Arrur Makkah Re’eihu B’Seter – Part 1: Good Faith

Author’s note – This is more of an Ellul post than a chol hamoed post. I am aware that Ellul 5779 is behind us and Parshat Ki Tavo was a few weeks ago. We are now in the midst of our zman simchasenu. But recent personal events have made this post necessary and now is when I have time to write. Can’t put this off until next Ellul!



ארור מכה רעהו בסתר – פירש"י: על לשון הרע הוא אומר.

Cursed is he who smites his fellow in secret (Devarim 27:24) – This is referring to Lashon Hara (Rashi)

I opened this blog in July 2008, eleven years and 358 posts ago. Spiritually, a blog can be a very risky venture and I acknowledged it in my very first post when I wrote:

You may ask - how can one keep his balance on a blog without transgressing 14 assehs and 17 lahvim?
I'll tell you, it isn't easy!

Lashon Hara is a very serious issue. And I take it (or, perhaps give it) very seriously. What is my approach?

I have two mentors. One is the Chofetz Chaim. I will refer to his rules a bit later. The second is the Tanna Rabi Yosi ben Chalafta. Here is what he says (T.B. Shabbos 118b and Arachin 15b):

אמר רבי יוסי, מימי לא אמרתי דבר וחזרתי לאחורי

Rabi Yosi proclaimed, never in my life did I say any remark and turned backward…

What does Rabi Yosi mean “turned backward”?

Without checking any commentaries, it’s a sure bet that most people will understand the term חזרתי לאחורי (turn backward) to mean he never retracted anything he ever said. It means everything he ever said was measured and thought out and did not cross any lines, so he never had to eat his words and retract.

So, let’s go with this meaning and see how I have been doing on my blog.

I have to admit, I am not batting 1.000 but I am pretty close. I recall retracting a complete blog post which was totally inappropriate sometime in the blog’s very first year, but I don’t think I have ever retracted a complete post since. Of course, I constantly do revisions on lines or phrases to correct errors and improve comprehension and sometimes to reduce the tone or cynicism. Very often I do this on my own and sometimes people have approached me with requests or suggestions for modifications. When it is warranted and does not disrupt the flow of the text, I do my best to comply. I try to be friendly to friendly people.

But it really very rarely happens. So, including that one post in 2008 (1 in 358), I figure I’m batting around 0.950.

I do wish I had more feedback. I welcome comments, questions, criticisms and complaints. This is why I put my 1A7B email address in my book (twice) and on my blog template (which is on every page). The Comments section on my blog is always open for business. But business is slow.

When writing on a topic that involves real live people, lashon hara and judicial slander and defamation are always a big concern. I joked about it on my very first blog post. So I do my best to follow the rules.

On the Halachic end of things, the Chofetz Chaim lists seven conditions for writing (or saying) something that can affect another person. Basically, there must be some constructive purpose to it (toelles) and you have to know and be able to verify your facts, no filling in blanks, no overstatements, and you need to notify the person you are talking about if at all possible. (This is not the complete list but these are what is relevant to a blog).

This last detail of notifying the person is a central theme in this post. More on it later.

On the legal side of things, I am [allegedly] careful to use “journalistic license”. As a rule, I don’t make statements, I make opinions. I don’t write that something or someone “is a problem” but rather, something or someone “appears problematic” or “seems to be an issue”. I am stating an observation and an opinion, I am not creating or stating facts. I am not looking for trouble.

So, despite the fact that there are those who may be uncomfortable with the critical and polemical nature of a blog that, by its nature is meant to be critical and polemical (mussardig), I really don’t think there is anything written on my blog that Halachically or legally needs to be retracted.

So, if Rabi Yosi means what we all think he means, I can call myself a contender. I can’t say that I have never “turned backward” but I can say I’ve come close.

But, truth be told, this isn’t at all what Rabi Yosi means. At least, not according to Rashi it isn’t. Let’s look closer.

Rashi, on this passage in Shabbos 118b, writes as follows:

וחזרתי לאחורי -  לראות מי יעמוד אחורי שאף בפני הבעלים אני אומרה אלמא לאו לישנא בישא חשיבא 

Turned backward – to see who is behind me, for I would say it even in the presence of the subject. We see that this [type of talk] is not considered lashon hara.

Rabi Yosi is giving us a litmus test to distinguish what counts as lashon hara. He is of the opinion that if it is something that one is not afraid to say in the presence of the subject, it isn’t lashon hara.

