The Convert in the Deli

I met a woman who converted to Judaism in her 40s. As a college student she was on a quest to find the right religion to replace the Christian fundamentalism in which she grew up.

She chanced to meet a nice  middle-aged man with a yarmulke when she stopped at a deli, not knowing or caring it was kosher.

When she was surprised they would not give her cheese on her meat sandwich, he explained why. They got to talking and she liked the obvious spirituality and charm of the man. “If this is Judaism” she thought to herself, “maybe this is the religion for me.”

The man turned out to be a rabbi and encouraged her to call him if she had any more questions. She did and he answered her call somewhat late. He began politely inquiring about her. When he determined she had no boyfriend and lived alone, he moved on to asking what she was wearing.

It did not go the way this guy hoped. She said to him, “Rabbi, I don’t know much about Judaism, but my mother taught me about men” and she hung up.

Now, as a middle-aged woman, she told me, “But for Shlomo  Carlebach, I might have become Jewish when I was a college girl.”

 

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “The Convert in the Deli

  1. Repeating this story is pure Rechilus, especially since Shlomo Carlebach is dead and can neither defend himself nor repeat such actions IF they are true so there is no benefit from this story especially from mentioning his name.
    You should ask your Rabbi if you are obligated to go with a minyan to his grave and ask mechilah

    • You contradict yourself when you say it is rechilus (slander) “especially because SC is dead. It is true, not rechilus. At most you can claim it is loshon horah (needless spreading of negative information that is true).

      But there is a reason. Obviously, SC himself will not keep on doing these things. But the orthodox world still suffers from the delusion that respected individuals cannot possibly do such things.

      I know a young woman who went to a Rabbi that knew her for a long time. She reported terrible abuse by someone. Her Rabbi was sympathetic and supportive and wanted to act against this lowlife. But then the moment came when he asked Achashverosh’s question, “Who is this man?” She shared the name. Unlike Achashverosh, who turned on Haman, his #2, this rabbi turned on the young women. He told her, “It cannot be true. Rabbi x could never do such a terrible thing.”

      Until people in the community continue in this stupid delusion that highly respected rabbis cannot do such things, we need to keep reminding them with real stories. Our am kishei orev (stiff-necked people) are slow learners. Once the lesson is learned there will be more lattitude for leaving dead offenders alone. In the meantime, there is a toeles, a purpose in telling these stories. It contributes to the protecting others from abuse. The Sefer Chofetz Chaim is clear that when there is a toeles (purpose), there is no prohibilition of loshon horah. In fact, there is a obligationto share it. Why do so many of you forget that the verse that begins with the prohibition against rechilus (slander) ends with the admonition, lo saamod al dam rayechah (do not stand by idly on the blood of your fellow).

      Berieshis/Leviticus 19:16
      לֹא-תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ, לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל-דַּם רֵעֶךָ: אֲנִי, ה

  2. >Repeating this story is pure Rechilus, especially since Shlomo Carlebach is dead and can neither
    >defend himself nor repeat such actions IF they are true so there is no benefit from this story
    >especially from mentioning his name.
    >You should ask your Rabbi if you are obligated to go with a minyan to his grave and ask mechilah

    There is a to’elet in educating the Jewish public as to the problem and prevalence of abuse in our community.

    1) http://www.jsafe.com/pdfs/Lashon%20Hara%20and%20Abuse.pdf
    (Excerpt)
    “However, despite this enactment, there are times when one is permitted to speak ill of
    the dead. It is important to note that this prohibition is not derived from the Torah verse banning
    lashon hara; it stems from a rabbinic decree and is, thus, no more stringent than the laws of
    lashon hara themselves. Since lashon hara which is otherwise biblically prohibited is allowed if there is a to’elet, so too lashon hara about the deceased is permitted if there is a to’elet. While the nature of the to’elet may change —after all, the deceased is no longer a threat to any one else’s safety—there may be any number of beneficial purposes in sharing this information including: preventing others from learning inappropriate behavior, condemning such behavior, clearing one’s own reputation, seeking advice, support, and help, one’s own psychological benefit, and validating the abusive experience of others who may have felt that they, and no one else, was this man’s victim.

