Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Growing up I used to sit in a high chair with a pacifier after finishing my baby food.
Gadol: New York had a Chief Rabbi.
As far as his authority, even the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain has no formal authority in religious matters. Any Jew can, and very many do, completely disregard him in all religious issues.
The same principle applies in France and South Africa as well as, to a somewhat lesser degree, even in Israel.
5TR: Who were meshadech your children?
huju: You seem to be confusing the Saudis with the JAPs.
It’s called a Shlach.
DaMoshe: I’m not. I’m relying on one of the most eminent MO rabbi with one of the largest congregations in one of the most prominent MO towns.
You may wish to nitpick what he said but regardless of the particulars of any survey or scientific poll, or lack thereof, the fact that he with his intimate knowledge of the community could publicly make the case that 50% of MO post-high school students go OTD, and lament that terrible situation, means the figure or general situation is minimally plausible, and more likely, given he being in a better position than most to comment about the subject, fairly close to reality.
There’s no versus. They’re on the same page.
What other “decisions” has she made?
DaMoshe: Nowhere close to 50% of MO high school students come from irreligious homes. As such, any way you slice or dice it, r’l a high percentage of formerly frum MO high school students go off the derech.
Yeshiva of Flatbush, Torah Temima, Masbia, etc.
Jews always had a Jewish mode of dress.
sammygol is well traveled.
TrueBT: Lakewood is over 1/3 Chasidish.
Stick to a family strictly adhering to all proper practices.
yytz: That rabbi is a leading rabbi of the MO community. He has no reason to exaggerate the failings of his own communities.
Are we going to simply ignore this monumental failures because there’s a lack of published studies with detailed “methodologies” that are well designed? Perhaps the real percentage is 65%, but we’ll relax with our heads buried in the sand until Pew Research, Quinnipac, Gallup or the Marist Institute for Public Opinion conduct a well-heeled study, strictly using rigorous standards, determining the full, real and accurate statistics.
Until such time we’ll tolerate further generations of countless youths to discard Yiddishkeit in favor of college frat parties, with wine, women and song, along with some hazing and a hedonistic lifestyle, r’l?
What’s wrong wish bring around people who don’t have Asperger’s or around people who aren’t younger than you?
Are Roster: The MO world has a far far far higher OTD rate in general. Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, eminent MO rabbi from Teaneck, wrote that about 50% of MO university students (which is close to all MO post-high school kids) go OTD while in college. You hear that? 50%!! Another study indicated that overall MO have a 25% OTD rate.
Reb Eliezer: The Chareidim (Chasidish/Yeshivish) have a tiny OTD rate in the 1% range neighborhood. It is incomparably smaller than the MO rate. As such, the idea that chumras lead to going OTD is preposterous on its face. Had that been the case you’d see a larger OTD rate among Chareidim, who are known to keep chumras, than among MO, who keep kulas.
The title is redundant. Democrats and far left are synonymous.
Reb Eliezer, you botched the joke ah bissel. Actually, for many it was no joke, it is their reality:
I have been born in Austria-Hungary, I have been married in Czechoslovakia, I have given birth in Hungary, I have lived with my family in the Soviet Union, I reside currently in the Ukraine,… And I never have left the city of Munkatch.
You can often better manage to not waste time by starting later than the official schedule.
It’s a Yekkishe value.
Gut Yuntif!
Hungary lost two thirds of its land after World War I. Large parts of Romania, all of Slovakia, parts of Serbia and even a small piece of Austria as well as most importantly for Jews the Ruthenia/SubCarpathian-Rus area which includes Munkatch, Ungvar and other very large populations of Chareidim and Chasidim which became part of the newly formed Czechoslovakia, all were part of Hungary for many centuries until the end of WWI.
The Yidden from those former parts of Hungary spoke Hungarian and considered themselves part of Hungarian Jewry.
AAQ: Lieberman represents the Russian goyim who were invited to Israel by the leftists seeking to dilute Judaism with gentiles who had a paternal Jewish grandfather and then underwent, after immigration, a Reform-like fake conversion under the Druckman court; and who are eating chazer and driving on Shabbos before getting dry from the mikva water. Lieberman is an opponent of Judaism and a hater of people who follow the Torah.
