Perfidy 2023 Interlude – The Eldest Oyster Cracks a Joke

 

I continued talking to the Eldest Oyster and he proceeded to tell me all about Ron vs. Versano. It wasn't long before I realized that he was leading me down a deep rabbit hole. This Hare-raising experience was a lot more than I bargained for, so it has been taking me some time to formulate it into a post. I'm almost there, so I hope to post Part 2 very shortly.

In the meanwhile, he could detect that this conversation about the Israeli legal system was making me depressed. He thought to cheer me up with a joke. And so, he told me the following:

 

A Walrus, a Carpenter, and a Mad Hatter all took a job at a construction company and were working on top of a tall building. Every day at lunchtime, they would sit together on a bare steel girder way above the ground and eat lunch.

 

One sunny day (and this was odd because it was the middle of the night), they sat down to lunch and each one opened their home-packed lunchboxes.

 

First the Walrus opened his lunchbox and pulled out a jar and opened it. He says, “Oyster stew? Again? Every day oyster stew! If I get oyster stew for lunch one more time, by golly, I’m going to jump.”

 

The Carpenter opened his lunchbox and pulled out a slice of bread with a very thick layer of butter. He cries out, “Again a slice of bread where the butter is spread too thick? I get this every day! If one more time I get for lunch sliced bread where the butter’s spread too thick, by golly, I’m going to jump.”

 

The Mad Hatter opened his lunchbox and pulled out the contents. He mutters, “Mushroom flavored tea biscuits…again? I get this every day! If one more time I get for lunch mushroom flavored tea biscuits, by golly, I’m going to jump.”

 

The next day they all sit down to lunch as usual. The Walrus opens his lunchbox and pulls out a jar. Sure enough, it’s oyster stew. The distraught Walrus jumps and that’s the end of him. The Carpenter opens up his lunch box and finds a slice of bread with the butter spread too thick. He also jumps and that’s the end of him. Just then the Mad Hatter opens his lunchbox and finds… mushroom flavored tea biscuits. Sure enough, he also jumps and that’s the end of him.

 

The next day, at the Walrus’ funeral, his wife, beset with grief, is holding her pocket-handkerchief before her streaming eyes. With sobs and tears she blurted out, “Can anyone sympathize? I don’t understand this. It makes no sense. Why didn’t he just tell me that he didn’t want any more oyster stew? I certainly would have made him clam chowder instead.”

 

Meanwhile, at the Carpenter’s funeral, his wife was inconsolable. She wept like anything to see such quantities of dirt by his grave. She exclaimed, “I don’t understand this. It makes no sense. Why did he not just tell me that ‘the butter’s spread too thick’? I would gladly have spread it thinner.”, and she shed a bitter tear.

 

Meanwhile, at the Mad Hatter’s funeral, his wife couldn’t control herself. “I don’t understand this. It makes no sense. He made his own lunch!”

 

He asked me if I liked the joke. I told him, I think I might have heard it before. But I soon came to realize it is more than just a joke. It is a prelude to Ron vs. Versano.

We will examine it Through the Looking Glass very soon (bli neder)…

Perfidy 2023 – Part 1: Sticks and Stones

 

 

Author’s note – Like many other posts, this one was meant to be a short post about what I believe is a miscarriage of justice, but it overflowed its banks. As such, I need to divide it into two parts. Here is Part 1.

The discussion of Lashon Hara in this post is exclusively secular legal Lashon Hara by Israeli civil law (Libel). It is not discussing the Halachic Shmiras Halashon of the Chofetz Chaim.

 

I went to visit my friend the Eldest Oyster not long ago. Yep, he’s still around. He told me that people have been calling him all kinds of slurs. “Anti-vaxxer”, “conspiracy-theorist”, “menace to society”, “hazardous waste”, that kind of thing.

I told him that when I was a kid, we used to have a little jingle that would neutralize all the name calling. The jingle went, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”

He said that would never work in his community. I asked why, and he said, “Oysters don’t have bones. But we have hard shells. And the older we get, the harder the shells.” “Of course,” he continued, “folks still try very hard to irritate us. They put sand under our skin shells. But all we do is make pearls out of them. The more irritating, the bigger the pearl.”

I guess his message is that we need to take insults with a grain of sand.

I told him that we writers get this a lot. This is especially true when one has the temerity to write about highly charged, religious, political, or emotional subjects. It is common that readers may choose to feel threatened or antagonized. When this happens things can become unpredictable.

Most calm, mature readers won’t react at all. Or they may respond with a rebuttal or legitimate criticism or debate. Sadly, many of those who react are not the calm, mature kind. They may react with hostile remarks, insults, personal attacks, defamation, libel, character assassination and name-calling.

In more extreme situations, a respondent may take steps to silence or censor the writer or initiate legal action to “punish” him or her.

The original writer needs to know the occupational hazards. He (or she) must not be thin-shelledskinned and hypersensitive. For sure, any op-ed writer needs to be prepared for debate and to handle the rebuttals and legitimate criticism. In fact, they also need to be able to handle some of the nasty stuff like those hostile remarks and even insults and name-calling. But we certainly need to draw the line at personal attacks, defamation, libel, and character assassination. In these cases, the respondent is not trying to debate what you wrote, set the record straight, rebuke, or educate you. They are trying to harm you and falsely discredit (i.e., defame) you. More so if they initiate frivolous legal action to censor you and to pick your pocket.

In such cases, it is justified for the initial writer to be the one to initiate legal action to defend his reputation and right of expression.

What comes out from all this is that legal action for the sake of censorship, “cancelling”, silencing and bullying would be considered unjustified. Likewise, legal action because a writer or public figure was insulted by harsh remarks or even slangy name-calling is cowardly and petty, especially if the response was triggered by their own public actions or writing, even more so if the writer tends to use this type of terminology as well. This is like school kids who don’t get along snitching to the teacher or inmates snitching to the prison guard when they get “dissed”.

On the other hand, legal action to protect one’s reputation when it is unjustly tarnished with lies and false information and to protect one’s right to express his/her opinion on a controversial matter would be justified. This is what we need the civil laws of slander, libel, and defamation to do.

In short, the civil laws of Lashon Hara are intended to prevent false defamation and character assassination. As we say: Lashon Hara kills three people. The laws are there to prevent one from presenting a false or distorted picture of another in order to damage him. Facts should not be bent or fabricated to be used as a weapon.

On the flip side, the civil laws of Lashon Hara are not meant to protect people who act out publicly or who present unorthodox or offensive views from being called out or criticized. It is not meant to censor or stifle those who do the calling out or criticizing. It is not meant to become a political weapon wherein anyone with an agenda can push his agenda and get shielded from opposition by the biased courts.

Calling out or criticizing a fanatical player is merely presenting an opposing opinion. Officially, this is protected speech. It needn’t be insulting or abrasive. People should always speak nicely. But, even if it is, this does not constitute civil Lashon Hara or an excuse to claim compensation.

Even for cases of defamation or slander, money should only come as a result of damage, be it tangible or potential, or as an impetus to force compliance when the slander continues and the offender doesn’t want to delete it.

Does all this make sense?

It should and it used to. In the old days, all of this was elementary. And judges judged by the rules. And the basic rules were this:

If it’s true, it is not [actionable] defamation. Period.

The legal definition (at least in the Western world) of defamation, which includes slander and libel, is as follows (see source HERE):

Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about.

From this same source:

If you are accused of defamation, slander, or libel, truth is an absolute defense to the allegation. If what you said is true, there is no case. 

This means that it doesn’t matter that the statement(s) are critical, hurtful, or even damaging. If it’s true, then it’s the truth that is doing the damage.

So, in a case of explicit defamation (i.e., not merely slurs), the first and most important factor is whether or not the allegation is entirely true. One cannot argue with the truth or litigate against it.

In the event that it is not entirely true or even entirely false, then it is technically defamation. But now comes a second consideration: is it damaging?

After all, the plaintiff is suing for damages. He needs to claim some monetary value for compensation or there is no reason to litigate. As such, from a perspective of liability, some other factors may come into play:

• Did the offender know it was false? Did he have reason to believe it was true?
  