    Furthermore, the restriction on speaking ill of the dead may be based on the assumption that death was a kapparah , i.e., it was an atonement for sins. This atonement, however, is predicated on his having repented before his death, and that repentance requires both restitution for the harm caused and reconciliation with the victim.
    If the perpetrator had not reconciled with his victim, no atonement was achieved. And of such an unrepentant sinner the verse teaches, “The memory of the just is blessed; but the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7). ”

    93 Yoma 85b; See Sha’arei Teshuvah 4:20.
    94 See Bava Mezi’a 62b.
    95 See Yoma 38b.
    96 See Sanhedrin 31a and Hoshen Mishpat 98:1.

    Also:

    2) A public statement on this issue many years ago by Rabbi Eidensohn:

    Emes L’Yaakov[1](Bereishis 37:18): I was asked by a student why the Torah tells the story about how Yosef was treated by his brothers – isn’t it lashon harah? I answered firstly that the prohibition of lashon harah in fact only applies to the living but according to the Torah it is permitted to speak lashon harah about the dead except for an ancient cherem (Orech Chaim 606:3). And this cherem only applies to slander but not to facts even if they are not flattering.

    אמת ליעקב (בראשית לז:יח): שאלני תלמיד א’ איך צריך להסביר מה שסיפרה התורה סיפורים אלו על אחי יוסף, וכי אין זה בגדר לשון הרע? ומתחלה עניתי דבאמת לשה”ר אינו אלא על החיים, ועל מתים מותר מצד הדין ואינו אלא חרם הקדמונים [עיין או”ח סי’ תר”ו ס”ג]. והחרם אינו אלא על מוצאי שם רע ולא על לשון הרע.

  3. What the Rabbi did was wrong but Hashem did not want her as a giyores since he presented her with this nisayon.

    • Sincerely hope, “facts of life” that you are being super sarcastic. If not, well, lovely that you see yourself as the arbiter of Hashem’s plans. perhaps reverse the scenario? rigshei elyonut? yoter nachon, chamur. (not a misspelling for chumra).

      • Do you mind translating your comment into English? What elyonut are you talking about? I didn’t get your chamur reference unless you meant some sort of ad hominem reference.

        Gairim are not baalei teshuva and lechatchila we don’t seek them. Koshim gairim leyisroel cisapachas.

    • Or maybe hashem wanted her later, or maybe you don’t know. Or maybe you are missing the main point of the story.

      I am always amazed at how some people need to be so clever and ignore the simple facts.

      • What was your point in indicating that the lady was turned off? This was another detriment of the scandalous behavior. I was pointing out that despite the evil act the result might have been positive from another point of view.

    • By that logic:

      Would you also claim that Hashem ‘wanted’ all the harm done to victims of predators?
      That Hashem wanted SC to engage in such activity?
      That Hashem wanted bad things to happen to good people?

      My guess is that we will be unable to fully fathom “why” certain events have occurred but one thing is for certain: Hashem would not ‘want’ any sincere potential giyores to be subject to dispicable and licentious behavior

      • Professional said;

        “Would you also claim that Hashem ‘wanted’ all the harm done to victims of predators?
        That Hashem wanted SC to engage in such activity?
        That Hashem wanted bad things to happen to good people?”

        Whatever happens is what Hashem wants and in the higher view or long term view is for the best.

        Hashem wants victims of predators to maintain free will and provide for different tests and scenarios for various living beings. Some of these occurrences could be due to prior gilgulim.

        Hashem wants apparently bad things to happen to so called good people because;

        1 They did evil and deserve punishment
        2 It’s a test for their long term development
        3 What appears to be evil may be a hidden good such as losing a bad job to get a better one.
        etc.

        The point here is not to excuse the licentious behavior but to hint that the evil has broader consequences is true but this case may not be an example of that.

        • Interesting approach, but I maintain that while we cannot fully fathom ‘why’ bad things happen to good people Hashem never ‘wants’ people to sin or deliberately harm other people … Those who do so are unequivocally acting against His express Will and those who adopt a fatalistic position may be confusing free will with Hashem’s knowledge of past present and future (the Rambam’s paradox) let alone disregarding the Ralbag’s view

        • >Whatever happens is what Hashem wants and in the higher view
          >or long term view is for the best.