I think Rabi Yosi is trying to tell us the key factor of what makes “evil speech” so evil:

Makka Re’eihu b’Seter – Smiting your fellow in secret.

Remember Rashi’s commentary on this pasuk: It is discussing lashon hara.

Rashi does not seem to be quoting a chazal or a Midrash. It seems to be Rashi’s personal perspective. Where does Rashi learn this from?

I think he learned it from Rabi Yosi.

No doubt, when someone wants to say something defamatory, malicious, and degrading about another person, he will certainly not want to say it in that person’s presence. Aside from the fact that it will anger that person and who knows what may happen as a result, there is something else. The gossiper does not want the person to be able to contradict him and to defend his position or to set the record straight. The gossiper wants all his listeners to take him at his word and not to question what he says.

So he makes sure to say the gossip where it won’t readily get back to the subject. He will say it at a gathering or on a forum at which the subject has not been invited to participate. Where the subject is not present or invited or even allowed to respond. The gossiper doesn’t want to be tripped up and he wants whatever evil can befall the subject due to the gossip to come to fruition.

Thus, Rabi Yosi is saying to us that “I never spoke about anybody this way. I never said anything that was so malicious and untruthful that I didn’t want the person to hear. I never said anything in a situation where I was afraid to allow the person to respond. I never had to look over my shoulder to see who was listening.”

But there is no reason that this is limited to patently evil, malicious, purposely degrading gossip. It can even turn the tables on “gossip” that is not meant to be malicious or purposely degrading and damaging.

This is what is known in Slander Law as “good faith”.

Sometimes one feels the need to castigate and criticize someone for doing things that do not conform with Torah values and laws. This is called “tochacha” or “giving mussar”. In a Halachic sense, if one is doing it for a positive outcome, it is actually a big mitzva. And in a civil legal sense, it is called “criticism in good faith” and is not liable for defamation action. This is noted in paragraph 15 of the Israel Law of Lashon Hara.

Thus, both Halachically and legally, one may give mussar and criticism if it is in good faith.

But, what constitutes “good faith”?

Well, I just now wrote that we must be clear of problems both from a Halachic perspective and a legal one. Fortunately, here in Israel, these two entities are intertwined and there is a lot of overlap. So, let’s first take our rules from the Chofetz Chaim.

The Chofetz Chaim presents seven conditions to call something “good faith”. I summarized them earlier and here is a repeat of the main ones: There must be some constructive purpose to it (toelles), i.e., no intent to damage. In addition, you have to know and be able to verify your facts, no filling in blanks, no overstatements, and you need to notify the person you are talking about (if at all possible).

The last one is condition number 3 on the Chofetz Chaim’s list (Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:2). Why is this so important?

The Chofetz Chaim writes an obvious explanation. The person should be notified in advance so that perhaps he will desist from the activities that you want to call him out on, in which case, there would be no further need to say the degrading information and it can be avoided.

This is as much as he writes about it, but I think that there is another purpose included in this: You must notify the person in order to allow him to explain himself and justify his actions or clarify misconceptions. As I said earlier, to allow him to set the record straight. The person needs to be notified that you are saying this about them and given the opportunity to respond.

If you skip this step, even if your intention is pure and you meet every other condition of the Chofetz Chaim, your speech is still Lashon Hara. This is because it is מכה רעהו בסתר. If the person does not know what is being said and cannot respond, one can no longer assert that his slander was “in good faith”.

This is the core problem of Lashon Hara. And it turns over the whole deal even if everything else passes the test. And certainly when it doesn’t. The criticism can be whitewashed as tochacha, but if it doesn’t reach the person involved, it’s not a tochacha. This failure to notify actually displays that it was not meant to be a tochacha; only a malicious defamatory statement, a stab in the back. It is now a “makka re’eihu”, and a "secret" one at that.

ארור מכה רעהו בסתר!

So this is what Rabi Yosi is telling us when he said that he never said anything for which he needed to look over his shoulder hoping the person in question won’t hear. Everything derogatory that he says is something that he would want the person in question to hear so that he could change his ways or clear up any mistakes. Not only is it not מכה רעהו בסתר, it isn’t “makka re’eihu” at all.

According to Rashi, this is what Rabi Yosi really means. And I can proudly say, that in this department, I follow Rabi Yosi 1000%!

