The Malka Leifer Mesira Gang

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

What brought this about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enter Magen Child Services.

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

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

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

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

Bracha v’hatzlacha!

But, what are their chances for success?

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

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

Well, I’m just getting to that...

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

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

My thoughts entirely.

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

How do I know it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shana Aaronson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Sorry about that.

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

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

It’s JCW all over again. And why?

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

The gang didn’t really have a leader, 

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

It means they didn’t really have any guidance.

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

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

עשה לך רב והסתלק מן הספק.

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

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

Oversight.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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!

Kosher by Association: Intro (again) and Part 2 - Jewish Community Watch and the Love Triangle

Author's note - This post is the second installment, and primary portion of this two-part series. The Intro is identical to that of the previous post. I am reprinting it here for the benefit of readers who have not read Part 1. Skip it if you read the previous post. It is also recommended to see my earlier post on this subject - Your Friendly Jewish Community Kangaroo Court.
Disclaimer - All of the information presented in this post (with the exception of the non-public lawyer's letter) is sourced from information freely accessible on the Internet. If anything claimed here is inaccurate, please contact me and I will be happy to update the information.

Intro

The gemara in Sanhedrin (91a) tells us an ancient fable.

Antoninus told Rebi (Rabi Yehuda HaNasi) that on the day of judgment, both the body and the soul will be able to exonerate themselves. The body will blame the soul and claim it is the soul’s doing, for “from the day it left me, I have been lying motionless in the grave like a rock”. The soul will blame the body and claim it is the body’s doing for “ever since the day we parted I have been floating around aimlessly like a bird”.

Rebi responded with the following fable:

A king had a luscious orchard and needed reliable guards. He stationed a blind man and a cripple to guard the orchard. The cripple would tell the blind man how beautiful are the fruits of the orchard but he is paralyzed and can’t get to them. The blind man said, “I could get to them if I could see them but I can’t see”. The cripple suggested, “If you let me ride on your shoulders, we can reach them together. Let’s do it.” And they did.

When the king noticed that his orchard was pillaged, he accused the guards. Each guard was able to present a defense. “I can’t even see them”, said the blind man. “There is no way I can access them”, said the cripple. But the king caught on to their scheme and understood what they did. So, what did he do? He mounted the cripple on top of the blind man and judged them as one.

Rebi concluded: This is what HKBH will do on the day of judgement. He will throw the soul back into the body and judge them as one.

What we learn here is literally one of the oldest “tricks” in the book. Two parties team up to do some mischief and when the mischief is found out, each one claims the other guy did it and he has nothing to do with it. In fact, he is not even capable of it.

There is more than one way to pull off this trick. One way is the case of Rebi’s fable. The two culprits spent all their time in public as two distinct entities. They only teamed up to do monkey business when nobody was looking. The minute they were done, they went back to being two separate disabled people. Their purposes were served by the illusion of being two separate restricted entities.

The other variation is the exact opposite. It’s a case where the two parties want to appear in public as if they are one entity. The illusion that they are one entity is what serves their purposes at the outset. It is only after the monkey business is discovered that they try to split to two different directions to stay out of trouble. (This is actually closer to Antoninus’s case.)

We all know the term “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. It’s just that sometimes the sheep’s clothes is not just a wool jacket, but an actual live sheep. It’s the sweet old lady or cute little kid in the graft scheme that distracts the jeweler while the sneaky accomplice steals the goods. The “sheep” makes the “wolf” look respectable, but really both of them are wolves.

Part 2 – Jewish Community Watch – We Cannot be Silent

It’s time to move on. The BDA and RCA are not the only “blind” and “crippled” watchmen that are pulling the wool over our eyes. And they are not even the main ones that I wanted to discuss in this 2-part series. 

Recently I have been writing a great deal about an organization called JCW (Jewish Community Watch). In the wake of the Malka Leifer episode they have done a great deal to put themselves on my radar screen, so I have been looking at them quite a bit.