          >Hashem wants apparently bad things to happen to so called good
          >people because;
          >
          >1 They did evil and deserve punishment
          >2 It’s a test for their long term development
          >3 What appears to be evil may be a hidden good
          >such as losing a bad job to get a better one.
          >etc.
          >
          >The point here is not to excuse the licentious behavior
          >but to hint that the evil has broader consequences is true
          >but this case may not be an example of that.

          Please look up the word arrogance and consider the pain you cause others when you rationalize their pain in this manner. This world is about chesed about fighting injustice and doing right. Doing otherwise or rationalizing it is completely wrong.

          Do you for a minute rationalize away the deaths of one million innocent Jewish children during the Holocaust in a similar way? I hope not. I give an extreme example because it is the fastest and simplest way to demonstrate how flawed your approach is.

          We don’t know Hashem’s reasons or why things happen in this world and likely never will in our lifetimes. We do know that there is evil in this world. We do know that Hashem gave us choice and the power to fight evil and if everyone of us did so there would be less suffering in this world. Your approach is a tolerance, justification and acceptance of evil and is an arrogant and mean spirited way of dealing with a fellow Jew’s pain.

          We know that if more Jews followed Halacha (instead of twisting it) and protected women and children from abusers there would be less suffering and less abuse.

  4. Reporting this story reminds me that people with a “purpose” do step out of bounds. There is no proof that this happened and no positive lesson to be learned; rationalizations aside.

    • >Reporting this story reminds me that people with a “purpose” do step out of bounds.
      >There is no proof that this happened and no positive lesson to be learned;
      >rationalizations aside.

      1) There is a to’elet in educating the Jewish public as to the problem and prevalence of abuse in our community.

      2) Here is an article as to the pain and suffering of abuse survivors many decades later in our community:
      http://citypaper.com/news/speak-no-evil-1.1685267

      Speak No Evil
      Secrecy, denial shield an alleged child molester in a prominent Orthodox Jewish school
      By Phil Jacobs
      Published: May 14, 2014

      3) The story in “The Convert in the Deli” is consistent with many other similar stories of Carlebach exploiting and abusing women and children in the community in his role as a spiritual leader:

      A Paradoxical Legacy: Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach’s Shadow Side
      Lilith Magazine Volume 23, No. 1/Spring 1998
      By Sarah Blustain

      (Excerpt)
      In the three years since Rabbi Carlebach’s death, at age 69, ceremonies honoring his life and work have been interrupted by women who claim the Rabbi sexually harassed or abused them. In dozens of recent interviews, Lilith has attempted to untangle and to explain Rabbi Carlebach’s legacy.

      4) http://www.jsafe.com/pdfs/Lashon%20Hara%20and%20Abuse.pdf
      (Excerpt)
      The Obligation to Speak
      There are times when a person is obligated to speak out, even when he is the sole
      informant and even though the information is disparaging. Specifically, if a person’s
      intent in sharing the negative information is for a to’elet, a positive, constructive, and
      beneficial purpose, the prohibition against lashon hara does not apply.4
      Motzi shem ra, spouting lies and spreading disinformation, is always prohibited. And if the lashon hara serves as a warning against the possibility of future harm, such communication is not
      only permissible, but, under certain conditions it is compulsory. This applies even when
      one is the sole source of the information; the prohibition represented by Zigud’s
      testimony in Pesahim 113b applies only in a court setting.5 Although Hafetz Hayyim
      disagrees with this distinction and maintains that solitary testimony is prohibited both in a
      court and outside of a court, 6 even he agrees that where there is a to’elet, such speech is
      permitted.
      4 See Hil. Lashon Hara, kelal 10 and Hil. Rekhilut, kelal 9.
      5 Semag, prohibition 213; Sefer Hareidim 24:30.
      6 Be’er Mayyim Hayyim, Hil. Lashon Hara, kelal 3:1.

