticized by Rabbi Maryles (link) and Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Z”L, (link) and I defended an anonymous servant of the Herzeliya rabbanut (link) after an attack by Rabbi Maryles (link). And don’t forget Sar Yaakov Neeman, Z”L (link) – after his speech was criticized by Rabbi Maryles (link). I even defended Bibi Netanyahu‘s child allowance increase (link) after he was criticized by my personal friend, Sam Ser (link).

All pro bono.

Like an honest-to-goodness defense attorney, I even went so far as to “defend” some “indefensible” miscreants such as the callous thug who took on Miriam Shear (link), Elchanan Buzaglo (link), and even one or two accused seksual offenders, on the grounds that the accusations were largely unproven (link).

Trust me, they are all acts of love. As they say in the world of sports: one doesn’t usually score points while on defense.

I do this because, contrary to all appearances, I harbor a tremendous amount of ahavas Yisroel. To understand it better, just check out my “Xenophobia” post.

And I do it for another reason which is exceedingly selfish. I firmly believe that if one makes a career out of being dan l’kaf zechus, then when he goes Upstairs to face din v’cheshbon after his 120 years, he can expect to be handled in a similar fashion. Likewise, for one who makes a career about pointing out the flaws in others, real or imagined, this is, R”L, what he will be met with when his turn comes.

I sure know in what kind of courtroom I would prefer to be when my time comes.

I have noticed in the blogosphere and in the world at large, people are very quick to pass judgment on others. Obviously, “judgment” in this context means pejorative judgment. Everyone who does so feels qualified to do so.

But when a judge condemns a person, what is he doing?

He is proclaiming that the accused should not have done what he is being convicted of doing. The judge is making a statement that if he were in the exact same position, and if he were faced with the exact same trials and tribulations, he would act differently. The judge feels that he is above this kind of behavior so he is entitled to judge the miscreants.

As a rule, I do not feel qualified to judge others. (That’s why I am studying to be a Toen and not a Dayan!) Parshos Yisro gives us a few guidelines on what qualifies a judge. I don’t really meet any of them (especially the “sonei betza” part). And Pirkei Avos gives us some more. One of the main ones is:

אל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו.

Do not judge your fellow until you stand in his place. This is, until you can stand in his shoes. Until you know where he is coming from.

It is on this basis that I found it so easy to stand up for the alleged miscreants that I have defended. I can see things that others don’t see because I will look where others don’t look.

You see, things look very different when we look at the whole picture. Yet most self-appointed armchair “judges” don’t care to look at the whole picture. They only care to look at what they are shown. In all of the cases that I have dealt with on my blog, the only side to show anything is the accuser; always nothing from the accused. So, a prudent judge ought to promptly recuse himself from passing judgment because he doesn’t really know the whole story. But, this doesn’t seem to happen much on the blogosphere.

We all know there are two sides to every story. I think there are really three sides. There is the accuser’s side, the accused’s side, and there are the “forensics”. The forensics are the details we can learn from external sources such as the physical evidence, the environment, the “scene of the crime” (or lack thereof), or the fact that “you claim that it happened two weeks ago at the ball game but the Yankees were in Kansas City that week!”. It provides the context. There is always some context but, despite this, so many people are ready to pass judgment just on one side. It’s enough for them.

Usually, it’s enough for me as well. Because even when I only hear the accuser tell his (or her) side, when I listen carefully, I usually hear some startling confessions. From the accuser!

So let’s now briefly review some previous episodes and then move on to the new current episode which is the focus of this multi-part post.

Episode 1 – Miriam Shear

One of the earliest battles I took on when I opened this blog in 2008 was to confront Miriam Shear. Miriam Shear, a 50 year old tourist at the time, is a very strong-willed woman and not afraid to stand up (or sit down) for herself. In any case, she was very adamant to ensure that there should be no lasting legacy to the idea of segregated Mehadrin style buses on the Kosel (or any other) line. Unfortunately for her, some other folks (who were actually living in Eretz Yisrael) were equally devoted to upholding the Mehadrin status.

Her mesiras nefesh was put to the test on Nov. 24, 2006 when her resolve escalated into a full scale brawl on the No. 2 Kosel bound netz bus originating in Har Nof.

Her side of the story can be read HERE.

In addition to her claim of complete innocence and to have been wronged and victimized during the incident, she shamelessly alerted the whole world of her plight “after she forwarded an e-mail detailing her experience” as well as stating her case to the secular Israeli media (Haaretz). In this way she was publically accusing her alleged attacker(s) (it started with one person and seemingly escalated to about four). Thus, she propelled the whole issue of draconian Mehadrin buses and chareidi thuggery into the “court of public opinion”.

