The Strange Arm of the Law

About two months ago I had a very minor car accident wherein I basically relieved a 2015 Mazda of its right side mirror. Yes, of course, I got out of the car and we exchanged the relevant information. And I didn’t say, “I’m sorry. It was all my fault” although, it very likely was. (I was backing up!) I estimated the damage to be relatively low, somewhere between 500-1000 shekels.

A day or two later I was contacted by the “owner” of the car (the driver’s mother) and I told her that this seems to me to be a low priced damage which is certainly way beneath my deductible, so I would prefer to take care of it between ourselves. She said she cannot accommodate me because it is a leased car.

Fair enough.

All was quiet for quite some time. Then, about six weeks later I finally received a letter from the leasing company demanding payment for damage. Beneath that paragraph was a line that said:

Description of damage:

1.   Damage         1459 NIS

Total owed:  1459 NIS

Well, this amount exceeded my personal “estimate” and, in addition, there was no itemized description of the damage whatsoever. It did not tell me what this sum is based on. How do I know they didn’t replace the brake pads in the process?

While I do take responsibility for this damage, I am not in any hurry to pay it. For sure, I was in no mood to pay NIS 1459 which seemed to me an exorbitant sum for just a mirror. As such, I fired a letter off to the leasing company that I feel this sum is exaggerated and that their “Description of Damage” was not descriptive enough. They must furnish me with an appraiser’s report and/or the paperwork detailing what work was done and the costs of parts and labor. I ended off that for lack of these papers I am not willing to pay more than NIS 600 for this damage.

After patting myself on the back for my brilliant stalling tactic, I sat back to see what would happen.

It didn’t take more than a day or two that I received an email with a note and an attachment. The attachment was a very authentic looking copy of a very authentic looking invoice from a very authentic looking car repair shop in Talpiot. The invoice itemized the mirror at NIS 1389.40 plus labor at NIS 70 (very reasonable labor BTW) for a total of NIS 1459.40. It did not include a report from an official appraiser.

The note said, “Attached is the invoice for the repair of the mirror.” And it ended with these words: “Your request for a settlement (pshara) is denied.”

I read the note and looked at the invoice.  Even though I still thought the part was exorbitantly priced, I had to appreciate that they discounted me 40 agurot. All told, I said to myself, “My goose is cooked. I suppose I am going to have to fork over NIS 1459”. 

NIS 1459 (just a bit over USD $400) is not easily missed in my meager budget and I am all for more stalling. To accomplish this, I immediately sent them a return email which said, “Thank you very much for the information. The price still appears to be exaggerated. I will check into this and get back to you.”

I let a week slide by. I wasn’t even sure it was worthwhile for me to check out the price. Everything looked real, so what would I achieve?  Still, I decided to show the invoice to Sholom, a body shop man in Givat Shaul that I used previously.

Oh boy, am I ever glad I did!

I asked Sholom if this price is realistic and I pessimistically expected him to confirm it as so. Sholom looked at the invoice and asked me, “What year is this car?” The answer is 2015. “When was the accident?” April 2018.

Sholom proceeded to tell me that they obviously used a genuine original part to repair the car and this is what parts like this cost. But then he said that the law says that if someone’s car is damaged, the owner is only entitled to use original parts to fix his car for up to two years from the year of manufacture.  After two years, the car is classified as a used car and any part of the car that was damaged in an accident is considered a used part. As such, the liable party only needs to shoulder the cost of a generic or used part for the repairs.

I asked him how much is a used part valued at? He answered that the appraisal protocol values non-original parts at 50% of the value of a genuine part. There may be an exception if the part is totally unavailable non-original but this needs the approval of the appraiser. As I wrote, there was no appraisal report included in the paperwork.

This was music to my ears!

I immediately went home and fired off a letter to the leasing company wherein I related everything Sholom told me. I told them I am prepared to pay 50% for the part – NIS 695 – plus the NIS 70 for labor for a total of NIS 765 and not a grush more. I ended the letter saying, “Your denial of my request for a settlement is denied!”

I expected not to wait more than another day or two to receive a notice that would either refute my law facts and demand full price or that would concede the facts and agree to close on NIS 765. But all this was almost two weeks ago and, so far, I haven’t heard a peep from them. End of story is that, to date, I haven’t even paid a penny for the accident and who knows if it won’t get lost in the twilight zone? What’s more, I am very confident that when I ever will pay it, it will not be for more than NIS 765.

And what is the moral of this tale?

It pays to know the law.

It could save you a bundle of gelt and heartache. Knowledge is power and knowing one’s rights and obligations by law will always give one a racer’s edge during runtime.

Probably, we all know this valuable piece of advice. For sure, anybody in any line of work knows the laws that apply to his day to day activities. But folks don’t know so much about things that are not everyday occurrences. And they don’t appreciate how much it can come in handy when they least expect it; hence, the lesson that I almost didn’t learn about car repairs. And I only learned it in the nick of time.

Now, many people think they know the laws about certain matters. But they are not scrupulous enough. This is a terrible trap. They may think they are “covered” by the law when they are really not – or that the other guy is not covered when he really is. And this can be needlessly costly. One needs to know the law well, with all its restrictions, exceptions and limitations. We know that nobody knows criminal law better than a professional criminal. An amateur criminal gets busted. So...Take a tip from Bill Sykes. He can whip what he likes…

Of course, this rule applies to any code of laws – secular or Halachic. For we who live in two worlds, we don’t always know when a dispute is going to go Halachic or secular.

Issues and disputes tend to catch us off guard. We can’t be expected to know all laws and Halachos of a mostly irrelevant topic. But a wise person at least knows that now that he is facing an unusual situation, it pays to speak with the experts about the laws and Halachos that apply. He is in for quite a few surprises. Some may be pleasant and others not. But it will help him tremendously to know. And this is why wise people will consult with lawyers, toanim, or dayanim when an unfamiliar situation comes up.

In some cases the advice costs money. This can be tricky and calls for a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the money at stake is worth the investment. If it is, it’s a good idea to shell it out. 

Thus far, in this post, I mainly discussed secular law. The story about the car repair involved secular law and it took me by surprise. I wrote a post a few months back about the laws of extradition. I’ve had readers complaining about misinterpretation and I even put in a few updates, but, by and large, we found a few surprises. The law is not as “smooth” as many of us would like it to be.

Likewise, as a writer on the Internet, aside from the journalistic ethics (which are not laws), it helps to know some of the laws about copyright infringement, good faith criticism, defamation and libel. I have been looking into some of these laws lately because I have been victimized by these.  Once again, some pleasant surprises and some not so pleasant.