      • Jewishwhistleblower,

        “Please look up the word arrogance and consider the pain you cause others when you rationalize their pain in this manner. This world is about chesed about fighting injustice and doing right. Doing otherwise or rationalizing it is completely wrong”

        No one is rationalizing the evils that people do. However, to say that true evil occurs in the world and Hashem does not control it and actually does what’s best, is misunderstanding and possibly kefira. You are basically blaming the evil that occurs on the human perpetrators without analyzing the impact this has on your flawed understanding of how Hashem controls the world.

        “Do you for a minute rationalize away the deaths of one million innocent Jewish children during the Holocaust in a similar way? I hope not. I give an extreme example because it is the fastest and simplest way to demonstrate how flawed your approach is.”

        The Nazis were 100% guilty of this evil but Hashem allowed it for it was necessary and beneficial in light of the requirement for dealing with the mass abandonment of Torah. See A Divine Madness by Rabbi Avigdor Miller z”l

        “We don’t know Hashem’s reasons or why things happen in this world and likely never will in our lifetimes. We do know that there is evil in this world. We do know that Hashem gave us choice and the power to fight evil and if everyone of us did so there would be less suffering in this world. Your approach is a tolerance, justification and acceptance of evil and is an arrogant and mean spirited way of dealing with a fellow Jew’s pain.”

        I am not at all advocating tolerance of evil but I am avoiding saying that there is a force of absolute evil out of Hashem’s control. Hashem is always in control and even when he allows for free will it is still the case. The Torah provides the tools for us to understand all the phenomena of the world and very often we can know the basic principles behind what happens in the world. We may not know the exact mida that Hashem is using in each case. In no case should we forgive the perpetrators of evil and not try to stop them.

        • >The Nazis were 100% guilty of this evil but Hashem allowed it
          >for it was necessary and beneficial in light of the requirement
          >for dealing with the mass abandonment of Torah. See A Divine
          >Madness by Rabbi Avigdor Miller z”l

          So there you have it. There is no reason to debate you further. You believe in a deity that found the mass murder of 1 million innocent Jewish children “necessary and beneficial”. And any other position is kefira. Good luck with that.

    • “no proof that this happened”. yes, indeed. as in most rapes, molestations, murders. no videotapes. OTOH, when there is a videotape, as in the Deutsch molestations, 2 in one day at same shul, in the basement of the shul.. recorded on surveillance videotape, the FB got off with Sweetheart deal???

      There are a multitude of stories re SC that never got reported. far far too many to ignore. . I was told one story in confidence, by a non-Jewish woman (much younger than I), re her mother. No motivation, she barely knew me. No motivation in telling me. Just consider the number of non-reported stories, with no proof. Others’ responses to your comment are more compelling than mine. you want videotapes????…
      Interestingly, I know 3 Jewish males who had sexual contact with older women when they were as young as 12. (one was with a teacher and went on for years, she was enticed by his violin playing) That, today, is a crime. Back then, these males certainly did not view it as such. Rather saw it as “getting some”. The 3 of them. seemed not to be disturbed. Perhaps proud. Frankly, I believe that they had no conception of how to process these experiences. Should i believe them?, they did not produce videotapes. Were they at all traumatized despite their “boasting”. Yes, I believe that these experiences had lasting effects. This is in most cases as much as 40 or 50 years ago. no videotapes, no crime, no reporting.

      • I recently mett someone who is not Jewish and who had spent time with SC during the 1960s. I asked him a couple of questions and le’fee tumo he answered. His answers did not surprise me, unfortunately, and did correlate with what has been said and written about.

        As a result, I will not listen to him sing, nor listen to his music.

      • When an aid echod (or aidim) reported a transgression to the bais-din the reporter was interrogated thoroughly. None of us has (claimed to have) interrogated the reporter of this incident.
        Even if this report and all reports are true, I fail to see the (positive) benefit to expose a dead man. I would rather expose living perverts.

        • The issue is exposing a culture that continues to perpetuate itself. When we destroy the culture of protecting reputations at the expense of those exploited, it may be OK to look the other way about the infractions of the dead.

