Presence

IT is well known in Baltimore that R Horowitz does not allow a *known* abuser daven for the amud in darchei when he has yartzeit. OTOH, for him to know that this person is an abuser and not "out him" leaves me to believe he didn't sign it intentionally. I hope I am wrong- and I very well may be- but these are my gut feelings.

Rabbi Horwotz was asked about his not signing. The way it was explained to me is that there was a 1st draft that many of the Rabbonim had serious problems with. They asked that it be changed and then they would allow their signatures to be added (all electronically) He was not available when they called him back go over the revisions so he could not give his approval. He is on board and would sign!

Rabbis Abba Zvi Naiman and David Katz are also absent.

!!!
Unless I missed it, the NIRC Rosh Yeshiva's name is missing!
R' Sheftel's signature doesn't make up for it.

yehupitz, doesn't he go to Israel for Pesach?

In the Rosh Yeshiva's defense, he was in Eretz Yisroel when this whole thing went down.

You're right. Makes sense.

R. Silber spoke very nicely on the topic this past Shabbat.

He reviewed some the themes from the letter, as well as by name, to a person who was a victim of Shapiro, asked for forgiveness (I suppose on behalf of the community - I can't quite recall the details...).

Most notably, at least as far as I was concerned was his call from the pulpit to talk with our children about "sexuality", let them know what was appropriate and inappropriate, so on. The thrust of this talk, as I saw it, was that we as parents we would love to be able to hold our children tight and shield them from all of this ugliness - but in doing so, we do them no favors and are abdicating our responsibility. Again, point going to talking with them about what is acceptable.

Of further note, there is going to be an ongoing lecture series/forums with professionals, in shul, to help guide parents as to how to best do this in practice.

As a NIRC Grad I was wondering if anyone knew why The Menahel, R. Neuberger signed the document, but not R. A. Feldman, shlita, The Rosh Yeshiva who generally takes directives from R. Elyashiv...does this mean anything???

To me, the absence of the Rosh Yeshiva's signature speaks to how quickly this was put together. Had this been planned earlier, they could have gotten the RY to sign before he left for Israel.

I believe R. Abba Tzvi Naiman is voluntarily not on the Vaad; he considers his shul a beis medrash.

Anybody know anything about some sign at the Agudah asking people to stop their JT subscriptions because the JT is not "Jewish" - this is not confirmed, but curious to see if anybody can verify......

it is a letter from Rav Heineman saying that based on this last article as well as those in the past, it is innappropriate to bring the JT into your home. it ends by quoting the posuk that you should not bring a toeivah into your house.

If what the last Anon said is true, it is a dark day for Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy in Baltimore. Indeed a dark day for all of Judaism. I will be reluctant to set foot in Agudah of Baltimore if this is true.

Jewboy,

We stopped getting the JT about 4 years ago because we were disgusted not only with the reporting but also the inappropriate ads. And, while I read the recent articles, I would not want it in my home for a 3rd or 4th grader to read. While I agree with that fact that some of the information needed to be public knowledge, it is hard to claim to be the moral high ground when you not only are nogeih b'davar (Phil's revelation that he was abused) but are also trying to sell papers. They went way to far IMHO.

MD-The quality of the paper, inappropriate ads, are a whole different issue. If that was the problem, why didn't R' Heineman ban it a long time ago? I am sure you can keep it out of your third grader's reach in your home. While Phil may be nogeiah in some fashion, if he was doing this purely to sell papers why didn't he publish this stuff before? To come down on the Jewish Times for this smacks of the whole problem we have here in the 1st place: denial by the Orthodox community. We must do whatever it takes to expose and remove the rodfim from our midst.

It is amazing what kids will get into that they shouldn't (read Wednesday, April 04, 2007 entry on the blog titled All in a Day's Work). Also, Baltimore Rabbis don't do much banning as far as I can tell and for sure no where near as much as in other cities. I would like to see the text of the flyer but from what was written above, it was also not a ban.

