Against Ban Harassment & Threats

This is a joint statement by many bloggers about the recent ban on VIN and the actions taken against VIN and the companies that advertise on the site.  Kudos to R. Gil Student for drafting this statement and to the other bloggers who were primarily responsible for pushing the effort forward.


A little over a month ago, a number of rabbis signed onto a ban that forbade advertising on or otherwise working with the website VosIzNeias. This ban singled out one website without addressing other websites or public forums like newspapers or magazines. The singling out of a solitary website raises many questions, particularly when newspapers in the same community regularly publish arguably libelous stories and online discussion forums for the community are essentially unbounded by civility. Additionally, VosIzNeias has publicly stated that it has already raised its standards and is willing to do even more with rabbinic guidance, provided the same guidelines are applied to its competitors.

Bans of this nature are generally brought into fruition by activists and this one is attributed to a specific activist who seems to have business and political interests in this ban. He ignored VosIzNeias’ request to meet with the rabbis in order to explore ways to satisfy their concerns. With this ban, the activist is threatening the commercial viability of the VosIzNeias business.

We have now received reports of continued harassment by this activist, who is threatening to publicly denounce people, companies and charitable organizations who continue to cooperate with the website. He has also reportedly threatened to remove the kosher certification of companies that fail to adhere to the ban. However, on being contacted, the activist behind the ban denied all knowledge of this harassment and attributed it to someone acting without authorization. We are, therefore, making no formal accusation as to who is conducting this campaign of harassment.

To the best of our understanding, this activity is illegal. One individual told us he reported that harassment to the police.

Harassing good people with threats is illegal and inexcusable. We call on rabbis and people of good faith to denounce this behavior, and we encourage victims to respond to this activist as follows:

If he calls or e-mails you or your organization, thank him for bringing the ban to your attention and say that you will decide how to proceed after consulting with your rabbi or other advisor. And because of rumors that there is harassment involved in this matter, you regret having to tell him that if he contacts you or anyone else in your organization again, you will have to report him to the police.

We have a copy of an e-mail forwarded to us by people involved, which includes a pseudonym and phone number, and we have been told of intimidating phone calls. Note that at this time we are withholding this activist's identity. If he continues harassing people, we will have to be less discrete.

Signed,

The Wolf (along with many other Jewish bloggers)

If you agree, please feel free to sign in the comment section and post this on your blog as well.

When Does "Dan L'Kaf Z'Chus" Apply?

It seems that some Jews have a very interesting mindset as to when to extend the benefit of the doubt to someone and when not to. See some of the comments about this VIN story about the ZAKA workers who worked through Shabbos to save lives:

WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

can any 1 tell me which "posek " gave them "heter" 2 desecratShabbat

and

Chilul Shabbos! Plain and simple.

and

There is no machlokes here; there is NO opinion that permits this.

In other words, according to some of the commentators, there is absolutely no possible way that ZAKA could have done what they did without violating halacha. Seems fairly harsh. Of course, there were other commentators who were presenting the possibility that the actions of the ZAKA team were fine and commendable. Eventually, after some arguing, one commentator said the following:

How wonderful. If its a child molester, someone who steals from the government, or Tropper all we hear is 'dan l'chaf zechus!!!'. But when it comes to people saving lives all we get is righteous indignation and outrage from some people. Disgusting.

And it struck me that he was right. It would not surprise me at all to find that some of the very same people who condemn the ZAKA crew would be the same ones yelling "dan l'kaf z'chus" or "you don't know all the facts!" with regard to Tropper or the Spinka Rebbe or any other similar situation. Personally, I believe there are sufficient grounds to be dan l'kaf z'chus here as I have little doubt that ZAKA is in consultation with rabbinic authorities with regard to what they can and cannot do. Do I *know* that? No, but I highly doubt that they went there and acted completely on their own vis-a-vis Shabbos.

I gave the matter some thought and wondered why this case is so different that the "righteous" are out there screaming bloody murder (or chillul shabbos, as the case may be) here and not in the other cases. And then the answer struck me -- in this case, unlike the others, the beneficiaries of the actions in question are non-Jews. It seems to be that whenever a Rav is the "beneficiary" of an action that may be against the law (and halacha) we hear warnings from people to give them the benefit of the doubt. But when the benefactor is a non-Jew, all of a sudden there is no possible halachic justification and any possibility of "dan l'kaf z'chus" gets tossed out the window.