          Stop quoting halachah without reference to its application. The question of two eidim is pertinent to a bais din inflicting onesh from the torah, not to ordinary judgements in everyday life. Yes, torah quoter, most bais din activity, in the era after the destruction of the second temple, does not entail reliance on two witnesses.

          You better believe that the majority of kol korehs signed by “gedolim” were not based on an interrogation of the facts and two witnesses. Bais din is especially cognizant of not needing two witnesses for the sort of acts which almost never have two witnesses.

  5. The fact is that he was well known to be a womaniser and he that he had strayed far far from his Yeshiva education. Anyone claiming to be a Talmid of his or stuff like that must have a wild imagination.
    So I don’t agree that this shows anything about orthodox Rabbis doing bad things.
    If you want to shatter delusions you would need to show that there was another side to this popular man who loved every Jew.
    Was there? Was he an abuser? Were his relationships consensual? I don’t know. Do you?

  6. The accusations that you refer to do not constitute proof. Accusations by an individual or by a group should be recognized as a warning and serve as the basis for investigation. In Law, that which is known is not the same as that which has been proven; a major distinction in rules of evidence.
    I either did not state the major point clearly or the reader overlooked it; the accused is dead!
    The lomdus that you use to substantiate your position might be universally accepted when a living person is involved, but serves no purpose when telling about a dead person.

    • >The accusations that you refer to do not constitute proof.

      Rabbi Yosef Blau of Yeshiva University quote:
      It was the 1960s, Shlomo Carelbach was like a rock star. Most rabbonim were very aware of the complaints, yet weren’t trained in dealing with such issues. You have to understand how things were handled back then. Shlomo liked his women — you ask why so many women have been coming forward over the years claiming abuse? . . . “Let’s just say Carlebach had at least one woman a week, but knowing Shlomo it was more likely he had a few women a day — times that by 40 years of doing kiruv (Jewish outreach).

      Rabbi Mark Dratch of Jsafe quote:
      In 5719 (1959), R. Moshe Feinstein was asked to rule on the permissibility of playing the music of a certain song writer who was rumored to engage in disreputable behavior. (Teshuvot Iggerot Moshe, Even Ha-Ezer, I, no. 96.) R. Feinstein distinguished between this composer’s early compositions and his later ones. Any music written in his early years when this individual comported himself appropriately remained permissible; at that time he behaved properly and his later activities can not retroactively taint his prior achievements. One of the proofs that R. Feinstein brought is from the case of a Torah scroll that was written by a heretic—Jewish law requires that such a scroll be destroyed so as not to perpetuate his name, reputation or achievements. (Hil. Sefer Torah 6:8) However, the law also asserts that a scroll written while that person was a true believer remains valid, even if he later became an apostate.(Pit’hei Teshuvah, Yoreh De’ah 281, no. 2.) Concerning subsequent musical compositions, R. Feinstein stated that even those songs that this person wrote after his “reputation became objectionable” are permissible because music, unlike Torah scrolls, have no intrinsic holiness. Furthermore, the questionable activities had nothing to do with undermining the fundamentals of Jewish belief but rather with casualness with regard to the intermingling of the sexes that were not in keeping with Orthodox norms. Such a lapse would not render a Torah Scroll he wrote invalid; it would certainly not disqualify his music. R. Feinstein wrote nothing about learning Torah from this individual. However, based on R. Feinstein’s discussion, one might distinguish between the teachings and insights of a heretic before and after his apostacy: the earlier Torah would remain kosher; the latter Torah would be banned.

      That was 1959. Since then the allegations about this individual have become more serious and his music has been widely integrated into the prayer services of many congregations. His music, as well as his stories and teachings, have become a meaningful source of religious inspiration to generations of Jews and has perpetuated his legacy. Alleged victims of this man have expressed hurt and disillusionment over the community’s embrace of his music and his personality. What would R. Feinstein have said if he were responding to this question today?

      • I asked Rabbi Yosef Blau on Dec. 17, 2013 if Polin has quoted him accurately. Below is his response. As you can see there is a world of difference between Viki Polin’s citation of Rabbi Blau as opposed to his more down to earth and reasonable criticism.
        Rabbi Blau: I do not recall giving that quote. The part that Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach was known to be a womanizer in the 1960’s and the rabbis were not trained to respond to complaints from women I believe is true and I might have said it. I would not have made any assertions about numbers. The complaints that I read about both appeared credible and were consistent with earlier rumors.