Of course, the mandate of One Above and Seven Below and of my blog is to present the Halachic viewpoint. We are Halachic Jews after all (aren’t we?) and I have discussed numerous Halachic topics over the years. In order to do so responsibly, I need to research all of these topics at length.

Moreover, in my ongoing training as a Toen Rabbani (still not finished) I have had to learn a tremendous amount of Choshen Mishpat and Even HaEzer and, believe me, these are where the surprises are.

Consider the following.

Chaim lives in an average size apartment in Har Nof which he owns. His family is growing and he really would like bigger living quarters and he even has a nest egg of savings which he is willing to use for this purpose. He knows he can find a suitable solution by selling his apartment and moving to another less expensive location, but he loves his location and his building and neighbors. Everything is great right where he is except he needs more space.

One day his next door neighbor informs him out of the blue that he is moving. He was only renting and the landlord did not want to extend his lease. The landlord needed cash so he is now selling the apartment to a young family making Aliya from France.

Chaim is livid! If only he knew. Nobody told him! He would have been happy to offer on this adjacent apartment and combine it with his and it would be the ideal solution to his problem. Now, this potential opportunity evaporated to air and he is no closer to his dream than yesterday.

Well, Chaim may have been daydreaming when they were learning Bava Basra in Yeshiva, but if he paid attention, he may be aware that in Halacha there is a law of bar metzra. The law of bar metzra says that if one person is selling real estate, the one who owns adjacent real estate has priority to buy it as long as all other details are equal – at least the same price, at least the same terms, cash for cash, etc.

Even if the original seller and buyer have already gone to contract, the bar metzra can rush to Beis Din and petition them to nullify the contract and order the seller to sell to him. All this is in Choshen Mishpat 175. It’s worthwhile to know it.

So now let’s say Chaim got tipped off about his rights and runs to BD and makes his case.

Good for him.

However, Choshen Mishpat 175 is a very long siman. It comprises 63 articles and they all count. So, let’s say the couple from France doesn’t feel like starting from scratch and looking for a new place. The French husband goes over the siman and stumbles across article 47. Article 47 states:

If one sells to a woman or to young orphans, there is no counter claim of bar metzra…

The Rema gets a bit tougher:

If she bought it together with her husband, the bar metzra cannot even remove the husband.

Whoa! Mr. Frenchman is buying together with his wife. Looks like bar metzra doesn't count.

Poor Chaim. His dream is back in the clouds. He will miss his own bar metzra. Chaim is lost!

But wait! Chaim gets persistent and decides to really go over this siman. Or, he gets a hold of a toen who knows his stuff. Chaim introduces himself to the Rema at the end of article 49:

This is all if the buyer is from this city and cannot find a house anywhere else, but, if not so, the neighbor has priority over everyone else!

Ahah! The couple from France do not yet have a foothold in Har Nof. There is no reason they cannot search in Bayit VeGan (more French speakers there anyway). Chaim is back in business!

In truth, not all dayanim will look at these offsetting Halachos the same way, so it is not certain who will win this fight, but the point is, it pays to know the rules and know Choshen Mishpat 175.

Incidentally, once we are in the neighborhood (get it?), a few months back one of my sons WhatApped me about a scandalous occurrence in Kiryat Moshe (of all places) where, apparently, a dati person sold his apartment to an Arab because he got a great price. Naturally, all of the neighbors and Chardalniks (this is Merkaz HaRav territory) were up in arms with rage. But what could they do about it?

Well, some bright Talmid Chacham remembered Choshen Mishpat 175:40 which says:

If one sells or rents his property to a non-Jew, we put him in a shamta until he accepts upon himself all incidental damage that may arise from the non-Jew…and if a damage arises in the lifetime of the seller (and then he passes), his son must pay the damages from the seller’s estate.

Even this is not that simple. The very next article (175:41) gives a proviso:

This only applies if he is capable of selling or renting the property to a Jew for the same price but he is not obligated to sell it to the Jew for less.

Case closed? Not yet. This article continues:

But if it appears that the non-Jew is buying in order to disrupt the Jew’s settlement, it is all according to how the dayan views it.

Incidentally, all of this is meant to apply only outside of Eretz Yisrael because in Eretz Yisrael, it is prohibited to sell property to a non-Jew under all circumstances because of Lo Techanem (Devarim 7:2). Except that Lo Techanem is hard to enforce in today’s Eretz Yisrael. But it could be that trhe proviso of Article 41 that the seller does not need to sell for less will not apply in Eretz Yisrael because of Lo Techanem.

Anyway, I have no idea what became of that incident in Kiryat Moshe. But the bottom line is:

We all need to know the rules. It can save us a bundle of money and heartache.

This is what I had in mind when I first wrote my book and described the distinction between the “consumer” (amateur) and the “provider” (professional).

Over the years, I have written about many important Halachic issues and my purpose was to reveal some of the surprises to the “consumers” because it is so important to know the rules. Here are some examples:

·       Petzuah Daka – Anyone who needs prostrate surgery needs to get Rabbinic guidance (although in most cases, the standard surgery is permitted). Not only is it absolutely forbidden to undergo a vasectomy, but if one does so, he cannot remain married.

In my courses as a Toen Rabbani I am subscribed to an email group that sends us all of the latest rulings from the Beit Din HaRabbani. This covers all aspects of Even Ezer.

One recent ruling involved a woman who wanted to divorce her husband and to ensure this, she claimed he underwent a vasectomy in the US. The husband did not deny it but said he is willing to undergo a procedure for reversal. The Beis Din ruled that we do not look for the future and right now he is a Petzuah daka. He was given a ruling of Kofim LeGaresh which is the highest level and he can be forced with corporal punishment to divorce his wife.

·       Prenups – It is very difficult for a man to conditionally waive his rights to his wife’s earnings in advance. Either he does it unconditionally or it is not waived.

·       Molestation and Kehuna – As more and more incidents of this crisis arise in well-established Jewish families (R”L) and we are all concerned about the emotional welfare of the abused child, we cannot overlook the Halachic angle. If a young girl was molested with true sexual contact – front or back – by a father, brother, or non-Jew, she is forbidden to a Kohen. Any contact below the waste must be investigated and brought to a Rav.

·       Malshinus – These are the Halachos of mesira and rodef that I devoted so many posts to. The Halachos are right there where I say they are and even so, so many Jews cannot accept them.

·       Extraditing a Jew – This was one of the biggest chiddushim.  A Jew cannot be extradited outside of Eretz Yisrael even in our times of galus. It’s right there in Yoreh Deah 267:85. I suppose some prejudiced people can argue that it doesn’t apply to a regular Jew, only a slave, but it’s very hard to justify such a viewpoint.

I have one more topic to discuss.