Or am I viewing this wrong?

The Wolf

So, I Guess Religious Protections In the Workplace are Bad...

VIN has a story about four women who are suing B&H Photo. The women are alleging that they were denied promotion opportunities for "religious reasons."

I don't want to comment on the specifics of the suit because, frankly, I have no idea what went down. I don't know if the suit truly has merit or not.

What I find interesting (and appalling) are some of the comments on the VIN story. There are those who are defending B&H based on rules of tznius. Others maintain that a frum company should be able to hire only Jews. Among the comments:

So a yid who wants to have a business where he can be shomer torah umitzvos can't do it. He must hire women, he must give benefits to gay partners, soon they will claim he discriminates because he doesn't allow the employees to work on Shabes and Yomtov.

let us create business for our people, what's wrong with that, is it too much common sense?

Why is not allowing woman because of religious reasons wrong? we don't discriminate because of "hate" it's because of "moral values".

What I find ironic about all this is that these people would probably be the first ones screaming "discrimination" if they applied for a job and were turned down for "religious reasons." Imagine the (rightful) hue and cry if they were turned down for a job because the owner felt it was "moral" to provide jobs to his fellow Baptists. Or imagine the story that would come about if a MO seforim store owner only provided jobs or promotions to those who were openly Zionist?

I find it just mind-boggling that people can so quickly forget that the laws that protect others from discrimination based on solely religious grounds protect them as well. Everyone loves to tell over the stories about how Jews were hard pressed to keep Shabbos 100 years ago because jobs required them to work on Saturdays. I can't count the number of times I heard stories of Jews who had to find new jobs every week because they would be fired weekly for refusing to show up on Saturday. We've become so "spoiled" by our ability to take off for Yom Tov and leave early on Fridays in the winter and our right to not be discriminated against that we take those freedoms for granted. Perhaps some people need to be reminded that the same laws that protect their ability to maintain both religious practice and the ability to earn a livelihood protect others as well. At the very least the person who made the following comment should be reminded of history.

We don't need anti-discrimination laws, and they have done us far more harm than help. All we need is for the LAW to treat everyone equally, and to leave people alone to do as they please.

Yeah, that's what we need... a throwback to the world where employees have no protection for their religious beliefs at all.

The Wolf

I Don't Know What's Sadder...

So, here's the scene...

-- A sizable portion of the male chareidi population in Israel learns all day and does not work.
-- Charieidi families, like all other families, need to purchase food, clothing, etc.
-- Due to various factors (education, the economy in general, etc.), it is difficult even for chareidi women to find employment.
-- Chareidim (like all other communities) want to boost employment in their community.

With me so far? Good, because here's where it starts to get tricky.

-- The chairman of the Shas party arranges for a government call center to open near where chareidim live and employ chariedi women in Northern Israel.
-- Said government call center handles various different services, including health care organizations and pharmacies.

So, the calls start coming in. The women answer them, direct them to where they are supposed to go, whatever. Services are being provided and the women bring home a check, and all is right with the world.

Of course, I wouldn't be bringing this up if the story ended there. As you might expect, there is a fly in the ointment. As it turns out, some of the women have been getting calls regarding "virility pills." Older men are calling in asking questions about Viagara, Cialis or some of the other erectile dysfunction medications that are available. This has caused some problems for the women who view the calls as indecent and obscene. While I suppose it is possible that some of the calls could be what you or I would truly call obscene, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority (if not all) of them were actual honest calls for information about treatment for a medical condition. Since the call center handles calls for medical organizations and pharmacies, such calls are probably to be expected. Rav Asher Idan describes just such a call:

“She answered a call that was supposed to go to a pharmacy,” recalls Rav Idan. “On the other end of the line was a man of about 60, who wanted advice on pills designed to increase virility. He asked her what it does. Because she was unfamiliar with the product he had to explain it to her and then proceeded to ask detailed questions. Only when she realized what he was referring to did she hang up on him.”