  
• Did the plaintiff complain to the offender and notify him that his statement is defamatory before taking action? Did he give him an opportunity to retract and edit before taking action?
  
  
• Was the defamation presented in the presence of the subject or behind their back?
  
  
• Was it said or written to a wide audience or to a closed circle?
  
  
• Was it said directly to the plaintiff as a second person dialog (i.e., you are a pervert), or was it in third person (i.e., he is a pervert)? If it was primarily second person dialog, there are grounds to say it isn’t defamation even if it is false (see my previous source).
  
  
• What kind of damage could it cause? How extensive? For how long?

All of the above factors are weighed to limit or impose liability in the case of defamation. But none of it should be necessary if the allegations are true.

Truth is supreme.

As I stated earlier, it is not supposed to matter how insulting or hurtful or even damaging the true allegations are. Defamation is not meant to be defined as offending someone. It is defined as falsely maligning somebody. The courts are not here to protect crybabies from getting their feelings hurt.

All the above is US law. But, this is how it was even here in Israel a generation ago.

How do I know?

Like many people in my generation, we learned about how libel cases work from reading a very controversial and monumental work: Perfidy.

Perfidy was written by Irgun sympathizer Ben Hecht in 1961 and it was banned in Israel by the left-wing government. (We also learned about left-wing censorship from Perfidy.) It started reappearing in the US in a blank jacketed version in the 1970s. That’s when I read it in yeshiva, about 45 years ago.

Perfidy tells the story of the high-profile libel trial that took place in 1954-55. You can get the complete synopsis HERE.

Briefly, in 1954, a religious Jewish Hungarian holocaust survivor, Malkiel Grunwald, put out a leaflet in which he accused a fellow named Rudolf Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis. This Kastner fellow was, at the time, a high-ranking employee of the Jewish agency and a political socialite. The government cronies of Mr. Kastner wanted to teach this Grunwald fellow a lesson and so they sued him for libel.

Big mistake.

As secular as the irreligious left-wing government and judiciary were, the judge in the case, Chaim Halevi, happened to be Orthodox. Regardless, Judge Halevi was concerned about one thing and one thing only – were the allegations in the leaflet true?

Of course, the allegations were offensive to Mr. Kastner. Yes, they were hurtful. Yes, they were critical. And, yes, they were damaging. But were they true or false?

It turned out that for all the details except one, they were true. Totally true. It was true that Mr. Kastner collaborated with Adolf Eichmann, ym”sh. One can argue whether this collaboration was virtuous or monstrous, but there is no arguing that it truly did take place. It was also true that Mr. Kastner testified on behalf of Kurt Becher at the Nuremburg trials. The only thing that Grunwald could not prove was his allegation that Kastner shared some of the material payoff that the Nazis got for the famous “Kastner Transport” that was released. Consequently, Grunwald was mostly acquitted (if my memory serves, he got a small fine for the payoff part).

Once again, the primary issue is whether the defamatory statements are true. This should apply to any defamation that is a narrative. The basic gray area is what we can call slurs, insults or name-calling.

This is because Israeli law is a little different than other Western countries. Other countries define defamation as a “false statement.” Israeli law is different. It defines “Lashon Hara” as a statement that is meant to put down or disgrace another person and/or to make him/her a target for disdain. The implication is that this may hold even if the derogatory language is true.

Only later (Clause 14), does the law state that “I am saying the truth” is a legitimate defense. Though, this somehow falls short of calling it an absolute defense. This gives a lot of subjectivity to the judges to deny the defense.

 

So, back to name-calling.

If you refer to somebody as a “nutcase” (meshuganeh), “idiot”, “sicko”, retard”. Is this defamation? What about calling someone a “pig’ or equating one to a vulgar part of the anatomy or a mother dog (or just plain dog) or the offspring of one? What about calling somebody a “goniff”, “pervert”, “mushchas”, or “mamzer” (in any language)? What about a Nazi?

The courts have debated this issue for decades, and it is still not fully resolved. As such, this depends on no small measure of subjectivity, but also, it depends on the context. What is the context of the name-calling?

Usually, the name-calling is just a put-down, such as calling somebody an “idiot” or “nutcase” or “SOB” or a vulgar part of anatomy. As such, it is clearly not meant to be taken at face value. We can call this “subjective slang”. It’s a way of the offender expressing that he does not think highly of the plaintiff. And it’s his opinion. But he’s really not doing a literal characterization. As Supreme court Judge Dorit Beinish wrote: “It’s not a clinical diagnosis.” Nor is it an analysis on his parentage or zoological status.

These expressions are not indicative of anything, nor do they do any substantial damage. They are just hurtful and insulting. The civil laws of Lashon Hara are not meant to protect people from getting their feelings hurt. So, it really shouldn’t be actionable.

However, sometimes the name calling is relational – i.e., calling somebody a goniff in relation to financial misdeeds, or a “pervert” in relation to sexual misdeeds, or a literal mamzer, or a Nazi. If this is the case, the judgement should go back to whether the basis for the relational epithet is true or not. Is the person really a financial miscreant or a sexual one or emulating the policies of the Nazis? If so, it should not be construed as defamation because it is true. If it is not, then, of course it should.

To summarize, if you call a woman a shoteh, it’s one thing. But if you call her a soteh, it’s quite another.

Although it must be difficult to distinguish what kind of name-calling is subjective slang and what kind is relational, an honest judge will use his head. A biased judge will use her feelings.

The upshot of all this is that the civil laws of defamation – the Chok Lashon Hara – are meant to protect people from damage. They are not meant to be political tools to allow a court to take sides as to which opinions are valid – in their eyes - and which are not, and to silence people who speak out on controversial matters.

So, I find it very disturbing to see just that.

All this came to play in the defamation case that I was involved with, but I am not going to discuss it here. Hopefully, I will do so in a future post. I was assuming and hoping that it was only me that had the misfortune to fall into the clutches of a judge with a personal agenda. But once I see it happening in other cases where religious ideology doesn’t play a part, it tells me we are living in a different generation than Malkiel Grunwald.

What I really want to discuss in the case of Ron vs. Versano.

It seems like our kindergarten jingle of “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me” never graduates from elementary school. And by the time one reaches Law School, it is totally forgotten. Kids don’t get insulted, but grownups do.

It’s a pity.

Stay tuned for Ron vs. Versano in Part 2.

The Worst of All Molesters

 

I was recently at a shiva house and the avel told over a story. There was a minyan that was one man short. To fill the minyan, someone suggested to call an elderly Jew from the adjacent complex who was not known to be religious. The elderly fellow consented to join the minyan. Afterward, he remarked that he had not set foot into a shul for almost fifty years.

When he was asked why not, he told over that he had a lifelong grudge. He was a very poor immigrant who lived only with his father since his mother had died. Once, when he was about eight or ten or so (let’s say ten), it was his mother’s yahrtzeit, so he went to shul to say kaddish. As a penniless orphaned immigrant, all he could do was to scrounge up a few kichels for shul but nothing more. For whatever reason, his father was not with him at shul and so, he was at the shul by himself. He remained through the davening and said kaddish and afterwards put out the small plate of kichels. One of the regulars teased him and said, “This is what you call a tikkun?”

As you might guess, he was very offended and humiliated, and made up never to go back to that shul. Apparently, it was not only to that shul, to any shul.

Really, this is not an exceptional story. Probably all of us have heard stories just like this about people who had traumatic or humiliating experiences in their developing years which turned them away from Yiddishkeit and religion.

Of course, the purpose of telling this story at the shiva was to drive home a point about sensitivity and how a single sarcastic or cynical comment can drive a vulnerable person to shun religion. The trite lesson of חיים ומוות ביד הלשון. And the Torah warns us: כל יתום ואלמנה לא תענון.

This lesson is intended to teach us how we should view the “perpetrator”. How much damage he did and that we certainly should not “be like him”. We probably think of him as one of the most heartless people on earth and will have a lot to answer for in the Heavenly Court. We might say that the Yetzer Hara had this guy in his clutches.