If I ever write anything critical (i.e., mussardig) about anyone that can have some negative repercussions, I absolutely, positively want that person to see it. I am not hiding my posts from anybody and I am not looking over my shoulder. I am not ashamed of anything that I have written and I welcome any kind of feedback – good, bad, indifferent, questions, corrections, compliments, complaints, whatever. I am not trying to be “makka re’eihu”. And I certainly will not be מכה רעהו בסתר.

This is why I have my email distribution policy.

For many years I have been using one of those free email services (MailChimp) to distribute my blog posts as emails. Obviously, I do it because I want my posts to reach people and be read and this is how I notify prospective readers that there is a new post to read. Who is signed up to my list?

Well, anybody who I feel may be interested. This includes the usual suspects, family, friends and well-wishers. Some people have signed up on their own, but most are people I signed up myself. It’s like a free trial subscription to a magazine and if you don’t like it, please feel free to unsubscribe. Many do unsubscribe. This is to be expected and respected.

When I say that I sign up anybody who I think may be interested, this includes people who may be directly or indirectly referenced in the posts. I want these people to know that I wrote a post which may concern them. This is partially just plain mentschlichkeit and partially to protect myself both Halachically and legally.

By “Halachically” I mean exactly what I just wrote – I do not want to be guilty of מכה רעהו בסתר (it’s a curse, after all). By “legally”, I mean that, in case somebody does think I may have crossed a line into judicial defamation (chas v’shalom), I can always claim that they were notified of the existence of the material and they had every opportunity to lodge a complaint or correction and request a revision. Like I said, I don’t look for trouble.

So if I sign someone up and they unsubscribe, they will no longer automatically receive my blog emails for every new post. But if a new post in some way concerns them, then I will still send them the email manually. I am doing it not only for their benefit, but for mine as well.

I will have no מכה רעהו בסתר.

My project calls for criticizing a lot of behavior and outlook that does not conform with Torah ideals. This is the purpose of my blog – to educate, defend, and to preach the Torah viewpoint to others. And there are often real people on the receiving end of the preaching; those who engage in the activities and/or convey the faulty outlook. My criticism inevitably concerns them. So I need to be sure that they are aware of what I wrote so they may recant or refute.

Over the 358 posts I have taken issue with numerous fellow bloggers. The most frequent is (or was) Rabbi Harry Maryles at Emes V’Emunah. He happens to be a personal acquaintance and I think that (off-line) he is a wonderful person, a devoted Jew and a real mentsch. But I have strong issues to what he writes and I have said so in the strongest of terms. He is on my email list. So far, he hasn’t unsubscribed and Mailchimp’s built in tracker tells me he opens almost every post (this does not mean the post was read) . We have sparred both on each other’s forums and behind the scenes. This is the way it should be.

I have placed other fellow bloggers on my email list, such as Headlines Reb Dovid Lichtenstein, Daas Torah Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn, Rafi from Life in Israel, Yaakov from Yeranen Yaakov and Dvash from Tomer Devorah. Of these, three have unsubscribed; the other two are still with me. Those who unsubscribed no longer receive my post emails except that if the post concerns them, I send them a copy manually. I feel it is a favor and an obligation. I will not be guilty of מכה רעהו בסתר.

I have critiqued – both “for” and “against” – writings or statements from outspoken colleagues such as Rabbis Jonathan Rosenblum, Dovid Orlofsky, and Moshe Grylak. (These three happen to be neighbors, as well.) They are all on my list and they open on occasion. As for the “debate” between Rabbi Ahron Feldman, Shlita and Rabbi Ahron Lichtenstein, Z”L, I managed to find an email address for Rabbi Feldman but not for Rabbi Lichtenstein.

With regard to the Prenups controversy, I subscribed Rabbi Michael J. Broyde and emailed Rabbi Mordechai Willig, Shlita and the BDA. I actually got some feedback from Rabbi Broyde but nothing from the BDA. Likewise, I have taken issue with Rabbi Shlomo Riskin on his stance on annulments. I emailed my post to micky@ohrtorahstone.org.il. No response.

On the 107 Rabbis Kol Koreh controversy, I subscribed the sponsor, Monsey Yid – sweettorah@gmail.com. He almost never opens but I did receive one correspondence from him.

The list goes on. As you may guess, Miriam Shear (imahawk@aol.com) unsubscribed. I had to manually send her a copy of Judging the Judges – Part 1.