This issue is horrible, this issue must be dealt with. This is an issue that it looks like it is finally going to be dealt with the right way. It is hard for me to believe that shaming a family is the way to go. It is hard for me to believe that we needed some of the descriptions of the abuse. I was nauseated before I read that part.

The JT is a for profit venture. If the Baltimore Jewish News was still around, they would have written the articled differently and they would have had the same effect.

Phil also has an ax to grind but there are 2 sided here. The way this was handled in the past must stop and Phil could still be a mentsch while making that happen.

No one is forcing you to bring the BJT into your home. If you'd rather your kids not have access to it, kol hakovod. I think the shocking descriptions were necessary. A lot of people in large Orthodox communities refuse to believe that rabbis can do this stuff. The stories need to be told in a graphic manner so that people are aware what even rabbis are capable of and so that the schools who housed the predators take steps to combat future abuse. Desparate times require desperate measures, and these are despearate times if there ever were some. Phil is a hero for having the guts to publish this stuff. I just feel bad that he is getting such flak for it. I expected him to get the flak, but I atill think it is horrible. What would you say if G-d forbid your own child was abused? Protect the poor families?

Jewboy,

"No one is forcing you to bring the BJT into your home"

And unless it is written differently on the Agudah walls, no one is forcing you to ban it either.

"What would you say if G-d forbid your own child was abused? Protect the poor families?"

Yeah, protect the innocent is always a safe bet. It is one thing to put a confirmed or even strongly suspected abuser in the paper, I really have no problem with that at all and even commend the JT for bringing this to light, but to send people on a search mission to find the family members is just wrong. If you are guilty, you belong in jail, castrated.

The relatives of the abuser in the most recent JT article are under attack. They did nothing wrong.

If Phil has an abuser he knows about that is on the loose, by all means write about it if nothing is being done.

How would I have handled this ( you didn't ask but I'm telling you anyway)? I would have put pressure on TA to send out a letter to all of the alumni offering counseling and requesting more information. I would have used my power as the editor of a newspaper to bring about change but I would have attempted to be sensitive. It is illegal to blackmail, but in this case I would have blackmailed TA.

If it is only a suspected case (which IMHO this one was not just suspected) and the person is alive, I'd go to the police if I had good information.

I fear the coming weeks JT articles. I fear that stories posted on blogs where it is one persons word against another will be jazzed up and printed. I know the accuser on one of the blogs and know the accuser to have an ax to grind that has nothing to do with abuse even though that is what is written. I fear that more innocent people will be damaged.

All it takes is one accusation on a blog or in a paper to destroy someone. The answer is the police. Let them investigate.

I think we as a community are motivated, at least I am. I was motivated after the Lanner case. I didn't need this.

I'm happy you were motivated after the Lanner case. Unfortunatley, there are not enough like you. I agree 100% with your method of going to the police. That's what I would do. As for the campaign with TA? I don't know. Anytime anyone has tried to bring up this issue before it has failed.

As far as I can tell, nowhere in the article did Phil say to go afer the victim's fmailies. If people do, they are ignorant and wrong. But I see it as collateral damage tnat is unfortunate but perhaps unavoidable. Would we not publicize the identity of a murderer? Are we so concerned about the family of the murderer at Virgina Tech? Perhaps his identity should never have been released so his family wouldn't be embarrassed. I agree with what you said about false accusations. We are probably more on the same page than one might think.

Where/when was Phil Jacob's revelation that he was abused?

I believe he came out on Shalom USA radio last Sunday.

Jewboy, I agree with everything that you're saying. However, I wouldn't let it get to me, as you are, to the point where I would consider never stepping foot in the Agudah again. I'm pretty sure that R' Moshe Feinstein, R' Chaim Kanievsky, R' Elyashiv, etc, would all frown upon watching secular DVD's or listening to secular music (which we both do), but I'd run in a second to get a meeting with any of them.