As is my style, I like to look at the other side of the coin. I want to look at the 10-year-old, and now probably about 60-year-old, kid. We see him as the poor orphaned victim and most of us can sympathize with him and understand why he has not walked into a shul for fifty years.

I am not as sympathetic.

No question, a 10-year-old yasom is a very vulnerable person. He had a void in his life and his “greenhorn” immigrant father wasn’t able to compensate and, from how it was told, even the child was an immigrant. One cannot be more socially disconnected than that. Moreover, if he shunned religion at such an age, we assume that he did not go to Jewish day school and probably was not bar-mitzvah. Likely, he never put on tefillin, never went to yeshiva and learned. And probably did not keep other mitzvos. A lost soul.

I get all that.     

Still, as I heard the avel tell the story, I asked myself (and maybe even asked the avel), “50 years?” He certainly had some religious upbringing and knew how to daven in shul and say kaddish. Someone ticks him off and he goes on strike for 50 years? 

50 years?

That’s a long time to bear a grudge. And it’s a long time not to move forward.

Yes, he was young and vulnerable. And the Yetzer Hara saw a soft, unprotected target. A prime candidate for his “molestation”. And, like every molester does, he groomed him to become his  “friend”.

Let’s look again at the “heartless” perpetrator. I don’t see him as “heartless” as much as just plain thoughtless. I’m sure this person didn’t realize how vulnerable the child was and how humiliating it was to criticize him. Jews tend to be cynical and especially because many of us, and certainly the old timers, had to go through this kind of thing themselves. In the old days, nobody was spared.

I see no reason not to dan l’kaf zchus and assume that if he would have known the impact of his remarks, he would have apologized and mollified the boy. But he never got the chance. The Yetzer Hara didn’t want him to. The YH wanted to make sure this kid does not go to shul. After all, who knows what other mitzvas he might ch”v start doing?

Evidently, the YH was working on both sides of the street.

But 50 years is a long time. And after a while a yasom is not a yasom anymore, and a victim is not a victim anymore. Initially, this event was a reason not to go to shul. Later it became an excuse.

There is a valid reason why he left then. But that isn’t a reason not to come back when he is older. He has no reason, just an excuse. Perhaps, when he was approached 50 years later, he finally realized that he has no reason nor any excuse not to comply. Perhaps he had been married and had some grown children. There comes a point where he can’t be a yasom anymore.

But there is no way to get back what he could have had over the past 50 years. And I am sure he is ready to blame this thoughtless Jew for everything. He as much as said so. But it wasn’t him.

Many people suffer traumatic experiences in early life. Experiences that cause them to move away from HKBH. That’s exactly what the YH wants. It’s what he has been grooming them to do. And every time the person might want to take a new step forward, comes his old pal the YH, who has always been there for him, and reminds him or her about how hurt they were at that time. He never lets them forget it. He never lets them get past it. He always brings them back. He makes sure they relive it again and again. 10, 20,30, 50 years or more.

About six weeks ago was Parshas Bechukosai. This Parsha tells us what we need to do to have a successful life – doing Hashem’s mitzvos with some degree of ameilus b’Torah. But right afterwards it tells us how to lose it all. First, we “neglect” to study Torah. Then we abandon mitzvos. Then we loathe others who perform them. Then we despise the Gedolim. Then we prevent others from observing. Then we deny the mitzvos were ever commanded. Then we deny the existence of HKBH.

This is the point of no-return. And how did one get here?

He gradually went down the slippery slope. One level drags one down to the next. (Rashi Vayikra 26:15). And where did it all begin?

Yep, by grooming. It began when the YH told him that there is no reason to understand what HKBH wants from us. No reason to study the Torah. It’s enough just to be observant and do mitzvos. You don’t have to understand them. You don’t need to be an expert. Just be an uneducated consumer.

This is how the grand molester, the Yetzer Hara, grooms us.

Last Shabbos we read Parshas Chukas in Eretz Israel. This coming Shabbos the slowpokes in chu”l will read Parshas Chukas. Parshas Chukas tells us the story of the copper snake. A very strange story. What’s it all about?

Let’s go back to Parshas Acharei Mos.

כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם בה לא תעשו

The deeds of the land of Egypt where you dwelled you are not to do,

Okay, they can relate to that. They were there in Egypt and saw it all. They know what this means. But there's more:

וכמעשה ארץ כנען אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה לא תעשו

The deeds of the land of Canaan to which I am bringing you, you are not to do,

Stop the presses! We already mentioned Egypt and we know what it’s all about. We were there so we have an accurate feel for what the Torah is about to tell us. Why do we need to add on Canaan? They aren’t any different and we haven’t actually been there, anyway.

HKBH knew something we did not yet know. The nation standing at Mount Sinai who are hearing these words, the nation who were redeemed from Egypt, isn’t going to arrive in Eretz Canaan. They will die in the desert and a new generation is going to enter the land of Canaan. And this generation that enters Canaan will not be those who left Egypt and will not be those who saw and internalized the depravity of Egypt. They will be a nation of Jews who were raised and nurtured in the sheltered “Lakewood” of the desert and have no first-hand knowledge of the depravity of the pagans. This kind of behavior will be totally alien to them. Hence, they must be forewarned that they will enter a land of depravity which they have never witnessed and will need to be ready to handle it.

Parshas Chukas is a pivotal parsha. This is the parsha where we “skip” 38 years of dark ages and arrive at year 2487, one year prior to entering the land (2488). And we have a new and complete congregation. A new generation of Jews. A generation who “does not know Joseph” and does not know Pharaoh, either.

After being encamped in the desert wilderness and sheltered by the Clouds of Glory for 38 years, this naïve nation is finally standing at the outskirts of “civilized” nations. They begin seeing things they have never yet seen. Fields with wheat and barley, olive groves, vineyards, orchards. Wells and springs.

 

They have been living in booths made of clouds, drinking “tap” water and eating this strange frosty “bread”. For the younger ones this has been for all their lives. It is all they have ever known. This bread is not miraculous. It’s the norm. We get it every day. And nothing else. And, truth be told, we’re sick of it!

We want real water, real food, not this ruinous bread! Oh, and while we’re at it, I don’t think we need these clouds anymore, either. We don’t know what Egypt was like because we weren’t there, but if it’s anything like the splendor we’re seeing in these lands (Edom, Sichon and Og), we would rather that you never brought us out of there.

The Torah says that HKBH sent the venomous snakes which bit many people of the nation and put many people to death.

Once we recognize that we are dealing with a new and young and naïve nation, it is hard to understand what was so terrible about their complaints.

To understand this, let’s see what happens next.

HKBH tells Moshe to make for himself a serpent (not a snake) and to raise it up on a pole. Whoever is bitten and looks at the serpent will live. Note that it doesn’t say that if he does not, he will die. Moshe then fashions a serpent in the form of a copper snake. The “bitten” people look at this snake and live.

What is happening here?

In this week’s edition of Toras Avigdor, Rav Miller ZTL explains that the “nachash” is an old friend that we know from Brias Olam (Creation). This is the snake that persuaded Adam and Chava to eat from the Eitz Hadaas.

The snake was always meant to be our Yetzer Hara, but it was initially meant to be a more visible and defined entity. It stood up straight. We could easily recognize it and identify it. This was because we did not yet know of both good and evil. Good and evil means good and evil intertwined in every entity (for this we can use a full discussion of the Parah Adumah from this parshah but we’re not going to go there now). But now, after the sin and the new "knowledge", the Yetzer Hara has to take on a new form. One that one doesn't recognize. One that crawls on its belly at ground level and is the same color as the sand and soil. Brown and copper.

The Yetzer Hara is now a clandestine secret agent in all kinds of disguises. Like the old-time radio crime-fighter “The Shadow”, he is all but invisible, knows “the evil that lurks in the hearts of men”, and has the ability to “cloud men’s minds”. Just he’s not interested in fighting crime.