It goes without saying that the Malka Leifer extradition episode is the most controversial topic I have discussed and has ruffled the most feathers. Once again, I firmly stand behind everything I have written and have followed the directives of Rabi Yosi. I haven’t “turned backward”.

This applies to both connotations that I discuss in this post. Everything I write is from a verified source, is not exaggerated, and is written in “good faith”. It is all done with the goal of giving this controversy a speedy and happy ending for all involved and to mitigate the chillul Hashem.

Likewise, I stick to my email notification policy. I will not be guilty of מכה רעהו בסתר.

It just so happens that I have Rav Yosef Blau on my email list for quite some time. Way before I took on this topic. Thus far, he has not unsubscribed and the tracker says he regularly opens the posts. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that he actually read them. Most of the other JCW personnel – Meyer Seewald, Shana Aaronson and their address at info@jewishcommunitywatch.org all unsubscribed.

It goes without saying that my correspondence with the RCANZ was through email. I tried to get the emails of as many individual members that I could (Rabbi Yaakov Glasman, Rabbi Benjamin Elton, Rabbi James Kennard, and Rabbi Alon Meltzer) and sign them up. Yep, most of them unsubscribed. So if I write a relevant post and have to send manually, I have a separate list of recipients just for that.

The post about Rav Yitzchok Dovid Grossman was sent to info@migdalohr.org. His office unsubscribed. I could not find an email address for Rav Mendel Shafran, Shlita. The post about “The Fall Guy” (David Stav) went to davidstav@shoham.muni.il (no response). I did not subscribe him.

And what about the Sapper sisters?

Believe it or not, Nicole Meyer actually contacted me before I knew who she was. I eventually subscribed her. She is still subscribed and the posts are opened on a regular basis. If it’s a post on the topic, I usually see multiple opens.

Dassi Erlich inadvertently posted her email address on her Facebook page in a letter she got from some Australian politician. I sent her an email saying that if she doesn’t want people like me finding her email, she may want to delete that letter. No response. In any case, I subscribed her and she unsubscribed immediately after the next post came. So now I only send her posts on the topic. I never found an email address for Elly Sapper but I don’t think it matters at this point.

You will notice that I have gone to great lengths to assure my readers that I adhere to the lessons of Rabi Yosi. I write polemical posts because I believe that daas Torah and Halacha are not adequately presented on the Internet. The posts need to be written. These posts challenge the positions and statements of other people, but this is no reason not to write them. Only they have to be written in “good faith.” This means out in the open with no backstabbing. Where the person being written about can respond. Without מכה רעהו בסתר.

This is how I write. But this is not how others write about me. I won’t dish out מכה רעהו בסתר but I sure get a lot of it. And it is alarming how many very Torah observant web sites are not mindful of what truly constitutes lashon hara – מכה רעהו בסתר.

In Part 2 of this post, we will visit some of those “frum” Internet web sites.

Just cover your ears eyes…

תכלה שנה וקללותיה - תחל שנה וברכותיה

Chag Sameach!

Consumerism and the Art of Denial - Part 2: Tunnel Vision and Narcissism

Welcome back to Part 2 of “Dassi Through the Looking Glass”. If you have not read Part 1, please do.

In this portion we will review the Facebook post that Dassi wrote about Harav Mendel Shafran Shlita on March 10, 2019. I intend to point out that, not only does the plague of consumerism spread the symptoms of the Tochacha – shigaon, ivaron, and timhon levav, but it also foments hostility and outright wickedness.

Dassi’s words will be in dark red and I will stay in default black. Here we go:

 

This past Friday we met with Rabbi Shafran in Bnei Braq to discuss why he was publicly supporting Leifer by asking the court to release her under his care.

 

Comment:

I have written in the past about superfluous adverbs. They are usually the first giveaway of a distorted perspective since they are distortions of the facts. 

The adverb “publicly” is out of place. Rabbi Shafran wasn’t supporting Mrs. Leifer publicly or privately. He was supporting her – period. If proceedings are held publicly and he participates, it makes his participation public. And if the proceedings are held privately and he participates, it makes his participation private. Rabbi Shafran did not choose the venue of the proceedings. He just participated in them where they were held. He did not make any public rallies or statements. 