Rav Idan then proceeded to state that answering such calls when not in her husband's presence* is a violation of the prohibition of giluy arayos (sexual immorality).

I think it's quite sad that people who are calling a health center about a legitimate health concern are considered "obscene" and "indecent."

I think it's also quite sad that these women are so sheltered that they had no idea that erectile dysfunction exists.

I think it's also quite sad that discussing health matters in a professional setting is considered as violating the boundaries of sexual immorality.

The bottom line is that people should not work in fields where they are unsuited to work. For example, I know that despite the fact that I like to cook, I can never work as a chef in a fancy restaurant. Why? Because of the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. It would be disingenous of me to look for employment in that field and then say "oh, I can't cook this dish" and "oh, I can't cook that dish." Employers should make reasonable accomodations for employees, but if a bona fide criterion for the job is going to interefere with your religion, then you simply cannot take the job. If these women feel that they cannot truly work in a health center because answering bona fide questions regarding male health issues is obscene/indecent, then they should not work there.

Or, perhaps better, they should learn that not everything relating to male sexuality is obscene -- and learn to handle such calls professionally.

That being said, I'd like to end the post on a lighter note. Here's what one "leading askan" said about the incident:

“Employing charedi women should not be taken for granted,” a leading askan in the North told Hebrew website NRG. “Because of modesty issues rabbonim do not recommend women work outside of the home – only in cases where the financial situation is pressing and the woman needs to go out and get a job. Such cases require halachic clarification and a she’elas rov.”

Isn't that priceless? They set up a system where men don't work, forcing the women to work. Now this guy wants to say that women should not work either -- unless they get a hetter (permission) from a rav. And all this in a call center that was set up specifically to emply chareidi women. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

The Wolf

* I'm not sure why it would be any better (or worse) if she answered such calls if her husband was there.

** Would they say it's obscene or indecent for one of them to call their male OB/GYNs with a gynecological question?

Stupid Comment Of The Day

Sometimes, you just have to wonder if people ever think before they type or speak. Case in point from the comments thread of this VIN post. One commentator (#6) actually said:

A characteristic of goyim is that they fight among themselves. Their lack of achdus is a hallmark trait.

Mr. Kettle, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Pot. He has a lovely word for you.

The Wolf

The Kennedy Curse

As I'm sure you've heard by now, Senator Edward Kennedy from Massachusetts passed away this morning at the age of 77 after losing his battle with brain cancer.

I don't normally blog politics (especially American politics), but I do blog faulty reasoning, and so I will take the occasion to address an issue that surrounds the Kennedys, especially when it comes to Orthodox Jews.

The issue at hand is the famous "Kennedy Curse." In the threads on YWN and VIN, commentators once again brought up "the curse."

There are various stories of how the curse started. All the stories (or at least the stories that originate from the Jewish world) involve a famous rabbi who was either insulted or rebuffed by Joseph (or Rose) Kennedy. They were then cursed by that Rabbi that their family should suffer for it.

Rose Kennedy managed to live a long life and as three of her sons and one of her daughters predeceased her, the going rumor was that she was cursed that all of her children should die before her. Her death in 1995 ended that aspect of the legend.

Truth to tell, the story has all the earmarks of an urban legend. The name of the rabbi who cursed the Kennedys changes from one telling to the next (it's most often mentioned as the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe -- but not always), as does why the curse was originally pronounced. In addition, there is no (or at least not to my knowledge) firm documented source describing the origin of the curse. In short, it sounds all too much like an urban legend.

But putting that aside, let's ask the question -- is the curse real? The Kennedys, as we all know, have lost quite a few family members in high-profile deaths. The fact is that the average age of death of the eight deceased Kennedy children (Jean is still alive) is just under 60 years -- a rather low figure in today's day and age. Of course, even that number is misleading because the average life expectancy was much lower when some of the Kennedy children died long ago.