Rav Miller explains that the snake, a.k.a. Yetzer Hara, does not want publicity or exposure. He wants to stay camouflaged where one doesn’t see him. The instruction to Moshe from HKBH was to do the opposite. To take the 'snake’ in its camouflage fatigues (dull copper) and hold him up for all to recognize. When one can now identify this rascal, he can know who the enemy is, and then, he can even learn how to recognize it in his habitat and learn how to avoid it.

As such, aside from the “pashut pshat”, we can understand the allegorical lesson of this event. The inexperienced nation was beginning to stray after their eyes and see distant fields where the grass appeared to be greener. They yearned for a piece of the action. HKBH sent upon them the "nachash", the Yetzer Hara, which “bit” them and caused them to burn with all kinds of passions. This, in turn, led them to disconnect with their spiritual side and the source of life and they began to die. It was a spiritual death.

Moshe created a brown/beige snake (not fiery polished copper) to show them that they are being attacked by a Yetzer Hara who is always camouflaged and crawls on its belly, and one cannot see him coming. As the Mishna says in Rosh Hashanah (3:8), those who would be inspired to fight the Yetzer Hara and rededicate their hearts to HKBH were healed. If not, they deteriorated. This, says the Mishna, is the same thing that happened in their earlier war against Amalek when our hands weakened from Torah.

The new generation were young and inexperienced. They were very vulnerable. And all this time, the great molester, the Yetzer Hara, was grooming them to do his bidding. He disguised himself as nothing more than lush, green looking pastures. Moshe needed to teach them that what looks like greener pastures is the Yetzer Hara’s way of dressing up dry brown (copper) soil.

The lesson of the Copper Snake is not enough. Molesters, like the YH, are hell-bent on getting what they want. The crafty ones do it by grooming the victims to become their friends and convincing the victims that they are doing things they will like and appreciate. They want them to think they are doing them a favor and submit to them willingly. They want the fun to be consensual.

When this doesn’t work, they have another method. This is to incapacitate the victim and do what they want without his/her consent. They try to put them to sleep so they do not know they are being molested. To do this, they may resort to what are known as “date-rape” drugs. These are substances that are added to drinks and put the user asleep and debilitates them.

Renowned Belzer Rosh Yeshiva HRHG Pinchas Fridman, Shlita, releases a drasha every week titled Shevilei Pinchas. In his drasha last Shevuos, he discussed our legend that the Jewish nation overslept on the morning of Mattan Torah. HKBH sounded heavenly Shofarot to wake us up. He writes that the Shofarot were meant to rouse us to do teshuva just like we do in Chodesh ellul. He quotes the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 3:4:

Even though sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah is a Torah decree (גזירת הכתוב), there is an implication in it, saying ‘wake up sleepers from your slumber and rouse up from your stupor, and examine your deeds and do teshuva and remember your Creator’.

Clearly, the Yetzer Hara doesn’t want us to think about our Creator, so he lulls us to sleep. Rav Friedman goes on and tells a story of a scholar who fell asleep in the Beis Midrash of the Tiferes Shlomo. The Tiferes Shlomo approached him, woke him up and asked him if he could answer “the captain’s question”?

The scholar was puzzled, so the Rav explained, I am referring to the captain of Yonah’s ship. The one who asked him, “Why are you sleeping? Rise up and call out to your G-d.” He then quotes a sefer Arvei Nachal which says that the gemara, tells us that the Jewish nation is compared to a Yonah (Brachos 53b). Thus, Yonah is the entire Jewish nation traveling through galus and chooses to “sleep it out”.

Our sages compared us in this long bitter exile to a ship that is foundering at sea that is expected to sink at any moment, and there is no hope save for the hope that HKBH will save it, for there is no other plan. Likewise, are we in this exile as a sheep among 70 wolves…with no way out. And for this the scripture calls out, “And Yonah descended to the bowels of the ship, and he laid down and slumbered.” The Jewish nation is compared to a dove and the Ruach Hakodesh (the Captain) screams at us, “Why are you sleeping? There is no time to sleep. Just rise up and call out to your G-d. Perhaps G-d will think of you and we will not be lost.”

When we pray maariv we say, הסר שטן מלפנינו ומאחרינו. Remove the Satan from in front of us and from behind us.

What is ‘from in front of us’?

When we can see him and recognize him, even if he is laying low and camouflaged.

What is ‘from behind us’?

When he puts drugs in our drinks and lulls us to sleep.

He is the grand molester, and he comes from all sides.

What is the remedy?

We learned the lesson from Parshas Bechukosai that we must supplement our mitzva observance with ameilus b’Torah. If not, he will groom us and drag us down step by step to rock bottom.

But if we are drugged, we can’t even do that.

We can only arise and call out to HKBH.

קום, קרא אל א-לקיך.

קרוב ה' לכל קוראיו

לכל אשר יקראוהו באמת

יונה בן אמיתי

One thing is certain...

...we cannot be "victims" all our lives.

Irreversible Damage

 

Author’s note – This is definitely one of the longest single posts that I have ever posted. I was not an easy post to write and is not an easy post to read. To make it smoother, I cut it into bite-sized sections. I appreciate those who take the time to read it and hope they will think it was worthwhile.

 

 

Many of us have our Tehillim or Shema Koleinu lists. These are names of people that we want to daven for Heavenly salvation for various personal problems. The most common categories are parnassah, shidduchim, and refuah sh’leima. In addition to these, I have one other category: people being detained or held by non-Jewish or secular authorities. Pidyon Shevuyim.

Currently, my list comprises four names:

Nechama Dina Krinsky – נחמה דינה בת חיה באשא.

She is a Chabad shlucha and mother of 11 that is being prosecuted in Lithuania for alleged tax fraud and withholding information when she was forced to declare bankruptcy on the Chabad school she led. As of last March, she was in house arrest but could face jail time. You can see her story HERE. I do not know the current status but believe that there was supposed to be a trial on March 9, 2023.

According to her husband, the reason they did not have the needed funds is because money allocated for the Vilna Jewish community from the Ukrainian government, to which their school is entitled, was not released to them by the Good Will Fund which is run by the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Aside from that, one needs to wonder why the Chabad organizations that sent the Krinskys as shluchim did not provide adequate funding.

 

Yehoshua (last name unknown) – יהושע מנחם רפאל בן גילה מרים.

17-year-old Israeli bochur who was lured into being a mule to smuggle illegal substances to France - presumably by a “frum” Jewish person. See the story HERE. Current status unknown.

 

Amiram Ben-Uliel – עמירם בן נורית.

West Bank resident was convicted for murder and arson in Duma incident and sentenced to 3 life terms. There is absolutely no proof to his guilt except a confession that was obtained from torture. See the story HERE and how to help HERE.

 

Malka Leifer – ריבה מלכה פרומית בת מרים שרה.

Israeli school principal convicted in Australian court for allegedly molesting some students. The students reported her to Australian authorities three years after she left Australia. See last post HERE.

  

There is a strange common denominator to all these cases. In all of them, it is the behavior (or misbehavior) of Jews at the source of their ordeals. Jews. Delinquent, non-G-d-fearing Jews. Some of these Jews know about G-d and Torah but choose to rebel. Reshaim. Some are misguided. Tamim. Consumers. And some may be clueless. Einam yodim l’shaal. But they are all Jews.

מהרסיך ומחרביך ממך יצאו

The thought of all this does not help my digestive system.

I am not here to reform the reshaim or to initiate the clueless. My mission is to help the consumers. These are people who think of themselves as G-d fearing but are misguided about what G-d really wants.

In my book and blog, I discussed the difference between consumers and providers. I lamented about how disconnected the consumers are from the advantages of understanding the products and the hazards they succumb to as a result. As I wrote in my treatise about Thinking Like a Jew, the primary hazard that affects a consumer is Hazard #3:

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

 

I went on to explain that: 

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

As one of today’s neo-conservative analysts put it (paraphrase), “Everyone is obsessed with staying in line with ‘the current thing’.”

 

The accusers in the Malka Leifer episode made it their business to turn this into a public spectacle. They used social media to amass a chorus of cheerleaders to tell them what they want to hear. To create an echo chamber. I wrote about it in this post (Consumerism and the Art of Denial).