        What can we understand from Rabbi Blau’s clarification?
        1. He believes that Shlomo was ‘a womanizer in the 1960s’.
        2. He never made any assertions about numbers, therefore it is false to attribute to him the quote that Carlebach had ‘at least one woman a week’ or ‘ a few women a day’. Unfortunately, this is hardly the first time that Polin misquotes someone.
        3. He thinks that the complaints in Polin’s Awareness site (e.g. the pseudonymous Ariela), were ‘consistent with earlier rumors’.

        What can we conclude?
        1. Rabbi Blau heard ‘rumors’ and ‘complaints’ and believes that they are true.
        2. If these complaints turn out to be non verifiable, then Polin’s argument fails.

        After interviewing the women who are mentioned in Blustain’s story in Lilith, I have concluded that her stories need to be critically evaluated because there is a strong probability that they were exaggerated and taken out of context.

        • The main question is not Vicki Polin or even Rabbi Blau’s candid willingness to admit he cannot be sure what he said some years back in a casual conversation. Nor It is misleading to say that Rabbi Blau only heard rumors and complaints as if the two are synonymous.

          Again, the allegations of most importantance do not come from Vicki Polin but from an article in Lillith magazine, which quotes a number of rabbis who said they spoke directly to victims who were traumatized by their sexual encounters with Shlomo Carlebach.

          You seem to claim you have interviewed the women who are mentione in Blustain’s Lillith article. Do you mean the actual victims or the quoted non-victim recipients of outcries? How many of them?

          You end with a disparaging string of academic qualifiers about context, critical, propability and exageration. This can be true but can also be classic invalidation. I am inclined to suspect the latter.

      • Comment on what Viki Polin wrote about Rabbi Feinstein’s “ban” in 1959.

        1. Rabbi Feinstein did not ban Shlomo’s music.

        2. “Disreputable behavior” is an inaccurate and misleading translation of Rabbi Feinstein’s terms קלות ראש and פריצות. Rabbi Feinstein used these two terms to describe a very specific problem – singing/playing in front of a mixed audience of boys and girls =
        לנגן בפני בחורים ובתולות יחד

        3. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was part of the Haredi world that does not permit men and women to sing together. He was vehemently opposed to “mixed singing”. He grudgingly permitted fathers to be present at school performances where girls under the age of 11 sang (Even HaEzer 1:26) and he was “unyielding in his opposition to coed classes”. For an English synopsis see David Derovan, “Feinstein, Moses,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 6, pp. 741-742.

        4. Here is the Hebrew citation from the responsa of Rabbi Feinstein, Teshuvot Iggerot Moshe, Even Ha-Ezer, I, no. 96, written May 30, 1959:
        והנה בעובדא זו שהסני שומעניה אינו בעניני כפירה אלא בעניני קלות ראש לנגן בפני בחורים ובתולות יחד שודאי אין להחשיבו כמין ואפיקורס ואף לא כמומר לתיאבון דהא רק לדבר אחד דקלות ראש ופריצות

        5. It is anachronistic and polemical to think that Rabbi Feinstein refers to hugging or to any type of sexually “disreputable behavior”. In 1959 Shlomo was not hugging. The hugging began after 1966 as a result of his exposure to the hippies in Haight Ashbury, San Francisco.

        6. In sum, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in 1959 did not ban Reb Shlomo Carlebach’s music nor did he refer to hugging. His objection was to Shlomo’s decision to play/sing in front of mixed audiences of boys and girls.

        • Amazing, and ani, b’tumi, thought that it was kol isha, or mixed dancing. But now you are postulating the mirror image (or quoting directly from R. Moshe Feinstein, someone so well respected, as close as this century can get to g’dolim, that’s with a small g, that far from gdolim). Now, we have it, mixed audiences were always forbidden, lo chashuv kol isha or kol eunuch. I guess that is why mosherabbeinu had to ascend alone, so that the “non-countable” women could not hear kol hakadoshbaruchhu.

          agav, do you know where in the sources mixed audiences are forbidden? and if not, in what century was that chumrah attempted to be adopted.