While it's true that some Joseph and Rose Kennedy's nine children have died young, let's consider for the moment that all of them survived to adulthood. The Kennedy children are of the same generation as my grandparents. All four of my grandparents were born in the United States. Of the four of them, three lost siblings as children. I think that if most people who had grandparents growing up in the United States at that time do a little research, they will find that many (if not most) of them lost siblings during childhood. Infant and child mortality in those days was quite high and, unfortunately, losing a child was not as uncommon as it is today -- especially in families with a lot of children such as the Kennedys. So, right off the bat, I'd have to say that the fact that all of Joseph and Rose's children made it to adulthood shows that they were doing far better than many other families of the time.

That being said, let's look at the children. The Kennedys had nine children:

• Joseph Jr. -- died in World War II, aged 29
• John -- shot in Dallas in 1963, aged 46
• Rosemary -- lobotomized and institutionalized, died at age 86
• Kathleen -- died in a plane crash at age 28
• Euncie -- died about two weeks ago at age 88
• Patricia -- died in 2006 at age 82
• Robert -- shot in San Francisco in 1968, aged 42
• Jean -- still living today, aged 81
• Edward -- died yesterday, aged 77

Of the nine children, four failed to see their fiftieth birthday (although, of the five that did, all reached at least 77 years of age). One more, Rosemary, spent almost all of her life in an institution.

But let's look at the four who died young and examine the circumstances of their deaths:

Joesph Jr. was a student at Harvard Law when World War II began. He left Harvard a year early and took officer and pilot training in the Navy. He piloted 25 combat missions during World War II and was eligible to return home.

Instead, he volunteered for a highly dangerous mission which entailed flying an explosive-laden plane with a skeleton crew which would then parachute out of the plane before detonation. It was on this mission that he was killed.

Three Kennedy sons served in World War II (Edward was only twelve when the war ended) and two survived. Many families lost sons in the war and some lost more than one child (the Sullivans famously lost five on a single ship). In that respect, I would not say that the Kennedys were cursed any more than any other family that lost a son in combat during World War II.

John Kennedy went on to become the 35th President of the United States -- the youngest man ever to be elected to the office. He served from January 1961 until his assassination in 1963.

During the course of our nation's history, 43 different men have served as President of the United States. Of those eight did not leave the office alive -- four of them were killed by assassin's bullets and the other four became ill and died. Another two recent presidents (Ford and Reagan) survived assassination attempts. In other words, about 19% of the people who took the office did not survive. Clearly, being President of the United States is a dangerous job. Aside from the enormous pressures of the job, there are always people who will want to kill the president -- from foreign terrorists to partisan nutcases (on both sides) to people who are just plain kooks. The upshot of all this is that the job of President is a high-risk occupation and as with all high-risk occupations, the fact that someone dies in that job is not the sign of a curse.

Kathleen married the Marquess of Hartington (and the heir to the dukedom of Devonshire) in 1944. She married against the will of her family and aside from Joseph Jr., no one in the family attended her wedding. Sadly, the Marquess was killed in World War II after only four months of marriage. She ended up becoming involved with a married gentleman of the British peerage who was in the process of divorcing his wife with the intent to marry him once his divorce was final. That marriage never happened because Kathleen died in a plane crash in France in 1948.

The fourth of the Kennedy children to die before their seventy fifth birthday was Robert. Robert was the junior senator from New York in 1968 and was running for the Democratic nomination for President. He had just won the California primary when he was assassinated by a young Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan. Robert Kennedy was a high profile individual (former Attorney General, Senator from New York and candidate for President) and, as such, was, like John, a high profile target.

The other five Kennedy children all survived until at least 77 years of age. Of the nine children of Joseph and Rose Kennedy, seven married and six had children -- John had two surviving children, Eunice had five, Patricia had four, Robert had eleven, Jean had four and Edward had three. In total Rose and Joseph Kennedy had twenty nine grandchildren, most of whom have since married and had kids of their own.

In addition, the Kennedys became one of the premiere political families in the United States. Three of the Kennedy children became Senators and one became the President. Their grandchildren include a former Lt. Governor, at least two members of the House of Representatives and other political positions. For a family that has been cursed, they have been tremendously successful.

There are people who will point to other misfortunes that the extended Kennedy family has borne: the skiing death in 1997 of Michael Kennedy, the rape accusation against William Kennedy Smith, the car accident in 1969 that ended Edward's chances of becoming President and the airplane crash that ended the life of John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1999.