These cheerleaders, most of whom are Jewish and many of whom are even Orthodox, are all consumers paying homage to “the current thing”.

Somebody recently lent me a book for my moments of solitude that explains the current craze of sudden transgenderism that is plaguing adolescent girls. The book is titled Irreversible Damage written by Abigail Shrier (a nice Jewish girl from the East coast). The title couldn’t be more appropriate. See my recent post about permanent solutions to temporary problems.

One aspect of this craze, which would be totally shocking if not that I am conditioned to it, is the role of social media. On page 12 (about as far as I have read) she mentions a girl named Julie and quotes one of her mothers (she has two):

“I saw the picture of her, right after her mastectomy, lying in the hospital bed, talking about how this is the best day of her life, tears of joy, this kind of thing, and four hundred of her cheerleaders saying, ‘Yay,’ ‘Awesome job,’ ‘We’re so proud of you,’ ‘You can do this,’ You know – the usual”.

For sure, this is all I have seen from the hundreds of jubilant cheerleaders for the Leifer accusers, ‘Mazal tov!,’ ‘Baruch Hashem,’ ‘Yay,’ ‘You girls are awesome,’ ‘We’re so proud of you,’ ‘You did it,’ You know – the usual.

All this for perpetrating irreversible damage.

As I wrote in my very first preamble post on this episode, it is not only a band of cheerleaders. It is a band of consumerist vigilantes who follow their emotions and not their heads. The mindless masses. As Rachel Risby-Raz wrote in her TOI blog, “The gang didn’t really have a leader.” No leader, no head, just a boich (gut). Some psychologists call this mass formation psychosis.

Just like the transgender craze, the irreversible damage is also to themselves, to each other, and to society at large. It is very scary.

The harmonious comments of the cheerleaders overwhelmingly reflect every type of trait that they would solemnly swear not to teach their children:

1. Overwhelming presumption of guilt
   
   
2. Overwhelming thirst for punishment and retribution (eye for eye)
   
   
3. Overwhelming animosity and demonization
   
   
4. Overwhelming disdain for Halacha and Jewish values
   
   
5. Overwhelming rationalization and self-righteous vindication
   
   
6. Overwhelming shortsightedness on ramifications

I think each of these traits call for some introspection. Here we go:

 

1 - Overwhelming presumption of guilt

I discussed this topic at length in these posts: Midas HaDin, Adulterating the Truth, Updates on Malka Leifer and JCW

Dassi Erlich announced the guilty verdict on her Facebook page on April 3. This post attracted 613 comments before it petered out. I quickly scrolled through them to check them out. All of the comments are supportive, congratulatory, and jubilant. Lots of “Finally,” “At long last,” “Baruch Hashem,” “Mazal Tov”, “You are so brave and amazing”, etc.

Not a single one was surprised at the verdict. Nor against it. Why should they be? She is so obviously guilty. Let’s hear from some of the cheerleaders. We will start with the next to last comment written by Sam Leary referring to Dassi’s ex-husband:

I hope your ex-husband has trouble looking himself in the mirror now the truth he tried so hard to cover up, has been so publicly confirmed. His selfish motives trying to destroy the mother of his child shows his true self.

The funny thing is that Dassi’s ex-husband’s testimony was that this case is being blown out of proportion. The verdict does not prove him wrong and, if anything, does more to prove him right. Sam Leary can only see in him “selfish motives” in that he is “trying to destroy the mother of his child”. Leary cannot fathom that perhaps he is trying to protect Mrs. Leifer from unjust prosecution. Incidentally, there is no reason why Mrs. Leifer getting off would destroy the mother of his child (Dassi Erlich). Personally, I think it would be much better for her.

His comment about “the truth he tried…to cover up” displays his presumption of guilt but this was basically run-of-the-mill. After all, to him it's been 'confirmed'. What impressed me more was the immediate reply from a fellow named Shimshon Shoshkowitz:

Sam Leary Whilst the whole Jewish community knew Leifer was guilty, he still decided to testify for the defence…

Yes, indeed. The whole Jewish community (except me) knew Leifer was guilty. How did they know? Did she tell them? Were there objective witnesses? Not that I am aware of. Only these amazing sisters said she is guilty and therefore she is. Also people like Dovid Lichtenstein, Yerachmiel Lopin and Yaakov Horowitz, ad infinitum.

I don’t think he really meant the whole Jewish community knew. He meant the whole Jewish community presumed to know. Of course, this makes Dassi’s ex-husband who probably knows a lot better irredeemably wicked.

Other cheerleaders were “thankful” or “grateful” that she was found guilty. Writes Helen Mazner, “We are so thankful the verdict was GUILTY.” Comments Lynda Green, “Thank goodness the truth was told and the verdict of guilty was pronounced.” And former prosecutor Shlomit Metz-Poolat, “As a former prosecutor I was following your case every step of the way and was grateful to see her jailed, extradited, tried, and finally convicted!”

I am not sure who they are being grateful to, but people are only grateful for one thing: when they get something they want. They all wanted Mrs. Leifer to be guilty. Nobody wanted her to be innocent. One can’t justify hating innocent people.

From all these, the most striking comment was from Helene Gordon, “Malka's guilt is a relief!!!”

A relief?? She is relieved that a Jewish person was found guilty in a non-Jewish court for a crime that was never established to have occurred at all?? Wouldn’t it be a greater relief if she was found innocent? If the court ruled that whole thing was a crazy nightmare, a figment of some people’s imaginations? Blown way out of proportion? No one was really molested. What a relief!

It just can’t be. She had to be guilty because… because… because… everybody knows she is. And why?

Because nobody wants her to be innocent. That would be so anti-climactic. If she would have been found totally innocent, there would have been a cry of outrage and miscarriage of justice from the grandstands. “She must really be guilty, they just couldn’t prove it.”

Let’s look at a commenter from March of 2018 named Nicole Iglicki Gold. She wrote:

...“A fair trial in Australia”-who are you kidding? She doesn’t deserve anything fair. I don’t know these girls but I am human and am sensitive to their pain. ...Ask yourself, what if it were your children who were subjected to this evil evil lady? ... She is a criminal and deserves to be in jail and to have the key thrown away.”

 

Here is a typical commenter who admits that she doesn’t "know these girls” (the accusers) which indicates that she certainly doesn’t know Mrs. Leifer, as well. She doesn’t know anything at all, yet she knows that Mrs. Leifer is an “evil evil lady” and a “criminal” and “deserves to be in jail and the key thrown away…” Just because Dassi Erlich said so!

 

And what does Nichole Sapper Meyer say about the one who says “she does not deserve anything fair”?

 

Nichole Meyer: Nicole Iglicki Gold thank you ... your words mean a lot to us.

Yes, she is so automatically guilty that she doesn’t deserve anything fair. Nicole confirms this.

This is Midas Sodom.

 

2 - Overwhelming thirst for punishment and retribution (eye for eye)

See this post: Justice is Blind…and Deaf- Midas HaDin

Great. Terrific. She’s guilty! Yes, she’s guilty!

Um, what is she guilty of?

As we know, the secular courts say she is guilty of some heinous crimes including “rape”. This is, by use of their definition of “rape”. For the very few people who may have read my preamble post, Thinking Like a Jew, we learn what rape really means (as well as what it used to mean in a secular court many rains ago). Real rape is performed by real men and by force. This is a heinous crime. This newfangled artificial female “rape” is just invasive pattycake.

This is what I wrote in my 2017 post Flirting with Danger:

Even if she is guilty of what she is being accused of, the activities are not felonious by Torah standards and don’t call for any extreme penalties. Not even judicial flogging. Claims of emotional and psychological injury to the victims are only personal injury claims and are monetary and not criminal.

Did I just mention personal injury? Ah yes. Both in the Thinking Like a Jew post and in my very last post we discussed the penalty for personal injury:

Chazal teach us (Bava Kama 83b) that “an eye for an eye” doesn’t mean a literal eye. It means cash. In other words, when one injures or inflicts physical pain on another person, the punishment is monetary compensation to the victim. This is the Torah way. Torah justice is done with monetary compensation, not with cutting eyes or limbs or putting people in jail. Our Torah is much more compassionate than any secular justice system.