I am studying to be a Toen Rabbani. In case you do not know what a Toen Rabbani is, he is a Halachic advocate. Just like it is a lawyer’s job to advise his clients of the laws that pertain to his case, and to argue before the judge to interpret the laws to the benefit of his client, a Toen Rabbani does the same in Beis Din when the code of laws in question is the Shulchan Aruch. The prime area where a Toen is needed is in the area of family law – shalom bayis problems and divorce. Especially because most of the people in Eretz Yisrael that show up to a Beis Din for family issues are secular Jews who do not know the first thing about Halacha. In Beis Din they will learn a bit about the Halacha for the very first time.

And they will be very surprised.

But sadly, even quite a few of those who are versed in Halacha show up to Beis Din HaRabbani for shalom bayis problems. And it’s heart-rending. The interesting thing is that we are now discussing people who know day to day Halacha. They know enough Halacha to keep Kosher and Shabbos, to daven and make brachos, and how and when to use the mikveh.

These topics are in Yoreh Deah and Orach Chaim. The sad thing is that they do not know much about Even HaEzer. Sure they learned a few prakim in Kesubos and Gittin when they were in yeshiva, but by the time these Halachos get into Even HaEzer they look a lot different.

These are learned people and, when they set out for Beis Din, they think they know what’s in store. But as I said, one needs to know the rules with all of the details. And when they get to Beis Din, they learn some rules for the very first time. Rules they should have known before. And if they would have known these rules up front, maybe they wouldn’t have to go to Beis Din at all and learn them when it’s a bit too late.

Here’s a true story.

A husband and wife were at loggerheads and were headed for divorce. In the interim they were together in one place talking to a counselor by phone. At one point, the husband was on the phone and telling the counselor his version of whatever. The wife wasn’t happy with what the husband was saying so she pulled the phone out of his hand while he was in mid-sentence. The husband was obviously quite irritated and angrily grabbed the phone right back.

Shortly after this incident, the wife related this incident to her lawyer (it may have been an inept toen). He told her that she has a case for domestic violence and she should immediately file a complaint by the police and request a tzav harchaka (restraining order). She did as she was instructed.

When the story got to Beis Din and BD could figure out that this complaint to the police was ungrounded, they slapped her with moredes and she lost all rights to spousal support and to her kesuba.

Well, maybe she can sue her lawyer for malpractice and get it back.

When even the most observant couples go to Beis Din, they commonly squabble about what he does or doesn’t do and what she does or doesn’t do. Oft times they are shocked when the dayan asks him, “Why do you think she is required to do that?” or he asks her, “What makes you think that he is not entitled to do that?”

They never really knew the rules. And if they did, maybe they wouldn’t be in Beis Din.

When I was a chassan more than 30 years ago, my chassan teacher taught me all of the Halachos of Taharas HaMishpacha like standard and gave me the standard pep talk about how to interact with my wife during the night and during the day. He also did one extra thing that I don’t think was standard. He told me to read over the Kesuba up front and make sure I understand what it says.

I am told that today, there is a little more training about worldly issues. But still something is missing.

The rules.

Chassanim are taught the relevant parts of Yoreh Deah 183-200 but they are not taught the relevant parts of Even HaEzer 69-90. This is where the rules are. I really think that Chassan and Kallah lessons need to include these Halachos.

I haven’t completed the Toen Rabbani course yet, and even when I will, IY”H, I am really not too eager to take on the job. It’s a very messy profession. Please, I don’t want your business. 

Learn the rules up front, boys and girls. Trust me, you don’t want to pay me big shekels to spring on you surprises.

Mesira XIII: Thinking Like a Jew

Author’s note – This post speaks candidly about some very mature topics. It is still a kosher l’mehadrin post. Nevertheless, I needed to purposely misspell some words so the post will not be blocked by content filters.

After all the book reports that I presented in my last post, I would like to present just one more.

This is on a book titled: One Above and Seven Below by Yechezkel Hirshman and it is truly one of my favorites. I have read it cover to cover numerous times and I highly recommend it.

One Above and Seven Below has a subtitle: A Consumer’s Guide to Orthodox Judaism from the Perspective of the Chareidim. In the Intro chapter, the author explains the subtitle and bemoans the fact that many mitzvah observant Jews are simply consumers to Judaism. This means they really don’t know much about it.

He goes on to list a number of hazards that a consumer of Judaism is prone to (page 32). Hazard #3 is as follows:

·         Hazard #3 - Vulnerability for allowing concepts (read: propaganda) from non-religious sources to influence one’s position on religious issues.

What he means is that consumerist Jews who live in Western societies tend to develop their philosophies based on non-Jewish Western secular values. To be more blunt, this is saying that many American mitzvah observant Jews think more like a secular American than they think like a Jew.

The best example is that Westernized Jewish women tend be influenced by today’s more egalitarian philosophies when it comes to marriage roles and inheritance. Because the secular laws call for no-fault divorce and equitable distribution, this is what she expects. Then she files for no-fault divorce in a secular court or she gets a yerusha that is contested. When the case reaches a beis din she is shocked to discover that there is no such thing as no-fault divorce in Shulchan Aruch and inheritance rules are not as equitable as she thought.

All this time she was thinking like an American woman but she wasn’t thinking like a Jew. This is a consumer.

The author uses the term “hazard” because these consumerist shortcomings are not merely handicaps but they are truly dangerous. They can lead to a lot of needless damage in the form of monetary damage, injury, and death. I hope to elaborate more in the next post.

The purpose of this post is to present מראה מקומות – source material – for the upcoming post. It is meant to describe how the Torah, Talmud, and Halacha define legal concepts. In some cases the Halachic definition is very close to the Western one, which certainly adds to the confusion. Minor discrepancies can make big differences. 

Thus, as a public service and as a (second) preamble to the coming post, I am honored to present a “glossary” of both legal terms and Halachic terms and to present the Western and/or Halachic meanings and sources where applicable.

Let’s begin.

Seksual Act (Giluy Arayos)

In the Western world this generally means an activity between any two (or more) creatures under the sun (or under the covers) where any part of one creature’s body comes into contact with any part of another creature’s body – usually in an intimate manner.

In the Torah world it is limited to an activity where the reproductive organ of a male mammal comes into contact with an orifice of another mammal (male or female) below the waste. At least one of the mammals must be a human being. If the act does not involve the reproductive organ of a male mammal, it is not a seksual act in the eyes of the Torah.