I'm not at all certain that these events are out of the ordinary for a family as large as the Kennedys and that engage in the activities that the Kennedys engage in. Many families have unfortunately lost people in skiing accidents and many families tragically lose people in airplane accidents. However, in most cases, unless the person is famous (or belongs to a famous family) these events are usually unreported or forgotten shortly thereafter. I firmly believe that if you sample other families as numerous as the Kennedys that engage in similar activities, you will probably find similar results.

In short, the Kennedys have suffered tragedy over the years -- but I'm not convinced that it's so different from the tragedies that another family might have faced with the same numbers and similar circumstances.

The Wolf

The REAL Cause Of Our Problems

On Vos Iz Neias, Rabbi Hoffman writes about last night's meeting in Boro Park to address some of the troubling headlines of the last few weeks. In his article, he makes some valid points about the fact that in many segments of our community, education is discouraged to the point where some people find it very difficult to earn a living. This lack of education, Rabbi Hoffman suggests, is a vital part of the troubles we are seeing played out in front of us. I think that Rabbi Hoffman has some very valid points, but I fear that the problem is far worse than a lack of education.

The problem, sadly, is that we are failing in our mission to internalize the Torah's lessons. Saying that a lack of education or poverty is not the answer -- after all, there are plenty of people who are poor and uneducated among the non-Jews who struggle in their lives and yet don't resort to crime.

Sadly, it seems that we have gotten our priorities wrong. We worry more about whether or not someone wears a hat and/or jacket to davening than if they commit welfare fraud. We care more about the color of people's shirts than whether or not they deal honestly with their fellow man (Jew or non-Jew). We place more emphasis on enforcing the minutiae of tznius (and no, I'm not saying that tznius is not important) than with the lav of Lo Tignovu. In short, we're too busy worry about the leaves on the branches to see that the tree has become rotten in the core.

What we really need to do is to completely reorder our society. We need to stop focusing on the externals and focus on doing what is good, right and what the Torah expects of us. We have to learn to deal justly and honestly with everyone - Jew and non-Jew. We have to focus on being able to be proud of the fact that your dealings are honest -- and the fact that people in our community are not ashamed or embarrassed when they are not.

Yes, education is a step in the right direction -- but if one's ethics are rotten and one's moral fiber is wrong, then all education does is produce smart thieves. We have to change not just our minds and our schools, but our souls as well.

The Wolf

Am I The Only One Not Bothered By This?

Vos Iz Neias has an article about some new rules that are being adopted by twenty hotels in Israel in the hopes of attracting more chareidi guests. Among the rules are:

• No TV (unless requested, but see below for more on this)
• No Internet unless it's a married couple
• No viewing of the swimming areas from the rooms
• Tznius dress for hotel staff
• Separate bars for men and women
• Separate beds in the rooms (or an additional bed to be added)

As you can expect, the article generated a few responses. Among them are:

And the Talibanization of Israel begins. Personal responsibility is no longer an option: The hotels must make those weighty choices for its guests.

in the words of the great Bob Grant "they are sick and getting sicker"

Insane.

Most of the comments are about the regualtions and how silly some of them are.

I agree that a lot of the rules are silly (what's the difference if a person is married and want to access the Internet?), but that's not really the point. Truth be told, I'm not terribly troubled by this.

I think that this was simply a business decision made by the owners of the hotels to attract a different sort of clientelle. They want to attract more chareidim to their establishments and are willing to give up the guests (and their money) who would not stay in a resort such as that. If they guessed correctly, then they will thrive, or else they will have to abandon/modify their policies or go out of business.

As long as the policies are clear to a person making a reservation, and as long as there are alternatives for those that want them, I don't really see why this is a big issue -- it's a business decision -- no more, no less.

As an aside, I found the following rule particularly laughable:

"The television equipment will be disconnected, at the very least by removing the cable and closing it away in storage, as well as disconnecting the central control in reception, such that no one can turn it on. The television itself will be covered or closed in a closet. A guest who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot, or someone who claims he has a television at home and his looks prove this, will be directed to a rabbi who will authorize that he be connected to the television."

I'm curious -- how can you prove someone has a TV in their home just by looking at them?