That said, the only reason there is so much publicity about this saga is because Dassi Erlich and her sisters and supporters want it. They are generating the publicity, not Rabbi Shafran. In short, they are prosecuting her publicly. So, he is standing up for her in public because this is the place where Dassi and her sisters are prosecuting her.

 

Now, let’s ignore the word “publicly” and look at her leading sentence again:

 

This past Friday we met with Rabbi Shafran in Bnei Braq to discuss why he was [publicly] supporting Leifer by asking the court to release her under his care.

 

Comment:

In short, the Sapper sisters arranged a meeting in Bnei Braq because they could not understand why a Jew who does indeed observe mitzvos is willing to support a religious Jew who is being prosecuted in contravention to Halachic standards and who is being held in jail without being convicted of anything.

 

Our meeting was right out of the text book I am studying regarding abusive arguments.

 

Comment:

I would love to know the name of the text book, who wrote it, and is it available on Amazon (second hand)?

All kidding aside, this is one of the most despicable and belligerent statements in this post. I will explain.

What is Dassi Erlich saying with the term “abusive arguments”? What are abusive arguments and what kind of a “textbook” describes them? 

Sure enough, there are volumes of books and papers about criminology and personality disorders and abusive behavior by people who engage in crime and abusive behavior. We can call these people “abusers”. These “textbooks” and papers go to great lengths to analyze the “arguments” and justifications that “abusers” present to rationalize their behavior. 

Whose behavior?

Well, that of the abusers, of course.

And, I suppose Dassi’s favorite current pastime is to study such a text book. 

But, unbeknownst to Dassi and her cronies, Rabbi Shafran is not an abuser. Nor is Rabbi Grossman nor Rabbi Litzman nor am I. We are all Torah observant objective people who are evaluating a situation without prejudice of either side. We can see both sides as victims, both sides as aggressors and both sides as Jews. And we are all interested in protecting the rights of the accused regardless of who the accused is. And we do not live in an echo chamber and we do not have tunnel vision. We can see and hear both sides of the issue.

It is hard to believe that Dassi is studying any textbooks about community leaders (or bloggers) who are not abusers. I tend to doubt there are any such textbooks. 

That said, these “abusive arguments” are coming out of an ancient textbook. They are the textbooks of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and Chofetz Chaim. And you can bet your bottom Australian dollar that Dassi Erlich is not studying those. 

What makes this statement so utterly despicable is that, in order for this statement to make sense, we must say that Dassi is equating the Torah scholars with actual “abusers”! As consumers, Dassi and her lynch mob cannot tell the difference. They are in total denial that there are other “textbooks”. They are in total denial that HKBH has other methods of dealing with these things. Most of them are in denial of HKBH altogether.

 

I now understand why we were so deeply pained after leaving this encounter with him.

 

Comment:

If it was out of the textbook, why are you so pained? Isn’t it what you expected to get? After all, it’s in the textbook that you are studying to be a post grad! What were you expecting???

In my Post Grad Degree in Domestic Violence

 

Comment:

“Domestic” as an adjective to “Violence” means at the hands of family members. Anyway, it looks like Dassi is trying to make a career for herself as a professional practitioner of domestic violence. As far as I know the best practitioners of domestic violence never went to school. The skills of domestic violence came naturally to them. In any case, I do not wish her success. 

 

I am learning that abusive arguments usually have the following four characteristics:

 

Comment:

My primary objective in this post is to deal with these “four characteristics”. Here we go:

 

1- Denial in refusing to believe us. "I did not say I believe you, I will not say I believe you. I will not come to court to support you. I will not take sides".

 

Comment:

Dassi is certainly a post-graduate in denial. She is in total denial of the fact that she – Dassi Erlich (and her sisters) – is currently an accuser, prosecutor, aggressor and pursuer and her goal is to hurt, destroy and punish Mrs. Leifer. She justifies her actions by proclaiming that she is trying to protect potential future victims (and change the future). It is questionable if there are potential future victims at risk, but it is not questionable that she is harassing and pursuing (rodef) Mrs. Leifer.

Dassi Erlich is not saying “believe me that I was molested” so she can get therapy and help for herself to rebuild her life. She is also not saying “believe me that Mrs. Leifer molested me” so that she can get some legitimate restitution from Mrs. Leifer. She is not even saying “believe me that Mrs. Leifer is not safe with young women” so that she should be disallowed to be a teacher anymore. She is saying, “Believe me that Mrs. Leifer is an irredeemable fiend and should be punished without mercy”. 