Lezbian Activity

Lezbian activity is not a form of giluy arayos since it does not involve a male mammal. It is not subject to any of the extreme penalties of giluy arayos. Nevertheless, according to Rambam (Issurei Biah 21:8), this is forbidden under the category of Maaseh Eretz Mitrzrayim and those who engage in it are subject to Makkos Mardus. Still, he says clearly that there is no explicit prohibition for this in the Torah. Likewise, a lezbian act does not make a woman unfit to marry a kohein.

Pedophile

From a lot of news items that I have read, there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what this means. Let’s go with an official definition (From Wikipedia):

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive seksual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

This tells us that a pedophile is one who lusts after children using the biological definition (which just happens to be the Halachic definition, as well). Amazingly, one who lusts after young women who have already attained puberty such as 14 or 15 years old and beyond, who has all the bells and whistles, is not a pedophile. Make a note of this.

Homophile – Gay or Lezbian

Homophilia (homoseksuality or Same Sex Attraction – SSA) is a psychiatric disorder in which an individual experiences a primary or exclusive seksual attraction to a member of the same gender. Very often homophiles like to dress and act in ways that resemble the norms of the opposite gender. In a clinical sense, one can be homoseksual even without doing a homoseksual act. 

If a person is by preference heteroseksual but, due to supply and demand, only has access to members of the same gender – such as those cooped up in segregated schools, the military, or prison – and they take advantage of a member of their gender as a substitute, and they do not adopt the mannerisms of the opposite gender, they are not clinically homoseksual. Hence, one can do a homoseksual act even if one is not homoseksual. This is especially true regarding lezbian activity since, halachically, it is not even a seksual act. Thus, in many cases, a woman who engages in lezbian activity is not truly a lezbian. Make a note of this, too.

Child

There are three definitions of a child – Halachic, biological, and Western legal.

Halachic definition of a child – A person who has not yet reached puberty

Biological definition of a child – A person who has not yet reached puberty

Western legal definition of a child – A person who is not considered old enough to know that he is not a child. This is better known as the “age of consent”. This depends on what somebody needs to consent to and varies from state to state. In “red” states it’s younger and in “blue” states it is older.

Age of Consent

For all judicial matters, the Halachic age of consent is the same as the transition from childhood to puberty. This would be the age of 13 for a male and the age of 12 for a female. For Western standards, see above.

Rape - Oness

The original Western legal definition of rape is the insertion of an object or body part into the orifice of another person without their consent. More recently, the legal term “rape” has been replaced by a more vague term “seksual assault” or “deviant seksual assault”. Nowadays, since the Western concept of “sex” has been expanded to mean any type of intimate contact, it has evolved that any type of unwanted intimate contact is now called “rape”.

In Halacha, rape is a [genuine] seksual act committed by a male toward a female or another male without the latter’s consent. A female cannot rape anybody.

Another very important distinction is that when I just wrote that the Western definition is "insertion...without their consent", I meant just that. It is enough for an act to be without consent even if not by physical coercion to be called rape. The Torah's standard of "without consent" really means by force, either brute physical force or the threat of physical force. Absence of force or the threat of force is construed as consent. I discuss this more in the next section on Pitui.

Interestingly, the Halacha is only concerned about the seksual aspect of rape in regard to the penalties of giluy arayos and eligibility to marry a kohein. In terms of the “violence” of rape, it is looked upon exactly the same as any non-seksual physical assault. Just as one needs to compensate another for personal injury - pain, medical expenses, loss of employment, disgrace - so the rapist must compensate monetarily. Personal injury is a financial matter, not a criminal one. Halachically, there is no call for corporal punishment or incarceration or other extreme punishment for rape. 

Thus, surprisingly, rape that is not incestuous, homoseksual, or adulterous is not a Halachic felony at all. It is merely a monetary tort. (Ironically, if it is a Halachic felony and there is a judicial penalty for giluy arayos, this may supersede the civil requirement for compensation and the victim gets nothing!)  

The only outstanding issue is if one deflowers a young single woman (up to 12 ½ years) without her consent, he is subject to a special fine payable to her father for taking her virginity and, if the young woman so chooses, life imprisonment as her husband.

Statutory rape (Pitui)

Statutory rape (or “Indecent liberties with a minor/child” or “Carnal knowledge of a minor/child”) is a situation of a male carrying out a seksual act with a female between the ages of puberty and the legal age of consent even if she professed her consent. For this, we usually fall back to traditional definitions of “sex”. If it is not a full seksual act it is usually only called “molestation”.

Interestingly enough, this offense may actually be modeled after the Halachic precedent of pitui (Shmos 22:15). Pitui is the same case as related above of deflowering a young woman up to 12 ½ years, but it was with her consent. In this case, the male can avoid the fine if both parties agree to marriage. If either side does not want a marriage, the male must pay the fine to the father.

We see from here that according to Halacha, a girl who has reached puberty is fully capable of consent.  Thus, from the viewpoint of Halacha, we consider any girl above the age of 12 to know what she is doing. The Rambam (Hilchos Naara Besula 1:2) says that the burden of proof to claim that the event was non-consensual is upon the 12 year old girl unless it took place in a secluded area where nobody could hear if she would scream.

More than this, in case the girl was betrothed or married, even at this age she is liable for the death penalty if she is seduced by a man but not forced by pain of death (or fear of death).

Nashim Daatan Kalos (Kedushin 80b)

This is a Talmudic dictum which tells us that women are vulnerable to seduction at any age.

The ramification of this combined with what I wrote in the previous topic is that Halachically, a 25 year old woman cannot complain of being taken advantage of at the age of 15 by professing “I was young and vulnerable” because she is just as vulnerable at 25 as she is at 15 and she is just as responsible at 15 as she is when 25.

Victim

Halachically, a victim is somebody who suffered a loss, injury, trauma, or whatever, at the hands of another person and who did nothing of substance to contribute to the event.  If they contributed to any degree, it is questionable if they can be considered a victim. (Rashi Devarim 22:23)

I wrote about this at great length in this post.

Secondary or Expanded Liability

The Western world believes in Secondary or Expanded liability. The Torah world does not. Secondary liability means holding a person responsible for an offense he did not commit solely because he is somehow associated with the real offender.

Here is what I wrote in my post about the Markey bill dated May 5, 2009:

We are all influenced by western society's dogma of "all associated parties are responsible" that is the basis of mountains of litigation in Western courtrooms. Negligence here, negligence there. Everybody is responsible for the miscreant behavior of their children and spouses and their children's spouses and their spouse's children and their employees and their employee's spouses and children and for their products and for what their products produce and for everybody who can't read instructions and doesn't know that coffee is hot. In the West there is never an ingrown toenail without somebody to sue.

Is that what the Halacha says?