          Burkhas with full face covering next…….. .

  7. YU is refusing to release their own $1.000,000 investigation into rampant sexual abuse on young innocent Jewish men. They admit that abuse took place and yet they can’t come to terms on it. They prefer to spend Millions of $$$ to defend this very sick cover up and further Rape the many victims. They laugh (in Teaneck…) ha ha ,you’re time is up even though we’re Guilty of Enabling and fostering a VERY SICK ,George Finkelstein who has DESTROYED many a Jewish Soul. Folks. Fellow Jews,Please call … YU and tell them to release their report. Truth be told,it’s the Torah way. Save our children from these VERY Sick Rabbis…

  8. YU has exerted their muscle on the local media and the judicial system. Most media outlets will not touch the YU Disease of Abuse .. The Jewish Press and others only sing songs of praise for YU.kinda like the YU dinner honoring George Finkelstein for his many years of Devoted Abuse. A big thanks to the Wilf Family and other donors for their millions in their support for a VERY SICK institution. Just imagine ,your $$$$ is going for legal fees and PR spinning so some very sick Rabbis can keep abusing our kids. To all donors of YU. Distance yourself from YU,your names and reputations will be forever tainted!

  9. Fellow Jews, Please call YU at 212-960-5400 and tell them to release their investigation on years of abuse, enabling and Praising the abusers. To the holy Beren Family, you may want to have your name and $$$$ moved to another institution that Loves Jewish children and not one that DESTROYS them!

    • Jewishwhistleblower,

      So you believe that the death of one million children in world war 2 was done by some other power than Hashem (chas veshalom).. What might that be? Lucifer? Random uncontrolled evil?

      Nothing is out of the control of Hashem and to believe otherwise is a gross and unfortunate mistake.

      • >So you believe that the death of one million children in world war 2 was done by
        >some other power than Hashem (chas veshalom).

        Did I say that? Please quote me where I anything of that sort.

        All I know, is there were numerous opportunities to save many Jews. There was a failure of leadership in both:
        1) Telling Jews in Europe not to flee (when the some of the same leaders then went on “vacation” or fled themselves)
        2) Not taking enough steps to help Jews leave Europe when it was still possible.

        But then again this was the same leadership that allowed Zvi Migdal to thrive for decades. Zvi Migdal forced tens of thousands of frum girls from Europe into brothels worldwide as prostitutes (was that “necessary and beneficial” too?).

        To repeat: You believe in a deity that found the mass murder of 1 million innocent Jewish children “necessary and beneficial”. And any other position is kefira. Good luck with that.

        • You are basically saying that the death of the million was unfathomable and can’t be ascribed to G-d. It’s tantamount to the options that I mentioned previously.

          As far as leaders saving their own skin while leaving the masses to die and not doing enough to save them, this an old Zionist canard against the Orthodox leaders of Europe and is basically not true. For the truth about how many Rabbis had opportunities to save themselves and did not take them and some like Rav Elchonon Wasserman z”l actually came back to Europe after he was safely in America, you can read the following detailed and documented account by a non chareidi source http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Bobker.pdf brought down in the Unorthodox Jew website.

          The Zionists were guilty of not saving Jews such as Greenbaum who was the head of the Zionist agency to save the Jews and he refused to allow Orthodox Jews to come to Israel saying a cow in Israel is more important than a Jew in Europe. Read Perfidy to get a true picture of the extent of Zionist treachery.

          As far as Migdal is concerned, I only see posting from Neo Nazi sources so I don’t know where you get your facts from.

          • the Belzer and Satmar Rebbe bought their way out of Nazi Europe without warning their followers to flee.

            The Klausenberger Rebbe willingly returned to his flock and went with them to Auschwitz. I have no criticism of him; in fact, I respect him greatly.

            But the Satmar and Belzer Rebbes are low-lifes for pointing fingers at everyone else while they saved their own skins, in part with the money of their followers that they abandoned.