But the cheerleaders are having none of it. They have no compassion. They want blood. Listen to our frum ex-prosecutor Shlomit Metz-Poolat, “She will rot in a small cell for many years to come.”

Once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor.

Our ex-prosecutor is not alone. How many times have I seen the banal line, “Let’s make Leifer a lifer?” Countless.

And don’t forget Ms. Nicole Iglicki Gold from last section who doesn’t know anyone or anything but wrote that she, “deserves to be in jail and the key thrown away…”

Most consumerist Jews don’t know the Gemara in Bava Kamma that says that “an eye for an eye” means money. Or that צדק צדק תרדוף means in a Jewish court at the hands of a G-d fearing Beis Din. They think an eye for an eye means a real eye for an eye. Vengeance. And צדק צדק תרדוף means secular courts and secular laws.

I wish it were only the cheerleaders. The cheerleaders are influenced by the professional “athletes”. Let’s go back to my contested post Judging the Judges 2 from July 2017 (currently offline). In that post, I clearly wrote:

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.

I sincerely meant it then and do so to this day. I want what is best for everyone.

Comes fix-the-world athlete Shana Aaronson onto social media and, in regard to this very post, she writes to me:

[I] Still think your an immature cruel human being incapable of understanding compassion and nuance.

Get this? I want what is best for all sides. Let’s play nice and everybody go home and cool down. Shana Aaronson totally wants to destroy Mrs. Leifer and doesn’t care if Dassi Erlich gets herself destroyed in the process. She wants blood and vengeance. (More on this later.) And I am the one who is immature and incapable of compassion???

Clearly, Mrs. Aaronson and I have very different definitions of “compassion”.

Most of us have heard the sharp words of Mahatma Gandhi, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Maybe that’s what they mean when they say that Justice is blind.

 

 

3 - Overwhelming animosity and demonization

Related posts: Midas HaDin, Building a Case

The cheerleaders never tire of using the most appalling epithets to demonize our villain: Monster, wicked, witch, b—ch, rapist, pedophile, scum, evil, etc. Everything to the most extreme.

Why is this necessary?

People need to justify their being cruel and vindictive, and they do it by announcing that the villain is the worst type of miscreant imaginable. They are forced to label the villain as irredeemably wicked because, if they aren’t, there is no excuse not to redeem them.

After all, all these people like Nicole Iglicki Gold and Shimshon Shoshkovitz know exactly everything that happed. They said so. And even devout pious role-models like Dovid Lichtenstein can publicly state regarding a Torah observant Jew, “ושם רשעים ירקב”. (Perhaps he means to elevate her to the status of the skilled Kohanim of the Beis HaMikdash – Yoma 38a).

It must be therapeutic. People need to demonize others to make themselves feel better about their own shortcomings. This is so they can tell themselves, “Yes, I know that I do this or used to do that, but at least I’m not as bad as that evil monster.”

In order to be able to love themselves, so many people need to find “others” to hate. They only need to justify why they are not bad people for hating them. Ah, the villain is so irredeemably wicked, they cannot be considered human and certainly not Jewish. They are not entitled to the rights that normal humans are entitled to, like, for instance, a fair trial. They must be akin to Amalek. It is a mitzvah to hate them and to wish and do to them the utmost harm. Thus, hating other people becomes a part of their essence. It’s a mitzva now, after all.

This is something that never stays inside its cage. One “mitzvah” drags in another “mitzvah”. It is now a mitzvah to demonize anybody who is understanding and compassionate of the accused. “Let’s get them, too.” And so, the animosity and demonization spills over to Mr. Fried, Rabbi Shafran, Rabbi Grossman, Rabbi Litzman, to me and, most recently, to Dassi Erlich’s ex-husband.

Ironically, and perhaps hypocritically, bounty-hunter Mrs. Shana Aaronson, boldly proclaims as a fact that 1 in 3 women are abused in their lifetimes. When one couples this with another known fact that most abusers were themselves abused, it has to bring up the odds that our villain may be a victim of abuse to way beyond 50%. Such a situation, if verified, would go a long way in making our villain a bit more human and redeemable.

But the haters and demonizers will have none of it. They can’t even face up to such a possibility. Because, if it is so, they are now murdering a victim.

As such, when I suggested in my blog that Mrs. Leifer is most likely a victim, Shana Aaronson needed to fight me on public social media (same thread as before). She wrote to me, “some [molesters] were [abused]. But not as many as your assuming.”

Not as many as I am assuming? Doesn’t she herself write that 33% of all women are abused, even those that don’t graduate to be abusers? 33%! That’s her number. And the odds for a molester can only be higher (can’t be lower.) Has anybody heard her podcast on her own website where she mentions how at one time, almost all the friends she was hanging out with were sharing their personal stories of abuse?!

She then went on to state, “NO ONE gets a pass at molesting a kid. And sure as h*ll not on 74 counts…”. 

Firstly, here again is your universal presumption of guilt. How is she certain that our villain is guilty of 74 counts? Or even one? Further, she obviously means “a pass” from punishment, not from prevention. Shana is a firm believer in blood and vengeance. Every “molester” needs to be punished even if they are retired and even if they were molested themselves.

Why?

Well Shana seems to be among the 33%.

I am aware of an online chat forum strictly for frum women. I became aware of it many years ago when one member critiqued my book. (That part of the forum was accessible to anyone). I promptly directed my wife to become a legitimate member. Ever since, if I needed to, I could find out what the “ladies” have to say on a topic that I might be dealing with. You can bet that I “peeked” into the threads about Malka Leifer.

Regarding Malka Leifer, there was a protracted thread about the involvement of Rabbi Litzman, after that there was a more recent one celebrating the extradition and now one celebrating the conviction. As expected, the prevalent attitude is approving, celebratory and even vindictive although there are always some lone level-headed posters who may challenge some points and say this is not something to celebrate. Those few usually get gang tackled. The titles of the two last threads are indicative of the mood: “Finally! Extradited” “Finally! Guilty.”

One tragic thing about all the threads is that far too many posters tell us that they were abused themselves. Thus, it makes sense for them to identify with the accusers and cheer for them. In light of this, as I checked out those threads there was something I was looking for. And I didn’t find it.

With all those posters, many of whom were “survivors” themselves, not one, not a single one, could even suggest that perhaps Mrs. Leifer is also a victim (or “survivor”.)

Why not?

Because, if she is, they would also have to let her into their “victims” club. They cannot allow themselves to do that.

 

 

4 - Overwhelming disdain for Halacha and Jewish values

 

A consumer, by definition, is one who does not know all that much about the product. That’s bad enough. But consumers of Jewish Halacha are even more recalcitrant since, in most cases, they don’t want to know all that much about the product. As long as the definition of secularism is to do whatever one sees fit and not to be bound by restrictions, all that Halacha gives us are the restrictions we would otherwise not want.

Ben Shapiro has often remarked, “Facts don’t have feelings,” and this is no less true about the “facts” of our Halacha. They don’t have feelings, or at least, the type of feelings most of us would like them to have. For most consumers, and especially for the entire Malka Leifer prosecution cheerleading squad, the simplest route is to just ignore the Halachic ‘facts’ and act as if they don’t exist.

But exist they do, and we can’t just wish them away. And since they are pointing a different direction, I find myself responsible to point them out. It’s a part of the Halacha.

As such, before I took on this task, I made it my business to write the preamble post Thinking Like a Jew. This sets the moral compass for this entire episode. Indeed, when one consumerist sheep bleated to me, “Where is your moral compass?” I was very easily able to link to this post and then say, “Here’s mine. Where’s yours?”

This universal disdain for Halacha is not confined to the mindless masses of the cheerleaders. This conduct came from “higher places” as well. The dialog with Shana Aaronson that I referenced in the previous sections took place while she and Meyer Seewald were busy composing their defamatory article against me. In that same thread, she wrote me that I “don’t have a clue how sexual abuse works.”