Last November, I wrote a post about JCW titled Your Friendly Jewish Community Kangaroo Court. The post was written in the wake of a podcast interview of JCW Israeli Office COO, Shana Aaronson. In the interview, Mrs. Aaronson was extolling the virtues of JCW and one of her praises was that JCW has “never been sued”. [Side note – I am not so certain that this statement still holds true.]  In my post, I took exception to this claim and wrote that I believe it to be deceptive and misleading (a “half-truth”). This is because, in most cases, there are so many legal, financial, and practical obstacles to filing a defamation suit as to make it too prohibitive to carry out. I went on to present a list of said obstacles. 

At the end of the list, was the following:

In Israel, it is easier to prove defamation but here we have another problem that Mrs. Aaronson has not revealed to us. JCW is not a legal organization in Israel as they have not registered in their business or non-profit registry (Rishut HaTaagidim). Officially, in Israel, JCW only exists on the cloud.

What this is saying is that, here in Israel, JCW has been trying to stay off the government radar screen while trying to make a lot of commotion with the public. As an official “Amuta” (NPO), they do not exist. As such, if somebody feels they have been unjustly maligned and want to complain or call a Din Torah or sue, not only is there nobody to complain to, but there is nobody to complain about!

So, let’s assume that you are a fine upstanding G-d-fearing Israeli citizen named Avrohom Rosenberg or Zalman Cohen or Shimon Amar. There is not an abusive cell in your body. However, you get taunted, maligned and/or find doors closing in your face for jobs or shidduchim (for you or your children) because your name happens to be identical to some alleged offender that is posted on the JCW Wall of Shame without a photo – so nobody can tell by looking that you are not the offender. And if somebody Googles your name, the first thing they get is a link to JCW's Wall of Shame.


Let us even say that this really hasn’t caused you any grievous harm and you are a bit laid-back about it, but your wife or mother has discovered this “coincidence” and she is losing it. You are totally Israeli, you cannot really speak English and you have no connections to the US.

What are you going to do?

Will you call Meyer Seewald in Florida to a Din Torah? So that he can respond, “No problem, let’s go to the RCA Beit Din (of which, Rabbi Blau, who is a board officer of JCW, is a member)”? 

Will you complain to the Rabbinic advisors – to Rabbi Tauber, ten time zones away in California or to Rabbi Soloveitchik, only a mere eight time zones away in Chicago? (Note - JCW does not have a “Rabbinic advisor” or a legal advisor in Israel.) Will you track down Shana Aaronson who is totally unlisted (and will anyway claim that she is just a lowly staff member)?

The reason that foreign based businesses that operate in Israel need to be registered, is to establish a documented presence. This is so they can be held accountable for upholding local laws and local business practices and, of course, to maintain fiscal responsibility. This is essential to protect the public from damages and to protect other businesses and NPOs from unfair advantages. And so, like many other developed countries, the State of Israel has Section 9, Chapter 2 of the Corporations Law (1999) which, in paragraph 346, mandates any foreign enterprise that conducts business within the borders of Israel to register the name and address of the business, to name a director and (paragraph 348) to file an annual financial report.

Government oversight agencies for business practices is an integral part of any civilization. So much so that our Halacha mandates it as well. It’s right there in Choshen Mishpat 231:2 and 231:20 (see Bava Basra 89a). Just like real estate laws, health codes, building codes, fire codes, and traffic laws, we are Halachically duty-bound to comply with them. Ideally, the local Beit Din should oversee these things. But when Beit Din does not run the show, we must comply with the regulations of whoever does. This is where dina d’malchusa applies.

As it stands, there is currently no indication that Jewish Community Watch is in compliance with Section 9, Chapter 2 of the Corporations Law. This non-compliance insulates them from being sued and it also protects them from filing those pesky annual reports where they need to show how much money they took in, where it came from, and where it went to.