        • >this an old Zionist canard against the Orthodox leaders of Europe
          >and is basically not true.

          But of course it is true.

          http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2014/04/the-belzer-rebbe-ran-away-and-left-his-followers-to-die-in-the-holocaust-567.html

          The Belzer Rebbe Ran Away And Left His Followers To Die In The Holocaust

          Cover — Belzer Rebbe Budapest Speech Holocaust You’ll Be Safe HaDerechThe Belzer Rebbe twice abandoned Jews during the Holocaust. The second time, in Budapest, was especially egegious. The Belzer Rebbe promised safety, goodness and tranquility to the Jews of Budapest and then fled the next day, leaving them to be murdered by the Nazis. Here is the Rebbe’s uncensored speech as published then, published here for the first time.

      • well, “facts of life” if you are right, your Hashem is a sadistic perverted scumbag. I prefer to think that you are wrong. Efshar that we can meet in the afterlife and resume this discussion. In the meantime you grossly offend survivors of the holocaust as well as others. Halevai that YL would ban you, simply not to inflict pain on others.
        he won’t. Does not fall into a category that should be banned. chaval. You are so blessed, privy to what makes G-d “happy”. and “the most happy” v’kadomeh. so anthropomorphic, g-d has human emotions? how the heck do you know that? yes, i am not philosophically sophisticated, nor halachically sophisticated. So what?. but that does not make you an arbiter of G-d’s behavior. Can you tell us who your leading torah lights were???? Please, you should be proud to reveal that, nachon? If only as a warning to the wary. Pleasem b’vakasha, enlighten us, as to your guiding lights.
        Kol Tuv.

    • There are non-Jewish Theologians who agree that “Heaven” wants Jews annihilated.   I would have thought that “Heaven” would have preferred teshuva but, I have never been a widely respected yeshivish rabbi.

    • This world is temporary. Virtually no one lives longer than120 years. This world is a passageway to the world to come and the whole point is to make it there by serving G-d and doing good deeds. To say that someone living a so called decent life with no relation to G-d or gaining eternity is better than dying young having gained a share in the world to come is a total misunderstanding of the true facts of life.

      The greatest destruction of life is to live without gaining the purpose of reaching eternity.

        • The great tragedy of the mass abandonment of Judaism by great masses of European Jews caused it to be necessary both to punish the evil doers and to save others from following their path to the ultimate true destruction of their lives. In this light the salvation of masses of Jews from lives of sinning was a great kindness relative to the dire situation.

          From what I’ve learned, G-d is the most happy when the Jewish people are living peacefully and are abiding by the Torah and are blessed with all good spiritually and physically and are spared from all sorts of suffering.

          • I have gone for several years without ever responding to a comment by calling its author an idiot. But you get that rare response. Do us all a favor, using your theology, lay yourself down on a train track, and trust in God to dispose of you or save you as he sees fit.

  10. There are non-Jewish Theologians who agree that “Heaven” wants Jews annihilated.
    I would have thought that “Heaven” would have preferred teshuva but, I have never been a widely respected yeshivish rabbi.

    • According to Yechezkel (18:21-23) Sigmund is right, and it would be very hard to argue that the Nazi slaughter-machine was more likely to induce repentance rather than apostasy before killing its victims. If there are some who, from the perspective of some higher spiritual level, can accept that the Nazis acted as an instrument of God’s will, they should keep silent among the rest of us.

  11. No rabbi is infallible. Anyone who claims to know why some 6 million Jews, including 1 1/2 million children, along with tens of millions of other human beings, were killed in the Shoah / Churban / Holocaust / WWII is: !) possessed with ruach ha’kodesh or 2) possessed or 3) just a tad arrogant

    I know the terrible pain caused to Holocaust survivors by other prominent rabbis who claimed to know why the Holocaust happened (for reasons different than the reason ascribed to Rav Avigdor Miller zl in a book that was said to be authored by him) and these have included widely respected yeshivish rabbis.

    The smug condescension with which those who profess to know HaShem’s deepest mysteries is shocking.

See Commenting policy ( http://wp.me/pFbfD-Kk )

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s