This is what a Torah observant Jew such as Rabbi Shafran has to look at. Dassi is an accuser and, at this stage, she is the rodef. What are the rules of believing an accuser?

Well, our Torah and Halacha give us clear rules of “neemanus”. And I elaborated on them in my post Thinking Like a Jew. The obvious rule is that nothing can be accepted as a fact if it cannot be corroborated by a second person. We are allowed to be choshesh (suspect) to implement protective measures but not to believe for the purposes of punishment. 

Plain and simple. 

Rabbi Shafran knows this, Rabbi Litzman knows this, I know this, and I wrote it. Dassi and her fellow consumers knew that I wrote it when I wrote it 2 ½ years ago, but they were in denial then and are in denial still. To some it just isn’t there and to others, it must be “misguided”.

But don’t all victims need to be believed?

We have a principle called פלגינן נאמנות – dividing the credibility. This means that we can believe what an individual says for what affects themselves but not for how it affects anybody else. For example, if a woman claims that she had extramarital relations so her husband must divorce her, and there are no objective witnesses, we believe her to invalidate her ketuba, but we do not believe her to force her husband to divorce her or to render her child a mamzer.

If somebody says they were molested, we should absolutely fully believe them that they were molested and do all we can to help them out. But when they say they were molested by "Abe", we can suspect "Abe" but we are not allowed to believe that part.

This is Torah, but the consumers want no part of it. 

 

2 - Excusing of ones beliefs." Leifer taught my two daughters and nothing ever happened to them".

 

Comment:

Like I said, this phrase is to me incoherent. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how this is different from the previous “characteristic”. 

In any case, I wonder if this was said by Rabbi Shafran. He certainly did not have any daughters studying in Australia. Perhaps he did say it and it refers to when Mrs. Leifer was teaching here in Eretz Yisrael before she went to Australia.

Regardless, if somebody says something like this, they are saying that they themselves have had some level of interaction with the accused person and there was nothing about this interaction that supports the accusations of the accusers. Yes, it can be used as basis to be skeptical about the allegations, but it is quite a rational observation being made by a rational person. Again, we are talking about a non-involved person who must make a personal judgment. It does not prove the accuser wrong, but it is meant to tell the accuser that they need to furnish some objective evidence to support their claim. 

Note that Dassi does not even pretend to claim that she presented any objective evidence to Rabbi Shafran. So if the score is that Rabbi Shafran brings the weight of his observation, as limited as it may be (give it a value of 1) and Dassi Erlich brings absolutely nothing (value of 0), the nay-sayers win by a 1-0 shutout! 

So, I ask Dassi, why is such a comment worthy of criticism??

 

3- Minimisation of ones worth as a Survivor.
"You were abused already, somebody else hurt you".

 

Comment:

Although Dassi, at the receiving end may feel that such a statement minimizes her worth as a survivor, she cannot claim that this is the intent of the one who said it. To me, the clear implication of this line is to minimize the worth (i.e., impact) of the alleged abuser. The message is that you cannot honestly claim that all of your tzaros are a result of this alleged abuser since, by your own admission, you have repeatedly acknowledged that you underwent 15 years of real domestic abuse before encountering the one you are accusing. 

And we notice that you did not walk into the Victorian Police station and file any charges against the initial abusers.

Again, Dassi is in total denial that she is not petitioning to be recognized as a victim. She is petitioning to have Mrs. Leifer branded as an abuser. As such, any statement that is made by Rabbi Shafran relates to how he views the perceived culpability of Mrs. Leifer, not the victim [survivor] status of Dassi Erlich.

 

4-Justification. Writing a letter to the Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and turning up at court to support Leifers bail, "It's my duty as a rabbi to support a fellow Jew".

 

Comment:

I got a good chuckle out of this one. Her keyword is “Justification” and her definition is “Writing a letter to the Justice Minister”. Cute.

Again, we see that Dassi is in denial that she is pursuing and prosecuting another Jew. From Dassi’s temperament and those of most of her commenters, they are in denial that Mrs. Leifer is a Jew and must be treated like one. And these people find it so very abhorrent that a non-consumer wants to do just that.

Once again, they are in denial of the Halachos of mesira and extradition. Dassi does not recount in her post a hint of asking Rabbi Shafran about Halachos. But, isn’t this what people go to rabbis for? 