Alanlaz-I'm a little confused by your comment. You mean you'd still go to the Agudah if you had the opportunity to meet with one of these gedolim? I'm not making a neder never to set foot there again, I'm just saying I feel reluctant to go there based on this (not that I went there mych anyway). I need to discuss this whole matter with people I trust and respect. In addition, as you know the sign as been confirmed. I am not happy.

Jewboy,

Chill a little. He says it is innapropriate. He nerver said don't read it. He never said don't buy it. He said don't bring it into your house. I agree with him, they way they did it is disgusting. And from what i have heard from family members - even removed ones of the abuser, people are being vicious to them.

MD-As I said, it is awful for people to treat his innocent family members that way. Nevertheless, as I said it may be unfortuante, yet unavoidable damage for the greater good of making the community aware and preventing further horrors. I will not "chill" about this. "Chilling" is what has caused people to be suxually abused. You're entitled to your opinion and I still respect you, I just disagree. I think the notice put up by R' Heineman is a terrible thing for our community.

The issue of the abuser's family is indeed a touchy one. However, if certain family members knew what the abuser was up to, they share a certain degree of culpability for harboring a rodef. Indeed, if going to jail for a long time is midah-kneged-midah for committing abuse, perhaps shame and 'people being vicious to them' is midah-kneged-midah for trying to keep this secret. Not that I have any knowledge that in this particular case there was such a coverup going on.
As far as why the article needed to be so graphic: without those details, we have seen time and time again that is possible for people to deny that what happened was that serious or that terrible, and the atmosphere of whitewash and coverup will then persist. For example, see what this person said: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/onthemainline/3643949779950631774#309293

MD: If you look closely, I believe he said it was "inappropiate."

And another thing-we can debate all we want about what the exact wording is. The bottom line is that people will interpret R' Heineman as comigng out against the effort to reveal and stop sexual abusers. A community leader needs to think more about the ramifications of putting up such a notice. Interesting that alanlaz.blogspot.com reports that the notice has since been taken down. If that is true, I can only imagine there was backlash against it. Whatever the case, it's extraordinarily embarrassing for the Agudah and the community as a whole.

Jewboy - Perhaps I was unclear. My point was that there are Gedolim and Rabbeim that I would want to meet with if given the opportunity (R' Chaim Kanievsky, R' Elyashiv, etc) DESPITE the fact that they may disagree with things that I do (ie, watching DVD's, owning a TV, listening to secular music). Thus, I wouldn't have a problem going to daven in the Agudah, or even ask R' Heinemann a shaila, even though he may disagree with things that I may believe (ie, that the JT article was a worthwhile one). Heck, I'm sure there are plenty of things that I do that RDG wouldn't approve of, but I still ask him shailas.

Jewboy, you might have a point if Rav Heinemann didn't ALSO sign the rabbis letter about abuse. His message is very clear: yes, abuse may be stopped, and this even includes revealing the identity of an abuser when it "may be the only way to truly protect the community from him."

But what Phil Jacobs and the BJT did is disgusting. The man himself is dead, he got his in shamayim. The idea that J can say his children are somehow culpable for their father is plain stupid, and yet it's ONLY the kids and grandkids dealing with the community backlash. I have no patience for a victim of ANYTHING who says that to heal, he needs hatred poured out on the perp's kids or wife or family.

The only thing the BJT did was create more victims -- victims of a nasty, agenda-driven writer with a poison pen.

Sorry, I meant abuse MUST be stopped. But that MAY include publicizing a name when it's the only way, and not when the perp is long dead.

Bill-Quite to the contrary, I believe R' Heineman's proclamation against the BJT and his signing of the Vaad letter only adds to the confusion about his position on the matter. I feel very bad that Shapiro's family is suffering. That is not fair. But as I have reiterated, I think this stuff coming out is part of the process needed to stop sexual abuse.