Yabia, you failed to address coffee addicts’s main point that you’re expressing opinions that are the polar opposite of, and indeed spitting in the face of, Maran.
Thank you, Morah Eliezer.
Alternatively, the new government might survive close to four years, with Lapid becoming PM. It might do so by them having constant nightmares of Netanyahu taking back over, thus keeping them all in line but obviously resulting in a do-nothing government, other than keeping the sanitation running and other basic functions.
In short, it’s all been a personal political attainment game. They all wanted to rise to higher political office and Netanyahu was in their way. They decided Netanyahu had “his turn” in office, long enough, and it was now “their turn”. So they collectively ganged up to throw him overboard, irregardless of his abilities to govern safely.
After all, it is their turn now.
Redleg: I don’t think there’s ever been a standardized spelling in Yiddish, any more than there’s no standardized spelling between American English and British English. Yiddish has at least as many differences and variations as English, is not (many) more. And legitimately so.
And to the extent that there are spelling errors by some Yiddish speakers so are there spelling errors among English speakers. Neither are the norm. Not among American English users, British English users, Chasidish Yiddish users or Litvish Yiddish users.
And YIVO is meaningless and full of hot air.
AAQ didn’t address the question. The incoming government is partially Arab. And the Jewish people aren’t represented by this government.
CTL gave a sound answer to the question.
Syag: If there is unquestionable (videos, witnesses, admissions) evidence that a well respected man abused several children ch”v then almost certainly he should be reported. Remember, Al Pi Halacha reporting to secular authorities is to secure one goal — namely, stopping him from causing further abuse. Theoretically, if that could be accomplished another less severe way, without reporting, we would have to use the alternative. But in such cases it is unlikely to accomplish that goal with any other method. As such he is to be reported.
That all said, if we’re talking about a case where a (real) victim brings up a case of his/her teacher who (really) abused him/her 18 years ago as their teacher in school when they were a child, and today that teacher is a feeble old man who can’t leave his old age home without a wheelchair, then almost certainly it’ll be forbidden to report him.
Relief Resources, 718-431-9501.
From an interview with Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel, Agudas Yisroel, in Mishpacha Magazine, August 3, 2011, pages 30-31:
Q: What happens if there is a clash between the law of the land and the halachah? Does dina d’malchusa dina prevail?
A: I think those clashes will be few and far between. The secular law in New York State mandates you to make a report if you are on their list of categories and have “reasonable cause to suspect.” Under the guidelines of Rav Elyashiv shlita and other gedolim, raglayim I’davar comes mighty close to “reasonable cause to suspect.” They are so very close in my opinion, that I don’t envision frequent clashes between the secular law and the halachah. Where a conflict could arise would be in a case where a rav says not to report, but the person’s lawyer says he must. In that case, I suppose part of the process of the sh’eilah to a rav could also be where the person goes back to the ray and says, “You told me not to report, but my lawyer says I have to, so does that in any way affect your psak?” The moreh hora’ah will then have to decide how that fits in with the overall equation in determining his final answer to the sh’eilah.
Q: Wouldn’t the requirement to consult with rabbanim first delay the reporting process, thus leaving children at greater risk?
A: Under secular law you are required to report promptly according to the statute. Even under secular law, if an inexperienced pediatrician sees something that makes him nervous, he may wish to consult with a more experienced doctor. Senior law enforcement officials have told me that such a consultation does not conflict with the law. Where the process outlined by the gedolim under raglayim I’davar requires consulting with a rav first, a conflict might arise if that consultation would interfere with the immediacy of a report, but it should not delay the process any longer than the length of time it would take for two doctors to discuss the case between themselves.