Understandably, the alleged perpetrator did not turn himself in; so he was tried in absentia. The world predominantly took her side and supported her story and position. As such, the chareidi world and its endeavor to minimize ta’aruves was thoroughly and publicly vilified. Her cause gained the sympathy of numerous righteous Jews such as Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz and RabbiHarry Maryles. We must do away and be apologetic about these “tznius-patrol thugs”!

I judged the story differently. My initial post aimed at pointing out her culpability in the incident can be read HERE.

I wasn’t totally alone. In her follow up post Enough is Enough she mentions that others, albeit a clear minority, echoed the main points of my post:

While the majority of the 3,000+ emails I received were supportive and even congratulatory for my refusal to be bullied by a group of mutineers on a public bus, there were nevertheless a significant enough minority who felt that I had erred for various reasons. The most common was that I should have behaved as a “bas melech Yisrael” and could have avoided all of the ugliness if I would have just been a little more compliant. A few even went so far as to condemn my response to the initial spitting (“you should have just gotten up and moved to the back”).

Perhaps the fact that her email address is (or was): imahawk@aol.com  tipped us off.

Although I also pointed out these “errors” from her own account, she conveniently omits that in addition, she expressly indicated that she was looking for a fight (she calls it a “heated verbal exchange”).

Still, every reader seemed to concede that she was attacked by a group of tznius patrol thugs (“group of mutineers”) who were acting unjustifiably violently regardless of whether or not she was in the right. They are guilty!!

I didn’t agree. Aside from the details that I wrote about in my first post which others also noticed such as: (1) she intentionally chose that seat, (2) she had had altercations in the past and was expecting more (i.e., she was looking for a fight), (3) she ignored the other women who implored her to move to the back and she certainly did not do it of her own accord, etc., all of this from her own account  – I also noticed something else that nobody else seemed to notice.

It’s what I called earlier “forensics” (or "context").

This incident occurred on the No. 2 Kosel bus that is designated for neitz hachama. I am not sure where it was holding on the route but if the bus was relatively empty, it was at one of the earlier stops, but probably not the very beginning. Regardless, this incident definitely occurred at 4:30-5:00 in the morning.

Who is going to be riding the bus to the Kosel at this hour? - some restless tznius-patrol shababniks (mutineers) who are looking for action? At 5:00 am?

Sorry, but these guys don’t start work that early.

Friends, the people who go to the Kosel for neitz on a daily basis are special people. They are very holy Jews. They are very committed to a life of kedusha. They deny themselves earthly comforts (such as a full night’s sleep) to maintain their level of kedusha. They are not violent. These people are no thugs. Please make a note of it.

Now let’s do a little  מגיע למקומו.

Initially, it was a single individual that confronted her. Not a group. She indicated that there were other empty seats. So let’s say the bus was half full and now this fellow comes up and sees a half full bus which is only going to get fuller with all of the women in the back and one lone kitty sitting where the men would like to find seats. Just one.

I am sure there were quite a few empty seats around her because none of the men are going to sit next to her and preferably not behind her or across from her. Thus, she was inadvertently consuming a lot of prime real estate. So, as the bus continues, more men will come and they will not be interested in looking at her. Where are they supposed to sit? Next to her? Across from her? In the back with all the women? She is already forcing the men into very awkward positons.

So now this Israeli sincere neitz-hachama-devoted fellow gets on and takes all of this in. What would you do?

I don’t mean what would you do if you were Rabbi Harry Maryles or Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz. I know what they would do. What would you do if you were a sincere Israeli Yerushalmi Jew, brought up on Yerushalmi principles who is devoted to a life of kedusha and to daven neitz at the Kosel on a daily basis?

Think about it.

One last thing. I wrote a follow up post where I brought up these issues. In that post, I went a step further in the מגיע למקומו department and I speculated for numerous reasons, that this fellow may not have been a Western minded Ashkenazi as is myself along with Rabbis Maryles and Horowitz and most everyone else who surfs the English language Internet. Perhaps he is of Sefardi background where the rules of engagement between men and women are much stricter than ours? Yes, this is mere conjecture, but it is at least even odds. And, if this is so, I posited, what on earth gives Miriam Shear or Rabbis Maryles and Horowitz or myself or anyone else in the blogosphere the right to even attempt to pass judgment (on a very observant Jew) based on our Western standards???

As long as we are not told in the media what this fellow’s background is, it behooves us to take all possibilities into consideration, does it not?

Because, not only are we cautioned from judging our fellow man until we know where he is (מגיע למקומו), we just as much need to know where he’s been – where he’s coming from.

Let’s move on to the next episode.

End of Part 1...