 

When asked why Leifer's Jewishness deserved his sympathy over our own??

He refused to answer us.

 

Comment:

Such a question does not deserve an answer. The question itself is a display of total arrogance, immaturity and narcissism. 

It is clear to people like me and Rabbi Shafran that there is no need for us to prosecute or harm (destroy) Mrs. Leifer in order to be sympathetic to Dassi. We onlookers can afford to be sympathetic to everyone involved. They are not mutually exclusive. Thus, if in Dassi’s eyes, another Jew (a Shomer Mitzvos one, at that) needs to be harmed as a show of sympathy to her, then based on the Mishna in Pirkei Avos (5:18), there is something inherently malicious about her. Dassi is playing the spoiled child that demands from the loving parent to “choose” between me and the rival sibling. “If you love him/her, then you don’t love me!” or “If you won’t help me send her down the river, then you love her more than me”.

I think this is utterly detestable! 

Let’s first note that the issue at hand here is not that Rabbi Shafran or anybody wants to condone any sexual misbehavior that Mrs. Leifer may have committed more than a decade ago and it is certainly not an effort to enable her to resume these activities. The Sapper sisters are going ballistic over the prospect of Mrs. Leifer being released from prison to house arrest so that she can continue a semi-normal family life and to live like a human being and a Jew – i.e., keep Shabbos and Yom Tov and Pesach Seder – as all Jews who are religious and observant of mitzvos are entitled and required to do, while all the proceedings are going on.

This does not interfere in the lives of these saintly sisters nor does it put children at risk once she is being watched. 

Still and all, these saintly sisters cannot countenance allowing Mrs. Leifer to live like a human being and must fight tooth and nail to prevent it. Then they even confront people like Rabbis Grossman and Shafran for "asking the court to release her under their care". 

How dare Rabbis Grossman and Shafran ask that this unconvicted monster should be treated like a Jew and a human being? Or, as these paragons of virtue put it (publicly):

“What kind of G-d are they praying to that protects abusers?” (Haaretz March 7, 2019).

Our G-d does not want anybody to languish in prison. But, evidently, these sisters (two of whom abandoned observance) don't worship the same G-d. They worship a god who would not allow such compassion. A god of Vengeance!

As I said, I think this is utterly deplorably wicked! 

Let’s add to this that, I have previously speculated, based on JCW’s own statistics, that it is more than likely that Mrs. Leifer is herself a victim of abuse and, if so, should be entitled to some measure of sympathy (which does not need to be construed as coming at the expense of the alleged victim). Of course, to acknowledge this likelihood is such a game-changer to the consumer lynch mob that their denial is absolutely deafening. When I brought this up to a woman emailer from Australia who claimed to be a victim of Mrs. Leifer, she refused to answer me.

It goes both ways.

An immature narcissist can only see their personal interests. To a narcissist, there is no such thing as looking out for the interests of all sides. It is either “you are on my side or you are against me”. A narcissist is in perpetual denial that it is possible for an objective bystander to be out for the welfare of both sides. This is because they are in denial that anybody else’s wellbeing matters. Only theirs. 

Dassi stated publicly at the JCW event on Nov. 25, 2018 (3:12-3:26), “We continue to be told that we are doing this for revenge or some sort of victim fame, which I don’t understand, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are here for nothing else than to try and change the future.”

Well, if it’s not a personal vendetta or a quest for revenge, why does she take it so personal if a renowned Talmid Chacham is looking out for both sides and doesn’t think that being moser Mrs. Leifer to goyim in Australia is a positive step in changing the future?

I see no small measure of hypocrisy here.

In any case, I clearly wrote in my post in June 2017:

...contrary to all appearances, I really do have a lot of ahavas Yisroel. I don’t want to see Malka Leifer destroyed and I don’t want to see Dassi Erlich destroyed. There is no need for it. As far as I know, they are both victims. I think it's a better idea to try to fix wounded people than to try to break them. But I have yet to hear a single voice echo mine!

The lynch mob consumers are in denial that people such as I and Rabbi Shafran may actually be sincere and want what is best for all sides. They have no clue what sincerity is. My claim to “ahavas Yisroel” was ridiculed publicly without it being substantiated. Just like what Dassi is doing to Rabbi Shafran in her post.

 

He did explain the importance of supporting the abuser because he saw them as the underdog.