Here's what the gemara says (Baba kamma 87a): חרש שוטה וקטן פגיעתן רעה החובל בהן חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין. העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה החובל בהם חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין

This means that from an Halachic perspective, when an person inflicts some damage, it doesn't matter who their spouse is, who their parent is, who their employer is, as long as the parent/spouse/employer did not actively aid and abet the perpetrator, and more so if they were not aware of their destructive tendencies, then there are no Halachic grounds for compensation from them.

Neemanus (Devarim 19:15)

Substantiating facts by the word of somebody who is qualified to establish facts. Halchically, this means an adult male eye witness who is fully objective. To have complete neemanus this testimony must be corroborated by a second such eye witness.

Nogeah B’Edus (Sanhedrin 23b and 34a)

Having a stake in the case. This means that one cannot be objective and has no level of neemanus.

Adam Karov Eitzel Atzmo (Sanhedrin 10a)

Talmudic terminology to indicate that no person is objective enough to testify on his own behalf. This especially applies to alleged victims of wrongdoing.

Raglayim L’davar (Sota 3a)

A cheap substitute for neemanus that beis din can rely upon in a situation where an issue cannot be ignored but genuine neemanus is unavailable.

Raglayim l’davar means there are credible known facts or axiomatic circumstances that give a claim “legs” (raglayim) of support. One example is mesiach lefi tumo – if an objective person makes a casual statement without being aware of the ramifications of such statement. Another example is when a man violates hilchos yichud with a woman and the woman claims there was seksual activity. There is a raglayim l’davar that there was indeed such activity but no neemanus for her to claim that it was not consensual because adam karov eitzel atzmo.

Note – Raglayim l’davar is usually only adequate for protective measures such as to invoke a restraining order (tzav meniya) but not for punitive measures. For this we would need neemanus.

Umdenah D’Muchach (Baba Basra 146b – Shu”A Ch”M 61:9)

Irrefutable circumstantial evidence. Such as a smoking gun with a ballistics match or a DNA match in a seksual assault case. Another basis for a raglayim l’davar.

Dan L’Kaf Zechus (B’Tzedek Tishpot – Vayikra 19:16)

In Pirkei Avos and other places in Shas we are advised to judge people favorably. We can mistakenly look at this to be just a commendable personality trait but not an actual obligation. The Chofetz Chaim doesn’t see it this way. He maintains (Hilchos Lashon Hara 3:7) that in any situation where we see, hear or read about a misdeed, if there is any room to be dan the event l’kaf zchus, we are obligated to do so. He repeats this incessantly throughout his writings. According to him, this is not optional.

At the judicial level, both the Halachic system and the Western system promote presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is always upon the plaintiff.

Malshinus (Vayikra 19:16)

The act of disclosing the wrongdoings of one person to another. Alternatively, the act of disclosing the whereabouts of a person or property of a person who is being sought after as a wrongdoer.

Mesira (Shu”A Ch’M 388)

The act of malshinus directed to an entity that does not employ Torah sanctioned methods of dealing with the alleged wrongdoing. This usually includes any non-Jewish entity and quite a few Jewish ones.

Rodef (Sanhedrin 73a)

One who poses a clear and present danger to another. If it is unclear whether he poses a present danger (safek rodef) it may also be justified to apply the rules of rodef if there is a raglayim l’davar (but proceed with caution). However, if one clearly does not pose any danger at all at present, he is not a rodef and not subject to the rules. This should be crystal clear.

Nezek - Financial Damage (Shu”A Ch”M 378:1)

An action that directly causes a monetary depreciation. In a typical case where a grown person inflicts such damage, he will be liable for full compensation in beis din.

Gram Nezek – Inadvertant Damage (Bava Kamma 55b)

A roundabout action that indirectly causes a monetary depreciation to another. Such as opening the door to somebody’s barn and allowing the horses to flee and be lost. The perpetrator did not do any direct harm to the horses so he cannot be considered a true mazik. In this case beis din cannot make him liable but he is considered to be fully liable in the Heavenly court.

There are varying degrees of Gram Nezek. The simple case is like the above example where the mazik was simply negligent and his wayward action did not inevitably have to result in a damage. It just came out that way. Here, he will still be liable in a Heavenly court. There are more extreme cases where the mazik intended for the result and/or the resulting damage were an inevitable cause and effect. For example if Reuven takes an object from Shimon and intentionally lays it on a railroad track just in time for the 4:38 Express. This is called Garmi and is obviously more serious. According to Rabi Meir (Baba Kamma 100a), this damage can be ruled for liability in a standard beis din. Even though we do not generally pasken like Rabi Meir, today, many batei din use their judicial license to obligate the perpetrator to pay in cases like this.

The lesson is that just because a beis din cannot prosecute such a case does not mean that the perpetrator is not a mazik and there is no penalty. There is a Heavenly penalty which, likely as not, may be more severe.

We will demonstrate that the concept of chayav bidei shamayim – liable in a Heavenly court – applies to a whole slew of infractions between man and man.

Chavala – Personal Injury (Baba Kamma 83b)

An action that causes personal injury to another. This is a form of nezek as described above but it is expanded that it includes liability for collateral losses such as pain and embarrassment, medical expenses, and lost wages due to disability.

Since this goes into the category of monetary damage, the same rules of Gram and Garmi automatically apply. Actually, the gemara (Baba Kamma 56a) even presents a case of one who suddenly frightens his friend and, as such, indirectly causes an injury. This is likewise liable in the heavenly court.

Retzicha – Murder (Breishis 9:6)

An action that directly causes the death of another. This is a capital crime subject to the death penalty.

Here, as well, the death penalty in a beis din can only be carried out if the act of murder was direct and immediate. (Besides all the other stipulations of two witnesses and being forewarned, etc.) But what about somebody who is merely a “Gram” rotzeach such as one who hires killers or one who sics a wild animal on his victim? The gemara tells us that he is exempt so the unassuming scholar may conclude that this is OK. This is not murder. Let’s do it.

For this reason, the Rambam (Rotzeach 2:2) goes to great lengths to tell us that one who murders through hire or agency or indirect methods is “a spiller of blood and carries the sin of murder and is liable [for death] in a heavenly court.” In the next Halacha he presents the scriptural sources for this claim. In the next Halacha he states that “for all these types of murderers who are not liable in beis din” the king is allowed to impose the death penalty on his own, and even Beis din can make a special deterent case and execute him. Finally, in the next Halacha he states that even if beis din is unable to impose a judicial execution, they should "beat them within inches of their lives, imprison them for long periods under harsh conditions, and to find other means of distressing them" to deter others.