This is from the official Agudas Yisroel statement (issued on July 22, 2011) regarding Posek Hador HaRav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv’s Psak Halacha requiring Raglayim L’Davar before it is permissible to report an allegation:
<i>As Torah Jews we live our live our lives in accordance with halacha. The question of whether and under what circumstances one is halachically permitted or required to report to the authorities suspicions of child abuse (including sexual molestation) has attracted the attention of a number of our generation’s most prominent rabbinic authorities…
Where the circumstances of the case do not rise to the threshold level of raglayim la’davar, the matter should not be reported to the authorities. In the words of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, perhaps the most widely respected senior halachic authority in the world today, “I see no basis to permit” reporting “where there is no raglayim la’davar, but rather only ‘eizeh dimyon’; if we were to permit it, not only would that not result in ‘tikun ha’olam’, it could lead to ‘heres haolam…
Thus, the question of whether the threshold standard of raglayim la’davar has been met so as to justify (indeed, to require) reporting is critical for halachic purposes. The issue is obviously fact sensitive and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
There may be times when an individual may feel that a report or evidence he has seen rises to the level of raglayim la’davar; and times when he may feel otherwise. Because the question of reporting has serious implications for all parties, and raises sensitive halachic issues, the individual should not rely exclusively on his own judgment to determine the presence or absence of raglayim la’davar. Rather, he should present the facts of the case to a rabbi who is expert in halacha and who also has experience in the area of abuse and molestation – someone who is fully sensitive both to the gravity of the halachic considerations and the urgent need to protect children.<i>
IYM: “raglayim ledavar” is the halachic criteria set by the Gedolei HaPoskim as to whether or not a secular report may be made. As it is a halachic determination for each situation, a halachic authority needs to be consulted on a case-by-case basis.
Syag: Perhaps in your Illinois not. But in many states mandated reporters are required by state law to report any allegations, irregardless of whether the mandated reporter finds the allegation non-credible or improbable or suspect or unlikely or a serious possibility of being untrue or exaggerated.
Yseribus: The real problem is that a lot of people think mesira no longer applies. That the halacha was repealed and stricken from the law books.
You know the deal, America, 21st century, new era, goldene medina, out with the old in with the new, things are different here, dawn of a new era where unfashionable halachos that are disagreeable with our modern sensitivities and how we think the goyim will perceive them and our practicing it makes it necessary to declare them obsolete (with some sophisticated sounding pretext, of course.)
Frankly, it is no different than the Reform/Conservative approach.
To those with any intellectual honesty, please cite real examples of when the prohibition against mesira would be applicable in America today.
Yseribus: The real problem is that a lot of people think mesira no longer applies. That the halacha was repealed and stricken from the law books.
You know the deal, America, 21st century, new era, goldene medina, out with the old in with the new, things are different here, dawn of a new era where unfashionable halachos that are disagreeable with our modern sensitivities and how we think the goyim will perceive them and our practicing it makes it necessary to declare them obsolete (with some sophisticated sounding pretext, of course.)
Frankly, it is no different than the Reform/Conservative approach.
To those with any intellectual honesty, please cite real examples of when the prohibition against mesira would be applicable in America today.
“we lack the competence to assess the credibility of an accusation”
TLIK: The Gedolei HaPoskim disagree with you. Rav Elyashiv paskened l’halacha, that accusations/allegations *cannot* be reported to any secular authorities — even by a “mandated reporter” — unless and until a *halachic assessment* on the particular case alleging abuse meets the level of Raglayim L’Davar (credible evidence — again, based upon halachic criteria of Raglayim L’Davar determined by a competent Posek.)
OTOH, mandated reporters, in contravention to halacha, are mandated by secular law to report any allegations even if it lacks credibility. This is a direct conflict between Halacha and non-Jewish/secular laws. For Jews, halacha must take precedence.
Let’s not conflate accusations or allegations of abuse with actual abuse. While at times they coincide, at other times they do not.
TLIK: The mesira issue is live and viable and has not been put to rest. It is a serious concern and consideration in all cases.
And mandated reporters are forbidden to report if it is mesira. And in some real cases it applies.
(“mesora” was a spell-checker [inaccurate] correction. It obviously should have read mesira. And it isn’t I who sees mesira as evil; the RBS”O declared so in His halachos.))
What I stated here and above is halachicly accurate and applicable.