Aside from not providing a clue on how she “knows” this, as well as totally not acknowledging what I wrote on the subject before she ever heard of me (HERE), I let it slide and just countered that, “I don’t think you have a clue on how Halacha works…”

I know that she has no clue because she is clearly violating it. Nor does she even claim to be observing it. Nevertheless, her response was, (her words - abridged for brevity):

“If it means I get to keep advocating for the people whose lives have been ripped apart by evil, and for protecting all of our children (including yours), I’ll take it. Sure. Not your Halacha, that’s for damn sure.” (Note the emotion in her words).

My Halacha?

What she is saying is that she will decide for herself what Halachos to follow and what to discard. She will do what she wants. Not what the Halacha that I source tells her to. That is my Halacha and is not applicable to her. She will not be subject to boundaries and restrictions that are meant to protect people (including her).

I responded that “My Halacha is your Halacha – sorry to say.”

Incidentally, there is nothing in any Halacha that says she cannot advocate for victims. It only says she can not decide what is permissible to do to alleged perpetrators. Like most of these confused souls, she is conflating two issues in order to rationalize her bloodletting.

She wasn’t done railing in that thread but she never responded to the Halacha claim. She then went on to publish her defamatory article where she referred to my position as “pseudo-Halachic” without a single word to explain what is pseudo-Halachic about it. Later in the same article she actually demonized me for “vehemently defending his [my] position under the guise of Torah, Shulchan Aruch and Halacha“.

I clearly listed the sources, and she in no way denied that my stated Halachic premises actually appear in the Torah, Shulchan Aruch and Halacha. Yet, to her, it is just a “guise”. She knows the real Halacha, wherever it may be. She has yet to reveal it. It must be Toras HaNistar.

This woman actually claims to teach “Halacha” to kallahs who have suffered traumas. Hashem Yishmor!

Actually, this thread appears in a post in Meyer Seewald’s Facebook page in 2017 whence Meyer bashed me for “using Halacha”. Yes, it’s a crime for me to use Halacha. Meyer is indicating that he or JCW would never do such a thing!

One consumer named Shmuel Kopel jumped in to save him in the comments secton. He wrote: 

 

Meyer Seewald please reword you statement to "claims to be using Halacha" otherwise u are agreeing with him that he is following halacha. I proudly try my best to follow halacha and would like to know the source for his behavior in halacha if that is what u r saying.

This consumer did not read my blog nor see my sources. Anyhow, based on his suggestion, Meyer changed the text of his post to “claims to use Halacha”. He did not bother to explain what, if anything, is faulty about those “claims”.

Another commenter on that thread wrote: "I’m really curious to see how this twisted individual uses Halacha to justify the exact opposite of basic HALACHA."

I promptly replied with a link to Thinking Like a Jew.

It doesn’t end there. We have the master of Halacha Headlines himself, Dovid Lichtenstein, who is a proud supporter of the accusers and an even prouder demonizer of the accused.  I think, due to his public position as a purveyor of Halacha, his  כגון אנא דמסיגנא ד' אמות בלא תורה ובלא תפילין is a chillul Hashem.

 

5 - Overwhelming rationalization and self-righteous vindication

Related post: Putting the Peh before the Ayin - Building a Case

Needless to say, this trait is a spinoff of all of the previously listed traits - presumption of guilt, lust for blood and punishment, animosity and demonization.

The terminology of the celebrators point to a collective sigh of relief that Mrs. Leifer was found guilty. So many, “Finally” and “What a relief” and “Baruch Hashem.”

To paraphrase, they are saying, ‘We were right all along.’ ‘She is definitely guilty because these non-Jews with Western secular standards said she is.’ ‘She really is the evil satanic demon we’ve been calling her all these years.’ ‘We were right. And she really does deserve all of the years in prison and court and people following her around with cameras.’

Clearly, there would definitely not be any “Finally” and “What a relief” and “Baruch Hashem” if Mrs. Leifer was found innocent. That would be a catastrophe. ‘You mean all our redifus, name-calling, destruction and persecution was in vain?’

The disdain for Halacha part won’t bother most of the cheerleaders since they anyway learned to live with themselves while not observing Jewish Halacha. Yet, there are a few who hold themselves as observers of Halacha. How do they rationalize their position?

One method is the demonization; to paint the accused as the most diabolical fiend imaginable. Once the villain is labeled with every diabolical epithet, one can say they are no longer human, no longer Jewish. Open season. Kill the beastie. The sinas chinam become sinas kinaim.

A second method is to distort the Halacha to find kulos for hurting accused people.

Some want to claim that the Torah says rape is like murder (Devarim 22:26). From this, we see the danger of playing word games. If anything, this pasuk refers to real rape, not to feminine finger poking. Also, the comparison is that a rodef in progress for real rape can be stopped with lethal means like a rodef in progress for murder. This is if the crime is in active progress. Once it is carried out and completed, it is subject to due process in a Jewish court (only). Both in cases of murder and of real rape.

The Leifer case has no rodef and no rape.

As usual, I received no online comments on my last post. However, I was contacted by a few readers off-line. One reader, a prominent blogger who is a big proponent of religious ideals and a big Har Habayit and techeiles enthusiast, complained that I only want to follow the letter of the law.

I responded that for anything bein adam l’chavero, we are obligated to follow the letter of the law because being lenient to one side automatically means being strict to the other. He proceeded to show me (A) some halachic sources which tell us that a Beis Din has the authority to enact extra-judicial punishments when the looseness of the generation call for it. He then (B) extended this to claim that since BD today is powerless, there is no problem to turn our miscreants over to goyim for extra-judicial punishments since BD could do it if they want.

As for A, I responded that you don’t need a list of sources. This is clearly in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 2, so would this be applicable, then it is a part of the “letter of the law”. That said, for B, I pointed out that this is an exclusive right and function of a Beis Din. Even today, a Beis Din (and only a BD) has the authority to rule if it is appropriate to be moser somebody to non-Jews in another country. As far as I know, there was never a Beis Din involved in this case at any level whatsoever.

Furthermore, this authority for extra-judicial punishments can only hold when it has been established beyond a doubt by the Beis Din that the alleged crime was committed, and the suspect is guilty of it. That is certainly not the case here, but our messianic reader is suffering from the same presumption of guilt that is driving this entire debacle.

Lastly, there is no real source for a Beis Din to allow non-Jews to carry out extra-judicial punishments - with the possible exception of enforcing a get decree (although a get decree is not an extra-judicial punishment and the decree itself is made in Beis Din). There is no such allowance in all of Hilchos Mesira (Choshen Mishpat 388). But if it helps people like my blogger friend and Shana Aaronson to live with themselves after spilling Jewish blood shelo k’din, I guess it may be worth it.

 

6- Overwhelming shortsightedness on ramifications

Related posts: Flirting with Danger and Extradition or Jurisdiction

One refrain that I’ve heard from numerous people is the concept of the greater good. Even if extradition is not justified and/or prison is not justified and the villain doesn’t deserve such harsh treatment, there are still very significant social gains that benefit the community as a whole. Hence, it is justified to “sacrifice” the miscreant for these social gains. (Another rationalization.) The rationalizations sound like this:

Firstly, indeed there is a strong “raglayim l’davar” that there were inappropriate activities that took place and that innocent young people were hurt. To get the alleged – with raglayim l’davar – miscreant off the streets ensures that these activities don’t continue even if this step is not really necessary.

Secondly, seeing the [alleged] perpetrator punished gives a sense of closure to the [alleged] victims and helps their healing process.

Thirdly, all this acts as a deterrent by which to convince other potential predators to desist. Thus, society gains in the long run. The miscreant might be getting the short stick, but society can only gain. What does the general society have to lose? It’s good for society!

This attitude is an expression of short sightedness. Not only are these celebrations misguided for all the reasons discussed in the previous sections, but they are also poisonous to society including to those who are celebrating. Some poisons take effect immediately and others don’t take effect until long afterward, but all poisons are hazardous to one’s health.