Gonev Nefashos (Gonev ish u’mecharo) - Kidnapping and False Imprisonment (Shmos 21:16 - Devarim 24:7)

The Western definition of kidnapping is: Transporting a person against his will.  In Halacha this is called Gonev Nefashos and is the prime intent of the prohibition of Lo Tignov in the Ten Commandments. This is also a capital crime.

Technically speaking, for one to be liable for death in a standard beis din, there must be three infractions: (1) Kidnapping – transporting the person from his home and (2) making use of his labor even for a value less than a peruta and (3) selling him into bondage. One action or two without the last is not sufficient to incur the death penalty – in a standard court. But we have learned from Nezek and Rotzeach that the Heavenly court also convenes. Even though for this transgression it does not say anything explicitly in Rambam about indirect involvement, there is absolutely no reason to say that this is any different. Does it need to be spelled out in every kind of sin?

Thus, it is reasonable to say that one who hires others to kidnap a Jew and sell him into bondage is liable in a Heavenly court. Likewise, one who kidnaps a Jew and does not profit from him, though he won’t be liable for death in a standard beis din, he is definitely a miscreant and is liable to whatever Heaven feels is coming to him.

The question is: Is turning another Jew over for incarceration at the hands of non-Jews also like “selling” him? Is the sinful aspect of selling only when there is profit or is it transferring him to another hostile party even without profit? Is an intangible “gain” from turning him over (i.e., revenge or personal satisfaction) considered having profited?

These details are not expressed in Halacha but my personal feeling is that anybody who willfully collaborates with any entity to transport a Jew from his home and incarcerate him where this action is in no way warranted by any Halachic premise, is worthy of death at the hands of Heaven.

Lo Tasgir Eved – Extradition (Devarim 23:16)

At face value, this pasuk is telling us not to return a runaway slave to his non-Jewish owner. But the gemara in Gittin 45a takes this beyond face value.

There are numerous statements in Shas which tell us how important it is for a Jew to live in Eretz Yisroel. The most famous are: אסור לצאת מארץ ישראל לחוץ לארץ אלא ללמוד תורה ולישא אישה (Avoda Zara 13a, Rambam Melachim 5:9) and הכל מעלים לארץ ישראל ואין הכל מורידין (Kesubos 110b). The gemara in Gittin tells us how far this goes (also see Shu"A Y"D 267:81-85). It tells us that even a Canaani slave that rightfully belongs to an observant Jew who lives in chutz l’aretz, if he runs to Eretz Yisroel it is forbidden to return him to his rightful Jewish owner. He must be freed and allowed to stay and reimburse his owner.

We cannot extradite a Canaani slave to Chutz l’aretz.

Now, the only pasuk that we have on this issue is this one about a Canaani slave. What about a Jewish slave (eved ivri)?

Well, we have a rule in the Talmud (Baba Kamma 74a): B’chlal maatayim mana – 100 is included in 200. If the Torah tells us that even a slave who is only partially Jewish cannot be extradited to chutz L’aretz, it is certain that a slave that is fully Jewish cannot be extradited to chutz l’aretz. And how much more so, it goes without saying that a freeman (ben chorin) who is Jewish cannot be forcibly extradited outside of Eretz Yisroel for any unholy reason. See Choshen Mishpat 420:1 for a parallel "kal v'chomer".

Besides all this, it escapes me (pardon the pun) how any ben chorin can be forcibly extradited outside of Eretz Yisroel without transgressing Gonev Ish U’Mecharo (kidnapping) which is a capital crime.

The upshot is that to extradite a Jew from Eretz Yisroel to chutz l’aretz is not something I would like on my record. But what about instigating others to extradite somebody to Chutz l’aretz? Or orchestrating it indirectly?

We have learned that for Nizkei mammon and Chovel and Retzicha that indirect involvement (gramma) is liable in a Heavenly court. We have no reason to think that Gonev Nefashos or Lo Tasgir is any different.


Second Degree Mesira 

After we know all this, we learn something more about Mesira.  We see that there are different degrees of Mesira. The standard Mesira that the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 388) and Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:12) rant about that is the worst infraction imaginable and the transgressor forfeits his share of Olam Haba is only a simple low-level moser. This is one who merely discloses to the authorities the wrongdoing or the whereabouts of the subject. Thereupon, the authorities take matters into their own hands. Automatic transmission.

However, there is also a more sophisticated heavy-duty moser. This is one who, in addition to informing on the subject, aids and abets the prosecution by pressing charges, testifying, supplying evidence, petitioning the authorities for extradition or an indictment, etc. Manual transmission.  For such a person, losing his share in Olam Haba is getting off way too easy.

The final topic that I need to define is:

אף על פי שחטא, ישראל הוא

This concept goes together with: The soul of a human lusts for illicit wealth – gezel - and forbidden relations – arayos (Makkos 23b) and Most people stumble in gezel and some people stumble in arayos and all people stumble in [avak] lashon hara (Baba Basra 165a).

How many times have we been sitting at a Shabbos table or at a simcha discussing the latest scandal (avak lashon hara) and somebody mutters: “How can frum people do such a thing?” Whereupon some self-righteous person always exclaims: “I’ll tell you how, they are simply not frum!”

This is very wrong. People have lusts which they cannot always control and the gemara tells us that these two infractions, gezel and arayos, stand out at the top of the list. Yet, even if one stumbles in some of the 365 lo taasehs, this does not mitigate his Jewishness one iota. Anybody who believes in the 13 Ikarei Emunah and keeps Shabbos, wears tallis and tefillin and keeps all of the positive mitzvos is as “frum” as anybody else. He (or she) must obviously deal with their demons and make restitution to the people they hurt or be segragted from the community but it cannot be said that their service to HKBH in unrelated areas is at all defective. There are "frum" ganavim and "frum" molesters and their infractions do not inhibit their rights and responsibilities to daven and learn and keep Shabbos and Yom tov and kosher, etc.

(Note – I once had it out with a Rav after his shul sent a letter to a member who had been suspected of past abuse. The letter said that he can only daven there if this and that and he stays in his seat and…he is not entitled to get any kibudim or aliyos. I asked this Rav, “What are you going to do when he has yahrtzeit?” And this Rav just looked at me with a puzzled look on his face as if to say “It didn’t occur to me that he still has to be Jewish.”)

Thus, if a community must take measures to deal with a confirmed miscreant and certainly with one who is only suspected, there is no justification whatsoever to employ a method that will inhibit him from continuing to keep Torah and mitzvos faithfully as long as it can be avoided. I can assure you that anybody who participates in an action that impedes another Jew from continuing his (or her) observance of Torah and mitzvos will have to answer for it under a very, very hot lamp.

I certainly hope that I have clarified the Torah outlook on these topics and perhaps, more Jewish consumers can learn how to think like a Jew. If so, we are now ready to tackle current events.