Now JCW is undoubtedly an impeccable organization. Just listen to the glowing praises of Shana Aaronson. JCW claims the hechsherim of Rabbi Elchonon Tauber and Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik, and, of course, they are under the direction of Rabbi Yosef Blau. So, it goes without saying that everything they do is on the up and up. [Coincidentally, Rabbi Yosef Blau is also a member of the RCA although he does not seem to be a board member or officer at present. Nevertheless, his son, Binyamin, is indeed an officer – Vice President, Midwest – so, it would seem that the elder Rabbi Blau is an influential player. Small world.] 

It’s unthinkable that such a virtuous organization as JCW should be in violation of Israeli law. With such a hechsher they must be strictly Kosher. But how do they pull this off?

Well, perhaps we can say that they are “Kosher by association”. 

And who might this association be?

Enter…Lo Tishtok (Do Not be Silent).

Lo Tishtok is a relatively nascent, unimposing, Israeli based CSA advocacy group. So unimposing, in fact, that they don’t have any web site at all, and certainly not a physical office. There is nothing more than a Facebook account. They seem to be operating out of someone’s studio apartment in Jerusalem. Their contact is an email address and the personal cell phone number of Racheli Roshgold. They do not seem to be heavy on resources or personnel. Very low key and very low budget.


Moreover, they have no endorsements of any kind whatsoever - Rabbinic or otherwise. Likewise, no Rabbinic or legal advisors. The few staff members have, at most, very superficial professional credentials. (One has a certificate in "sexual health counseling" and another is studying for a Master's in Clinical Psychology. No sign of any professional practice.)


In short, they are a crew of unaccredited amateurs. What we Jews call "heimishe".

But…Lo Tishtok does have one strong point. They are officially registered in the business registry as an Israeli Amuta – Amuta No. 580633840. 

Lo Tishtok is very closely affiliated with JCW. How closely? 

For one thing, their two main players – Rachel Roshgold and Tzviki Fleischman – happen to appear on the Staff Member page of JCW’s US web site. I call this “sharing resources”. [Note - It seems that the JCW website was briefly offline recently and appears to have been hacked. As of now, they have managed to restore most of their original website. The rare exception is the Staff Member page which, to date, shows no display.]

Moreover, the Israeli JCW website names Lo Tishtok as a “Project” of theirs. A recent article in the Israeli Yisrael Hayom named Lo Tishtok as its “Israeli Branch”. Recent banners, pamphlets and Child Safety booklets that JCW has been distributing in recent events in Israel all display Lo Tishtok as a co-sponsor of their activities.

But the most important thing is that JCW held a marathon 36-hour crowdfunding campaign last December. The campaign was hosted by Charidy.com which seems to be a New York based enterprise (with a branch in Australia, of all places). 

Charidy.com interfaces their site in several languages. The English version of this campaign only mentions JCW and no other organization. This ensures that the funds are for the US based JCW (which probably includes their Israeli “office”) and no one else. I would also assume that the first stop of the money is their American based war chest which is probably some American bank account. [Interestingly, the English language campaign page does not display any kind of Tax ID number for Jewish Community Watch – not US or Israeli (there is no Israeli number, remember?) nor does it even mention Lo Tishtok!]

But if you look at the Hebrew language version – which comes up automatically if you are running on an Israeli ISP – it looks a bit different. The text of the campaign rhetoric starts with a headline that says: Lo Tishtok. It goes on to give some background of the two organizations such that JCW was founded in 2011 and Lo Tishtok was founded in 2014 and the two organizations have “recently united with the understanding that each organization has its own knowledge and capabilities and the alliance between them will maximize their capabilities…, etc., etc.”

What they are saying is that JCW can see and do, but it is not Israeli, so it is a bit crippled. It needs a pair of legs. Lo Tishtok can get around in Israel. They are legal. But they, as unaccredited, unendorsed and unsupervised amateurs, are not so equipped to really see what’s going on. They need some eyes. So, here’s Shana Aaronson and Jewish Community Watch. [Note – Their campaign page includes an embedded action filled YouTube clip of all of the players – Meyer Seewald and Shana Aaronson of JCW and Racheli Roshgold and Tzvika Fleishman of Lo Tistok – having loads of fun playing detective.]