As for the letter, it was probably more of a protest "of principle" than anything else. I can't imagine that too many people who daven at the Agudah currently get the Jewish Times anyway. They either stopped getting it years ago because of the ads for the crab houses, columns by Conservative Rabbis, or because they get their literary quota from the WWW, the Yated and Hamodia. Others simply read it online at work because there, the Internet is muttar.

Any attempts to marginalize this as a "Jewish Times thing" is really missing the boat. I agree that the piece could have been equally effective if it "bleeped" out some of the graphic detail. But, it was the right thing to run this story and the upcoming ones that will appear about the others. The impending BJT story was obviously what got things moving. It's kind of sad and ironic that it took a paper, which no one should be reading in the first place, to bring this problem to the front burner of communal consciousness.

It will be interesting to see how the fundraisers at the local institutions will spin this, given that most of their local donors from the non-Orthodox community never saw the posting in the Agudah, and I would guess will probably still be getting the paper. They definitely have their work cut out for them.

I also find it interesting that many in the frum community "shry chai v'kayam" over Gay Pride parades and gay rights, protesting even to the point of rioting. Yet, when it comes to the same behaviors between mechanchim and kids, it's not that big of a "toeva" anymore. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored, so to speak.

It is disgusting to imagine for a minute that the charedi community doesn't care about its own kids. The community is known for extraordinary devotion to child-rearing. "Dr. E" just slandered the whole community and that's foul.

I do not believe that E Shapiro molested "hundreds" of kids. All of Baltimore would have been up in arms decades ago. ONE is one too many, but it does not justify the BJT naming names a decade and a half too late. Where Dr. E got it right was "I agree that the piece could have been equally effective if it 'bleeped' out some of the graphic detail."

There was NO REASON to shame the members of an otherwise wonderful extended family. And I felt exactly the same way when they slandered that judge (who isn't frum) six months ago.

Rabbi Heinemann did the right thing. Not everything is "fit to print" and Phil Jacobs, as an abuse survivor, is as incapable of knowing where to draw the line as his non-frum colleagues.

Bill-

That's gufa the issue. Sometimes ALL the (chareidi) community is concerned about is *its own* kids and when the issue has affected the kids of *others*, it goes into all sorts of denials and rationalizations. Sometimes the victimization occurred 1 year ago, sometimes 30 years ago. Sometimes the victims are still frum, sometimes they are no longer frum, and sometimes they were never frum (and are not today either). Regardless, these are all "kids" that the community and its leadership should be concerned about.

The proof will be in the pudding when it comes to how the cases involving current abusers will be objectively investigated/adjudicated, what sorts of protocols are implemented (even if they are not "heimishly" derived). Let's see how much energy is put into that.

I do agree that the "thousands" of victims in this case may indeed have been somewhat hyperbolic. But, such wording and other graphic descriptions depicted in the aforementioned article, in no way discredit the reality that abuse has occurred in this case and in others. Being mekabel not to read the Jewish Times anymore is a personal decision. But, to make the BJT and Phil Jacobs to be the center of attention here is absurd.

Dr. E has done it again. What is his criterion for calling someone not "our" kid? Would a day-school principal be more likely to deny abuse because the victim isn't frum?

Even if you would somehow say yes, Dr. E destroys his case by saying "sometimes the victims are still frum, sometimes they are no longer frum." That means the kids are from frum families, and everything I said earlier would apply.

I personally know at least five people whose observance was hurt by abuse, and I'm not specially involved - so don't start saying I don't know there's a problem. There's a problem. But printing the names of an imprisoned felon and dead rabbi only hurts innocent family members, and that makes the BJT abusive itself.

I fear taking the stance that Rabbi Heinemann took can have unforeseen consequences for him. Let's say hypothetically it comes out with full proof that some rabbis may have made mistakes in "protecting" some of these molesters or new ones who have been molesting kids and Rabbi Heinemann knows them. He can later be accused of using his great authority to shield these people from public view. I understand his congregants likely do not read the bjt anyway and exactly the reason now was not the time to tell them not too even if he told them in the past.