To be continued…

What It Means to Convert

I made a new pen pal today. I met him in the Talkback section of the Jerusalem Post. I have never met him personally and I don't know much about him but I know this much (assuming everything he writes is factual): He calls himself Eric and he lives in Israel. He is a born Jew and he has officiated at batei din for converts.

Thusfar, I shot the opening volley and he reacted to my comment. Currently, these both appear in the Talkback section of the relevant article. I responded to his reaction but, thusfar, it has not been posted online. The JP is painfully slow at posting comments (though not nearly as bad as Cross Currents). Perhaps he will continue the correspondence. We'll see. For now, let's rehash:

The Jerusalem Post article in question is titled: Converts Demand Hearing on Conversion Nullifications.

To summarize the article, 2 women are petitioning the High Court of Justice to force the Rabbinic court of Tel Aviv that reinstated their conversions to do more than that and to make a definitive ruling as to whether a Rabbinical court can annul a conversion in the first place.

Did I get that right?

Now, the opening paragraph of this article seems to indicate (note - much of the article is unclear) that at least one of the two women who are petitioning may be the very woman whose conversion was annulled by the dayan in Ashdod that triggered the whole ruckus in the first place.

Before we go on, it is very important to point out that, from what I remember reading 2-1/2 years ago when this controversy first erupted, that the nullification was based on the revelation that the "convert" in question was not observing any fundamental mitzvos of Judaism (i.e., Shabbos, Kashrut, Taharas HaMishpacha, etc.) and had not done so from day one of her "conversion". The annulment was not based on any of the real serious sins such as not keeping Rabenu Tam's zman, not insisting on Eidah Hachareidus Kashrut, 60+ denier stockings, or not being makpid on the Chavos Daas onah beinonis, (R"L). It was premised on the subject's neglect to observe anything at all. Zilch.

Keep this in mind. In fact, it was on this premise that I entered my comment in the Talkback section and here it is:

2. Silly Game

• Author: Chezkel • Country: Israel • 10/04/2010 11:55

This whole thing is just a silly game. For a conversion to be valid by Orthodox standards, the "convert" must observe the mitzvot by Orthodox standards. A convert who never begins to observe the mitzvot properly will never be accepted by the Orthodox community. Thus, if these "converts" wish to put the matter to rest, they must first commit to proper Torah observance. Then, it may be advisable to undergo a second conversion which should be a mere formality. Until then, forget it.

When I checked to see if the comment was posted (it took a few hours), there was also one or two responses. The more coherent one was from Eric and here is what he wrote:

4. To Chezkel

• Author: Eric • Country: Israel • 10/04/2010 16:34

Your words show you are likely a born Jew and don't understand what it means to convert. I too am a born Jew. However, I have also officiated at batei din for converts. I have seen first hand the emotional turmoil that is involved in the process. I have also seen first hand the intolerant bigots in the Orthodox world who hold converts to higher standards, saying for example that if they keep rabbanut kosher and not bedatz, they are not really Jewish. That's the problem -- whose standards should be applied? Yours? The rabbinate? The Neturei Karta? The state has laws and they need to be applied.

As I wrote earlier, I responded to this comment online. If the comment appears in the JP before I print this post, I will try to include it here.

There is an innate problem with JP Talkbacks in that there is a limit of 600 characters (okay, okay, it's more of a solution than a problem) and this does hamper one's ability to express themselves fully. As such, and as I have done numerous times in the past, I have ventured to move the dialog from the comments field into my own forum for home field advantage. Hence, I wish to offer a more elaborate response to Dayan Eric's comment.

>>Your words show you are likely a born Jew

True, indeed. Where did I give myself away?

>>and don't understand what it means to convert.

Now I need to get serious. The words that I bolded have an ambiguous connotation. (1) The way I initially understood the words: I don't understand the meaning of conversion. (2) What I think Eric really meant: I don't understand what the process of conversion means - or, more accurately, entails - for the one who is doing the converting.

From Eric's ensuing words: I have seen first hand the emotional turmoil that is involved in the process. It is fairly clear that his intention was connotation #2.

>>I have also seen first hand the intolerant bigots in the Orthodox world who hold converts to higher standards, saying for example that if they keep rabbanut kosher and not bedatz, they are not really Jewish.

Here, I am a bit confused. Is Eric referring to Dayanei Giur who are intolerant bigots or to just a bunch of laymen who are intolerant bigots but are not in the business of converting anybody (kind of like an armchair quaterback)?? I will deal with this issue of bigotry in due time, but for now, let's move on.

Hereupon, Eric asks the $64,000 question:

>>That's the problem -- whose standards should be applied? Yours? The rabbinate? The Neturei Karta?

And here is the $64,000,000,000,000,000 answer:

G-d's standards!!

And what might those be?

To answer this question, let us go back to Eric's ambiguous statement and take it both ways.

>>don't understand what it means to convert...

We'll start with connotation #1. What does it mean to convert? To convert means to change over from one state of being to another. When it comes to converting to Judaism, it means to change over from being non-Jewish to being Jewish.

So, basically "what it means to convert" in connotation 1 is really: what it means to be Jewish!

And what does it mean to be Jewish?

It means forging a covenant - a briss. But not a physical briss. The physical briss is a physical gesture to symbolize that one has made a spiritual commitment. And if one has not made the corresponding spiritual commitment, the physical briss is as Jewish as Mohammed's.

And what is the spiritual briss, the covenant? It is the acceptance and commitment to one 2-sided concept:

Anochi Hashem Elokecha and Lo Yihiye Lecha elohim acherim.

That is, Judaism is the commitment to observe Anochi Hashem Elokecha and the commitment to shun any form of elohim acherim.

That's the whole deal. Netto!

Now, all of the positive mitzvos that we do are physical manifestations of Anochi Hashem Elokecha just like the physical briss that every male Jew and true convert must undertake. Both the briss and the mitzvos are merely symbolic of a spiritual commitment of the soul. Likewise, all of the negative commandments (transgressions) are physical enactments of Lo Yihiye Lecha.

And if you do not accept upon yourself any positive mitzva, you have not accepted upon yourself Anochi Hashem Elokecha. And if you have not committed yourself to abstain from any negative mitzva (transgression) you have not abstained from "elohim acheirim".

And you have not accepted Judaism.

The Maharsha says all of this at the end of Masechet Makkos.

What is the most central and meaningful incantation of a Jew?

It is the pasuk: Shema Yisroel - Hear all of Israel, all Jews - Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad!

Do you know what Hashem Elokeinu means?

It means Anochi Hashem Elokecha!

Do you know what Hashem Echad means?

It means Lo Yihiye Lecha elohim acherim al panai!