The Wolf

Standards Of Halacha In The Workplace

Ynet (via Vos Iz Neias) is reporting that a new dress regulation will be taking effect at the Shas' Maayan Torah education network in Israel. Specifically, the regulation states that all women employed there must wear a full head covering when reporting for work. In addition, the only acceptable form of head-covering for women is a scarf -- wigs are not permitted (the article doesn't address snoods or other non-hair-like coverings). According to a source in the article, women have been threatened with dismissal if they do not dress according to code.

This new regulation has many women outraged. As you can imagine, there are women who work there who cover their hair with sheitels or other materials. In addition, the article makes no distinction between married and unmarried women.

Some of the VIN commentors have taken the approach that an employer has the right to dictate how employees dress and if you don't like it, you're free to go work someplace else. That's certainly true. If my boss, for whatever insane reason, dictated that employees come to work in bumblebee costumes everyday, I could either go to the costume shop or find a new place to work.*

However, in the above case, my boss has made his bumblebee decree for arbitrary reasons. In this case, however, there is a rationale behind the regulations -- obstensibly, the rationale is halacha. Whomever is issuing these decrees obviously feels that women are required by halacha to wear complete head coverings. And, I suppose, it's not entirely unreasonable to use halacha as a guideline for employee conduct in a religious office in a religious state.

But one has to wonder just how far this can be taken. If one can rule that millions of otherwise observant women who cover their hair with sheitels are violating halacha (despite the fact that millions of frum Jews around the world and in Israel itself view this as perfectly acceptable and within halacha) and therefore worthy of termination, then where does it end?

Should an employer be allowed to raid the contents of employee lunchboxes to make sure they're only using chassidshe shechita or cholov yisroel? Should an employer be allowed to tell employees that they can't go to an otherwise glatt kosher resturaunt for lunch because it doesn't meet his/her personal standards (real or imagined)? Should an employer be allowed to fire a worker who rides to work on a non-mehadrin bus where one is available? In short, where does it end? At what point do we say that the employer doesn't have the right to enforce his brand of halacha at the workplace

Yes, there is still the principle that a worker is not a slave and is free to quit her job at any time. If she doesn't like the rules, she's free to move on. But that's not really the answer is it? I don't know what the economic situation in Israel is like at the current time, but I can't imagine that they're unemployement problem is any better than ours is here in the U.S. Just saying "go get another job" is not the answer -- it's not always so easy. Who says the person can find another job quickly, and at the same salary? In addition, employees have certain intagible benefits that come from being in a job -- seniority, repuation, familiarity with co-workers and the surrounding of the workplace, job security and other benefits that we all enjoy from working at a place after a certain amount of time. By forcing a worker to move on, they lose a lot (if not all) of these benefits. I'm not convinced that forcing an worker to lose these benefits simply for the sake of someone else's interpretation of halacha (when their own is kept by millions of otherwise frum women around the world) is acceptable and proper.

Again, no one argues that there should be minimum standards of dress for both genders in the workplace. And, yes, halacha should probably play a role in that code in a religious office in Israel. But you can't just apply the strictest standard of halacha. It's simply not fair.

The Wolf



* Yes, I understand that there may be other options, but that's really beside the point.

Another Great "It Was A Frame Job" post...

Dr. Mazeltov Borukhova was sentenced to life in prison (without the possibility of parole) for hiring her cousin to murder her husband. The motive for the killing was that she had just (days before) lost a custody battle to her estranged husband, Dr. Daniel Malakov.

Truth be told, the evidence against her was pretty solid and it was pretty much an open and shut case. A sad story all around, to be sure.

Of course, as in a case like this, you'll have some people who believe (what else?) that she was framed by the authorities. A poster on Vos Iz Neias (Tuvia, #53) made the following comment:

We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case. As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative. Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives. We do not know a lot of details about the case. Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case? Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences? Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it? When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.

Oy... where do I start.

OK, let's take it from the top.

We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case.

For starters, *we* aren't judging her - the state of New York is. And the state of New York *can* judge her. Indeed, not only can they, but they are required to under the 7 Noachide mitzvos. Or did you think that the civil authorities were supposed to turn her over to a bais din?

As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative.