So, the blind man and the cripple get together to collect money in Israel that is [presumably] being banked in America. Is this allowed? 

Well, perhaps it would be okay if the Israeli JCW is registered as an Amuta in Israel. But this does not seem to be the case. Or perhaps it is okay if Lo Tishtok, the legal Amuta, is collecting money for Lo Tishtok. But this does not seem to be the case. Unless…

…Lo Tishtok is JCW in Israel. And this is what they seem to be claiming to the public. 

But if this is so, then a disgruntled Israeli who wants to sue JCW, can file the suit against Lo Tishtok!

Can he?

Well, for the moment, there does not seem to be any legal documentation that unites Lo Tishtok with JCW. Also, I am privy to a non-public statement that a lawyer for JCW in Israel has denied any formal alliance. 

Ah-hah! When they are campaigning for money, the cripple and the blind man are “united”. But when they are not campaigning for money, the crippled one stays crippled and the blind one stays blind!

Now, let’s thicken the plot. Lo Tishtok is certainly not collecting the money for Lo Tishtok. They say they are collecting the money for JCW. But, are they?

Well, in the Hebrew version of the campaign page, they do display a tax ID number. An Israeli one. The number is 580528230. But this number does not belong to JCW, nor to Lo Tishtok. It belongs to an organization called Magen Child Protection.

Magen Child Protection is an earlier incarnation of the JCW model first established in 2010. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that it did not maintain a “Wall of Shame”. But this organization has been totally defunct since the summer of 2015. Absolutely no website (except an inactive blog) and a totally blank Facebook page. No office. Emails bounced. All phones disconnected. Nothing. They did indeed file a 2016 financial report in May of 2018 claiming NIS 206,000 (about $55,000) of revenues and operating fees – about half that of the previous year – but no telling what the money was used for. So far, no 2017 financial report and the 2018 report is already due.

One more thing about the now defunct Magen Child Protection. When they did operate, who was their Social Service Coordinator? 

You guessed it – Shana Aaronson. 

[Update - After publishing this post, a very thoughtful reader informed me that Magen officially closed for business in August of 2017 (again this is after at least two years of inactivity). They sent out an email with this announcement to all their followers. The email states that, "Magen's Victim Services Department has been adopted by the Israel office of Jewish Community Watch..." You can see the email HERE.
So, now it looks like the blind man and the cripple have recruited a third partner - a dead man. Who do you think each one is going to blame?] 

So we now have Racheli Roshgold and Tzvika Fleishman who work for both JCW and Lo Tishtok, and Shana Aaronson who works for JCW and Magen Child Protection. This is some love triangle!

And now, Lo Tishtok, acting on behalf of JCW, is telling donors to chalk up the donation to Magen Child Protection. 

Is this legal?

Well, JCW is a fine upstanding organization under the leadership of Rabbi Yosef Blau and has Rabbi Elchonon Tauber and Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik as Rabbinic advisors and Leah Klein, Benny Forer and Alex Zalkin as legal advisors, and in their FAQs they write how much they are dedicated to creating a Kiddush Hashem – so all this must be legal.

Though I am a bit surprised (I am not a Rabbi or a lawyer.)

As I wrote from the gemara in Bava Basra 89a (Choshen Mishpat 231:2 and 231:20), a Beis Din must set up oversight agencies to monitor associations. This is for the purpose of combating “ramah’im” (swindlers – see Bava Basra 89b). Associations team up to share their “capabilities”. If one association is more “kosher” than another, it gives the illusion of making the other one “kosher by association”. 

This actually is how we “kasher” mikvaos; by attaching a “pasul" one to a kosher one. The kosher one makes them both kosher just by virtue of being attached to it. 

But the purpose of a mikveh is to purify people. People come out of a mikveh clean, so nobody has any reason to want to sue a mikveh. But for an entity that is bent on declaring people to be impure and "pasul" and seeing to it that they stay that way, the rules are different.

A love triangle is only as strong as its weakest link. And, in my personal opinion, Lo Tishtok may have a good reason to remain silent.

והייתם נקיים מה' וישראל!