The Mishna Berura (Chofetz Chaim) in Orach Chaim 61 s"k 2 says this based on the Talmud Yerushalmi in Berachos.

So what do we know?

Anochi Hashem = Hashem Elokeinu; Lo Yihiye Lecha = Hashem Echad.

Now, G-d tells us in Vayikra 26 that Im Bechukosai telechu v'es mitzvosai tishmoru - if you go in my ways and do my mitzvos - things will be pretty rosy.

What is "doing my mitzvos"? It's Anochi Hashem (remember the Maharsha?)

G-d also tells us - V'im bechusai timasu...l'bilti assos - if you detest my ways and refrain from doing... l'hafrichem - to transgress... things will get a bit chaotic.

What is "l'hafrichem - to transgress"? That's right, it's Lo Yihiye lecha (Maharsha again!)

L'Hafrichem is the ticket to gehinnom in this world and the next.

This is G-d talking. Not Ashdod's municipal rabbi and not Rabbi Avraham Sherman.

So what do we see now?

Judaism = Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye

Anochi Hashem = Hashem Elokeinu = Im B'Chukosai telechu = One Above = ticket to paradise (in both worlds)

Lo Yihiye lecha = Hashem Echad = V'Im Bechukosai Timasu = Seven Below = ticket to purgatory

Thus Judaism = the magic chemical compound Xd20Lv26D6 (Exodus 20: Anochi and Lo Yihiye; Leviticus 26: Im Bechukosai Telechu/Timasu; Deuteronomy 6: Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad).

Yechezkel Hirshman says this all over his book (but mainly in Chapter 6).

This is the formula for being Jewish. This is the meaning of the covenant - the briss - that one must undertake in order to be Jewish. And if one who was not fortunate enough to be born Jewish does not accept and adhere to this covenant (the same way the "born" Jews did at Mount Sinai), he or she has not become Jewish.

Now, let us address connotation #2: what it means to convert - meaning, what the potential convert must endure.

Eric tells me that: "I have seen first hand the emotional turmoil that is involved in the process."

Why is there such emotional turmoil? The answer is that many if not most of the potential geirim are not taught this essential truth of the primacy of Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha (and they don't read my book). Sometimes the fault lies with the teacher and sometimes with the student. But the potential convert is assaulted by a plethora of unequivocal dissertations of what Judaism is "all about' which tend to reflect everybody's opinion except G-d's.

Listen to G-d. He says "Anochi Hashem" and He says "Lo Yihiye Lecha". And take respite from your turmoil.

And it is now time to address Eric's statement about "the intolerant bigots in the Orthodox world who hold converts to higher standards".

Now, I wrote about this at length more than 2 years ago in a post (well worth reading) titled: Just Because We Are Xenophobic Doesn't Mean that We Hate Geirim! And it seems like some of the main points bear repeating.

You see, as I wrote above, Judaism is the observance of Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha. But it boils down to Im Bechukosai telechu - life will be great and we will merit eternal paradise. This much is cool. But it also comes with V'Im bechukosai timasu - we will live a life of happenstance and keri and earn the hot seat in the next world. This part is anything but "cool".

Here is some of what I wrote then:

What all this is saying is that Judaism is no benign game. Depending on how it's played it is either Bracha or Kelala; Chaim or Maves; Anochi Hashem or Lo Yihiyeh Lecha; One Above (Im Bechukosai Telechu) or Seven Below (V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu).

Get it?

Every Jew's purpose in life is to fulfill Anochi Hashem and Im Bechukosai Telechu and hang around the One Above camp. If he is transgressing on Lo Yihiyeh Lecha and is stuck at V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu and is populating the Seven Below camp, he is doing a harmful disservice to himself and to all of Klal Yisrael.

This certainly applies to a full born Jew; but, when I say "Every Jew", I mean every Jew.

For someone who was not born Jewish, this applies at least as much - so why should he want to become Jewish if it is just to spend his life in the Seven Below camp and live a life of keri? And why should the Jewish people want to accept a non-Jew who is only knocking on the door of the Seven Below camp?

One who stations himself in the Seven Below camp brings chance misfortune on the Jewish people, chance misfortune upon the world and chance misfortune upon himself. It brings klalah and maves.

Many of us are under the impression that a convert who sacrificed for Judaism will merit exemplary reward for his keeping of Torah and mitzvot - more than that of a regular Jew who received it as "an inheritance". I also assume that this is the case.

But be aware that Judaism is a two-way street!!

If it is true that a convert will receive a more splendid reward for observing Torah because no one forced him to be "Im Bechukosai Telechu" and he is doing it on his own initiative, then it is imperative that if he violates the Torah, he will receive a much harsher retribution because no one asked him to be "V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu" and he is doing it on his own initiative.

What all this is saying is that geirus is a very very dangerous game. One who truly becomes Jewish and then goes on to live a life of Lo Yihiye and V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu (keri) has basically done himself in. It is not an act of kindness to accept non-observers into Judaism to their eternal detriment. One who does not join Judaism at the Anochi Hashem level, at the Im Bechukosai Teleichu level, at the One Above level is much better off not being Jewish.

Rabbi Chaim Druckman doesn't understand this. and my pen pal Dayan Eric doesn't understand it. But those "intolerant bigots" understand it. They care more for the ger than any of these clowns and they tell them in no uncertain terms: If you are not going to play the game properly, don't destroy yourself. Better not to play the game at all. You can merit Olam Habah with just following the Noachide laws. Why become Jewish to inherit gehinnom?

These "intolerant bigots" know what's best for you.

And don't take it from me. Take it from Rabbi Tovia Singer, a fine upstanding caring intolerant bigot who expresses this very sentiment on the Singer and Gimpel Show Broadcast Live from the Temple Mount on Arutz Sheva (Sept 3, 2009).

Finally Eric states: The state has laws and they need to be applied.

Ah, yes. Since we cannot agree on the proper Halachic standards, we need to apply the secular standards of the State!!

Call me an intolerant bigot, but as long as the State's standards are his yardstick, I cannot acknowledge Dayan Eric's geirim as Jewish.

Write again soon, Eric.

Your pal,

Chezkel

Post Script:
The Jerusalem Post never did post my responding comment to Eric and, thus, our correspondence came to an abrupt halt. I am a bit puzzled about this since my comment was very relevant to the subject and not extreme in any way. Perhaps the JPost Web editor was lazing on the job.
I did not save a copy of the comment but it basically said, as I mentioned in this post, that the issue is not which level of Orthodox standards to insist upon (Yours? The rabbinate? The Neturei Karta?...) since the cases at hand involve "converts" who are not practicing Orthodox standards at any level at all.