This is one reason I wrote the post Flirting with Danger. In that post I noted that, in my opinion, the vocal cheerleaders who are celebrating are an עם נבל ולא חכם. This is because, as Rashi says, they do not see the nolad, they do not see what this may be leading to.

I opened there with the dangers from the religious perspective. This is all a tremendous chillul Hashem and a chillul Hashem can never be good for society at large. Secondly, whenever a miscreant is discovered in the chareidi One Above camp (אם בחוקותי תלכו), the religious liberals and irreligious scoffers - the members of the Seven Below camp (ואם בחוקותי תמאסו) - capitalize on it to denigrate the One Above camp, and discourages Jews from improving their lives. They are creating a deterrence to Torah living which far outweighs the deterrence to stop molesters from molesting.

I wrote there that:

“It seems to me that most of these Jews, the victims and their supporters, are not really yarei shamayim. So they will not acknowledge this danger.

But they should take heed that there are a number of dangers of a more earthly nature that it would be wise to think about. If one can be a chacham. If one can be ro’eh ess hanolad.”

I made a number of predictions in that post. The most dramatic of them did not come to pass. Mrs. Leifer wasn’t acquitted, but she might have been. Still, the things that took place set some very dangerous precedents that may come back to bite those that advocated for them.

The first thing is the extradition that everybody was cheering for. The manner in which the State of Israel so readily extradited a natural born citizen to a foreign country on such flimsy pretenses means that it can happen to anybody. One never knows how and why he or she can find themselves on the next flight out. Needless to say there is no shortage of Israelis on the international wanted list.

Hence in my post about Extradition or Jurisdiction I wrote:

We live in a very hostile world that is not sympathetic to the struggles of the State of Israel for survival and security. There are ubiquitous open ended “arrest warrants” in many countries for Israeli officials, politicians, and military personnel for bogus “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity”. Many of our leaders and military heroes are not free to travel anywhere in the world without diplomatic cover for fear of wanton prosecution in countries that have no moral jurisdiction (only self-imposed) to whatever events they would prosecute for.

It is unthinkable that the State of Israel should acquiesce to an extradition request for any natural born Israeli citizen under these circumstances; especially when the treaties themselves provide for the exemptions.

Doing so would set a horrible precedent and could open a Pandora’s box that will haunt Israeli officials forever. It would be political suicide.

Well, the precedent has been set.

I also think this whole attitude of ‘building a case’ to get a conviction without due process is a ticket to trouble.

Just this past Pesach, Mishpacha Magazine put out their gala Pesach edition chock full of advertisements and sporting their collection of fiction short stories in their Calligraphy booklet. This year’s Calligraphy had a very interesting story of historical fiction about a Jewish family living in Massachusetts in the general vicinity of Salem in the 1690s when the witch trials took place.

The story is narrated by a young girl whose older brother was engaged to a 22-year-old lady from what was probably the only other Jewish family in the region. As the story progresses, the 22-year-old kallah is accused of witchcraft at the height of the hysteria since a few days after she was at someone’s home, their dog dropped dead.

She was arrested and indicted and imprisoned and certainly would have gone the distance to the fruit tree if not that she managed to break out of jail (can’t figure out how) and hide out by her chosson’s family until her whole family could secretly relocate to Rhode Island.

Although the story is full of holes, it does accurately reflect the tempo of the era. Mainly, that anybody who is accused of being a witch is confirmed to be so on the “strength” of the accusation itself and the accused bear the burden of proof to prove themselves otherwise. This is virtually impossible. Secondly, anybody Jewish, of any stripe, is going to be a prime target of this hysteria and will certainly get a shorter measure of fair play than any non-Jew.

Most of us think that that was a dark bygone era when people were superstitious and primitive and vulnerable to all kinds of irrational fears and beliefs. Today we are educated and scientifically advanced. We are rational and have civil rights and the protection of a fair law system and a Bill of Rights. Things like this couldn’t happen anymore.

Not so. Every generation has new witches and new witch hunts. The Salem witch trials were in the 1690s but all the Wild West gunslinging and lynching of suspected horse thieves and cattle rustlers was only in the more recent 1800s. Then came the McCarthy Red Scare “witch hunts” in the 1940s and 50s which certainly influenced the Rosenberg case.

Subsequently, in the 1980s and 90s rose up the Day-Care Sex-Abuse Hysteria. Today’s child abuse is the witchcraft of yesterday complete with the presumption of guilt and all the other trappings.

As such, it scared the life out of me to read this article: 

Florida Enables Death Penalty For Child Sexual Abuse

On the face of it, it sounds like a great idea. Hey, I am all for the death penalty in general and for confirmed professional incorrigible grown-up pedophiles. It all sounds great and long overdue. We’re all going to love this “Let’s kill all pedophiles” law until… until…

...until one of the first customers is ch”v going to be one of us. When some 16 year old who started up with their cousin or sibling or neighbor is going to be fingered and R”L sent to the chair.

Remember how many times I wrote that most offenders are young adults who will most likely grow out of their hang-ups - if they are not hung up first? See HERE and HERE.

Trust me, Jews (and maybe other minorities whose lives don’t matter) will be the primary targets of this law. Incidentally, it says in the article that this is not going to require a unanimous jury verdict. An 8-4 decision will be sufficient. And with today’s burden-of-proof-upon-the-accused mentality, this will be a disaster. All the askanim who try to intervene in some case will be told, “Hey, you guys wanted this law.”

To those who are not roeh ess hanolad, a law such as this is appropriate and long overdue. Let’s celebrate. But this is just a modern version of 1692. Today’s child abuse is the witchcraft of yesterday. And I am worried that, R”L, some people may die to regret it.

Lastly, I get daily emails of Rav Avigdor Miller’s ZTL Q and A sessions. In a recent email that I received on April 20 (before Yom HaShoah) Rav Miller was asked as follows:

Why didn’t the tremendous zchus of the tzaddikim in the time of the Holocaust save six million Jews? The kehillos in Europe and the Torah learning was its peak.

Rav Miller’s response was:

Judaism in Europe was not at its peak! It was approaching the peak of the bottom! I’ll give you an example. In Lithuania, there were daily Jewish newspapers; one for the Left Zionists called the Tze-Es; Zionist Socialists, a daily newspaper.  There was a daily newspaper for the general Zionists, a daily newspaper for the Revisionists.  Daily newspapers for Jews to read. These were newspapers for Jews, not for the gentiles.

But for Orthodox Jews, there was no daily and no weekly and almost no monthly. 

Now the question is who was doing all this reading? Human beings were reading it.  And not Lithuanians, not gentiles. Jews! Jews were doing all this reading! Now, what was in those newspapers, the daily newspapers?  Hostility to Judaism.  Attacks on rabbonim.  Ridicule of Torah and mitzvos. It was filled with hostility and ridicule. And that means that the Jewish nation in Europe before the Holocaust was reading newspapers every day with poison against Torah, against da’as Torah. They were being poisoned.

So it means that the ear of the public belonged to the reshaim, which means that the masses of the Jewish people were going lost.

What are you saying that Judaism in Europe was as its peak?! A yeshiva man, if he walks out, let’s say, in Staten Island in some very assimilated Jewish neighborhood, will Jews call him names?  Jews might not take to him, they might consider him alien, a stranger, but that’s all. But in Lithuania, a yeshiva bochur in many places was called names by the Jews!  They looked down on him!  They called him patron! They called him a parasite. You don’t realize how far the Jews in Europe had moved away from Judaism. There was a lot of chillul Shabbos!  There was a lot of atheism.  The youth had no longer any connection with Judaism.

According to Rav Miller, ZTL, this is what Judaism was like at the cusp of the Holocaust. It is almost 85 years later and we are seeing more of the same. Antisemitism is at an all time high. And plenty of Jews are those who are feeding it. It always has been Jews.

I really hope there will be no need to relearn the lessons of the holocaust. But there are no guarantees. If the damage isn’t already irreversible, we must make sure it doesn’t get there.

 

הוי כי גדול היום ההוא מאין כמהו ועת צרה היא ליעקב וממנה יושע