 

Comment:

I wonder what the real words were. I thought Dassi wrote that he didn’t believe her that she is an abuser. Anyway, what he obviously meant is she (Mrs. Leifer) is the pursued and accused. She is entitled to all the rights of an accused person. 

Dassi denies this. She is a victim-for-life, so even when she is the aggressor and pursuer, she has to be the underdog. It’s just not fair that anybody can think that the person she is pursuing to destroy is an underdog. 

This is tunnel vision.

 

I looked at him incredulously and asked him if he had ever been to court when an Ultra-Orthodox predator was the accused. On which sides was the court swollen with supporters?

 

Comment:

I believe he was to court when an Ultra-Orthodox predator was the accused back on February 18, 2019.  It seems that the court was swollen by supporters of the accusers and the accused was undeniably the underdog.

But Dassi can always deny it. This is why she was incredulous.

 

Again he refused to respond.

 

Comment:

It’s clear that Dassi, who has left observance, is not now and never was interested in the Halachic viewpoint of accusations. She was not too receptive of this viewpoint when I wrote it and she has shown no inclination to be receptive now. Dassi’s response to Rabbi Shafran (about if he had ever been to court…) along with her incredulous look was a disputation of his statement, not a sincere request for him to qualify it (as in “What do you mean by that?”). 

When people contact me with the sole intention of disputing what I have said and with no intention of trying to come to terms with it (the vast majority), it does not pay to try to respond.

 

Rav Shafran is heralded as the Rabbi who instructs complainants to report to the police. He shared an example of a woman who called him up recently. "Go to the police", he told them, "know though your children will expelled from school, you will be barred from your synagogue and you life will be ruined".

 

Comment:

This paragraph doesn’t flow. In our language we say: קשיא רישא אסיפא (the first segment contradicts the second one) or מעשה לסתור? (do you bring a case example that is contradictory?). But, as I already wrote, I do not give Dassi a medal for coherency on this post. 

Anyway, it is not possible to comment on stories like these because their brevity leaves way too much to the imagination. We have no clue exactly what the recent woman in question was complaining about and what, and whom, she wanted to report.

I need to reiterate that way before I knew about Malka Leifer or Dassi Erlich, I wrote a summary of Hilchos mesira called the 3 Ps (and 3 Cs). 

The 3 Ps basically said that there are three incremental steps to dealing with suspected molesters – (1) Prevention (Protection), (2) Publicity, and (3) Police (Punishment). The steps must be taken in that order. If step 1 resolves the issue, it is forbidden to advance to step 2. If not, then step 2 is indicated, but it is still forbidden to advance to step 3 unless even step 2 does not resolve the issue. Hence, going to the police is only permissible if it is absolutely necessary in order to resolve the problem. And even that is governed by the 3 Cs.

The case of the woman who called Rabbi Shafran is unclear. If she had other options (P1 and P2), she has no business resorting to P3 and should be subject to the consequences. Perhaps, this was what Rabbi Shafran was telling her. If she had no other recourse than P3, these consequences are uncalled for. I do not condone them and I very much sympathize with this woman.

Well and good, but all this is chit chat. The Sapper sisters met with Rabbi Shafran “to discuss why he was publicly supporting Leifer by asking the court to release her under his care.” The Malka Leifer case does not qualify for P3. And even if it did, there is no reason to oppose, and every reason to support house arrest. Specifically, if there was no violence in the alleged abuse as is true in this case.

 

Imagine how hard it is for survivors of abuse in his community to speak up. This man is considered a standard bearer on these issues. What hope do these people have?

 

Comment:

In a sense, Dassi does have a point in her closing paragraph. It isn’t easy to speak up. But much of it depends on who do you want to speak up to. What do you want to achieve by speaking up? Are you doing it to protect somebody who is currently in danger or to prosecute somebody for what he did yesterday (or a decade ago)? Are you trying to fix a specific problem in the here and now or trying to make a public spectacle to do “nothing else than to try and change the future”? Are you doing a kiddush Hashem or a chillul Hashem???

Before one can answer these questions, they must be able to hear them and see the different angles. But you’ll never hear them in an echo chamber and you won’t be able to see them if you have tunnel vision.

 

 

Post Script – I would love to be able to enter a link to this post on Dassi’s Facebook page, but alas, Dassi Erlich does not allow comments from any dissenters, only from supporters, and so I am blocked!