There is direct evidence regarding her cousin -- Mikhail Mallayev shot Malakov in broad daylight in a park in front of witnesses, who testified at the trial. As for her, there is plenty of evidence to show that she was in on the plot too. And, if you're going to tell me that you require only eyewitness testimony, then I assume that you're in favor of turning loose someone who murders a Jew with no eyewitnesses?

Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives.

But she's not being judged under a Torah standard. There is no court set up to judge such a case. And, let's not forget, a properly constituted bais din had extralegal ways of getting rid of people whom they felt should be executed for their capital crimes but could not be executed properly for one techinical reason or another. (I think I have a post about that coming up in the next week or so.)

We do not know a lot of details about the case.

Actually, we know a great deal about this case. On a scale of 1 to 10 regarding knowledge of the murder case, this one's at least a 9.

Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case?

Let's look at it this way. Police officers get a salary because someone has to pay them to do their jobs -- just like any other position on earth. Likewise, doing a good job earns you a promotion, again - just like any other position on earth. What sort of system would you have? One where the police don't get paid and get promoted for NOT closing cases?

Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences?

No, for several reasons. First of all, rabbis, by and large, are not forensic experts capable of judging evidence in a murder. Secondly, it's not their job to do so. Thirdly, I suppose you expect the police to bring in a rabbi when it's a Jew on trial, but not an imam when it's a Muslim on trial?

Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it?

See above... she's not being judged on a Torah standard because she lives in a time and place where that is not applicable. Or, is it your opinion (since there is no Jewish court capable of trying such cases) that no Jew should ever be put on trial anywhere in the world for anything?

When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.

Ah, yes. The DA planted the evidence. I suppose he also killed Dr. Malakov, bribed the witnesses, stole Dr. Borukhova's and Mr. Mallayev's phones, made the phone calls and text messages between them, returned them and then took $20,000 out of her bank account and gave it to Mr. Mallayev, just to show that a Jew could kill someone.

Tell me, sir, do you actually think before you post things?

The Wolf

UPDATE: That's what I get for posting from memory. The contact was 65 calls between her and the murderer in the days preceeding the murder, not text messages. My apologies for the error.

Something To Watch

The comments thread at this VIN article about the age of Rivkah at her wedding ought to be interesting to watch. Perhaps I'll comment on it later.

The Wolf

A Special Thanks to Vos Iz Neias

I want to commend the editor(s?) at Vos Iz Neias for bringing the matter of Rabbi Twerski to our attention. It was through his blog that I (and, I suspect, many others) learned of how Rabbi Twerski was threatened into stepping down from Dov Hikind's task force on sexual abuse. I've called out VIN in the past for editorial decisions that I disagreed with, so it's only fair and proper to give VIN credit for doing the right thing and bringing this to our attention (in contrast with another popular Jewish news site/blog which completely ignored the task force's formation and the events surrounding Rabbi Twerski).

The Wolf

Hey, Vos Iz Neias... What's Up?

Vos Iz Neias reports today on the article in New York Magazine about Gitty, the run-away wife from Kiryas Joel. In his write up, the VIN editor says (bolding mine):

Monroe, NY - Yet another hate-filled, biased and anti-religious article appeared in the New York media this week— under the headline ‘Escape From the Holy Shtetl’ one that for obvious reasons was not reprinted by VIN News but which stoked a firestorm of controversy.

That's fine and well, except that I know that it's not true. VIN not only reported the article, but even reprinted a part of it yesterday. I know this because it was because of the VIN article (which I got through my RSS feed) that I first heard of the story. It was reported that day under the headline "Kiryas Joel, NY - NY Magazine: Rebellious Woman Who Left Community Fights For Her Child." The article must have been taken down shortly after it was printed, because when I went to the page, it was no longer there.

I commented on the VIN piece, advising the author that his claim was not true. All I really wanted was that he should correct the post (he could say that he retracted the post). Instead, my comment has been removed and thrown down the memory hole.

What's he trying to hide? Interestingly, the VIN poster calls the NY Magazine author "holier-than-thou" and then lies saying (in effect) "but we would never reprint this" when, in fact, VIN did just that. Why not just correct the post?

The Wolf