This is not such an easy position to be as he is used to be able to isolate himself and his congregants. This topic will not allow him to that. All one needs to do is look at the devastation that occurred to all who tried to protect rabbi lanner. It feeds on itself and the best thing he could do is NOT stand out at least until this all plays out and their appears much more to come. I am sure he did not think about this as he has never had to This issue may trump any community challenge he has had prior.

I fear taking the stance that Rabbi Heinemann took can have unforeseen consequences for him. Let's say hypothetically it comes out with full proof that some rabbis may have made mistakes in "protecting" some of these molesters or new ones who have been molesting kids and Rabbi Heinemann knows them. He can later be accused of using his great authority to shield these people from public view. I understand his congregants likely do not read the bjt anyway and exactly the reason now was not the time to tell them not too even if he told them in the past.

This is not such an easy position to be as he is used to be able to isolate himself and his congregants. This topic will not allow him to that. All one needs to do is look at the devastation that occurred to all who tried to protect rabbi lanner. It feeds on itself and the best thing he could do is NOT stand out at least until this all plays out and their appears much more to come. I am sure he did not think about this as he has never had to This issue may trump any community challenge he has had prior.

I posted this on the baltimore jewish times blog http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/ under Andrew Buerger after hearing shalom usa this morning...
*****************

Andrew,

I posted what I pasted beneath on another blog last week. My fears have unfortunately come true.

On Shalom USA radio this morning a caller supported Rabbi Heinemann’s position by castigating the BJT not for printing the article but for the “graphic language” used. When the host asked what specific language he was referring to, the caller said, “the language someone told him about” and that he did not himself read the article.

There lies the immense damage Rabbi Heinemann is doing to himself. He will ultimately know someone who later it will be reported either molested kids or covered up molestation and by demanding his congregants not read about it - which banning at this time will in effect do - he is protecting the exact people who do need to pay the price and he will be even more accused of contributing to the problem. Rabbi Heinemann has been so used to isolating people from forming their own Torah opinions and dictating his interpretations of Torah as their only G-d given source, he is not used to the devastation this issue can bring for him and this community such as his edicts in his posted letter. Like a company who needs to be boycotted, soon (if not now) might be the time to start putting pressure on Rabbi Heinemann by pressuring his “advertisers” to reason with him before it is too late.

The Baltimore (and outside of Baltmore) community as a whole supports many organizations that get their authority from Rabbi Heinemann. These include but are not limited to Etz Chaim and the Star K. It is time for Rabbis like Rabbi Shlomo Porter and others, whose organizations are supported by people who are not congregants of Rabbi Heinemann, to reason with Rabbi Heinemann to lay low and stop this foolishness now or if not suffer the consequences. If it comes to this, and I pray it does not, it will be 100% the fault of Rabbi Heinemann and not in any way the Baltimore Jewish Times who simply are doing what hashem would demand of any reasonble thinking person.

The Rabbi Baruch Lanner situation should be riveting in Rabbis minds and we do not need the same devastation to happen in Baltimore.

************************
posted 4/19/07 of presence.baltiblogs.com

I fear taking the stance that Rabbi Heinemann took can have unforeseen consequences for him. Let’s say hypothetically it comes out with full proof that some rabbis may have made mistakes in “protecting” some of these molesters or new ones who have been molesting kids and Rabbi Heinemann knows them. He can later be accused of using his great authority to shield these people from public view. I understand his congregants likely do not read the bjt anyway and exactly the reason now was not the time to tell them not too even if he told them in the past.

This is not such an easy position to be as he is used to be able to isolate himself and his congregants. This topic will not allow him to that. All one needs to do is look at the devastation that occurred to all who tried to protect rabbi lanner. It feeds on itself and the best thing he could do is NOT stand out at least until this all plays out and their appears much more to come. I am sure he did not think about this as he has never had to This issue may trump any community challenge he has had prior.