Thursday, January 27, 2022

Two Tombstones

One of the most beloved people in Britain was television personality Jimmy Savile. He hosted a show called Jim'll Fix It in which he made children's wishes come true. He raised tens of millions of pounds for charity and was knighted by the Queen for his philanthropic work. When he passed away, at the age of 84, a magnificent and very expensive tombstone was erected over his grave, which described his many achievements.

A few months later, it emerged that he had been one of the worst sexual predators in the country.

Within weeks, Savile's family had arranged for the tombstone to be removed, to have the words ground off it, and for the stone to be destroyed. In a statement, they said that "The family members are deeply aware of the impact that the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery. Out of respect to public opinion, to those who are buried there, and to those who tend their graves and visit there, we have decided to remove it." It was added that they feared the grave could become the center of a media circus.

A few months ago, it emerged that the beloved children's book author Chaim Walder had been one of the worst sexual predators in Israel. Shortly afterwards, he took his own life. His family had the following tombstone erected:

Now, how is it possible that secular non-Jewish society does not tolerate the glorification of a serial rapist, and charedi society does tolerate it?

It seems to me that a significant part of the answer is freedom of speech. In the UK, there is freedom of speech. The victims of Savile, and those who advocate for them, are able to voice their criticism.The press is perfectly ready to print it and to call for justice.

In charedi society, on the other hand, there is very little freedom of speech. Yated Ne'eman, the "mouthpiece of the Gedolim," even printed a glowing obituary for Walder and would certainly not print anything about his crimes. Ami magazine published a cover-up claiming that charedi society deals with such problems perfectly well; they won't acknowledge an ongoing travesty. Even Mishpacha magazine, which published articles calling for change, doesn't want to dwell on it, and certainly not to air a new problem. Savile's family feared a media circus; Walder's family need fear no such thing.

Another manifestation of this problem occurred early this week. Charedi media outlets reported the passing of "Harav Lipa Margulies, zt”l, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Torah Temimah" and sang praises of his holy life. Readers would have no idea that victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Yudi Kolko, a rebbe at Torah Temima for thirty years, sued Lipa Margulies for waging a "a campaign of intimidation, concealment and misrepresentations designed to prevent victims from filing lawsuits." 

In fact, when the horrors at Torah Temimah came to light around fifteen years ago, Mishpacha magazine asked Rav Shlomo Miller "Why don't rabbanim take a firm stand on developments in frum life, such as denouncing perversions and corruptions, wrong agendas, wrongdoers?" Although it was obvious that Margulies and Kolko were the background to this question, they wouldn't name them. Rav Miller responded that rabbanim do indeed take a firm stand on perversions and corruptions and did name a name: "Charedi rabbanim opposed the views espoused by Rabbi Nosson Slifkin, and rejected him speaking in the name of Orthodoxy." He then went on to admit that "Certain improper acts have happened in a yeshivah and were covered up when they shouldn't have been." But he didn't name any names for that case.

And today something else happened that readers of Yated, Hamodia, Ami and Mishpacha will never see reported. Charedi MK Yaakov Litzman reached a plea deal in which he will resign from the Knesset, admit to breach of trust and pay a symbolic fine rather than face charges over having prevented the extradition of serial predator Malka Leifer. This admission of breach of trust will never be admitted in the pages of charedi newspapers and magazines.

The Torah is adamant that evil must be punished and publicly denounced. This is just one of the ways in which mainstream institutions in the charedi community go against the Torah.

(If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you.) 


  1. Despite RNS's cherry picked examples, it's clear the secularists are much, much, much more tolerant of alleged sexual abusers and abuse. I can give countless examples, Dershowitz is regularly invited to AIPAC, Michael Jackson's tunes are still played all over the world, the former US president was elected with many assault allegations, the current was elected with at least one, another former president was an alleged rapist and still regularly collects millions in speaking fees, Foucalt is revered and taught in every university... we can go on forever.

    But rather than doing that, here is an example of something you will never see an article about on Rationalist Judaism - "We Are All Sexually Harassed in the Israeli Army, Almost on a Daily Basis"

    1. These are indeed 'cherry picked' he could have pointed out dozens, if not hundreds of cases that came to light the past few years involving Haredi figures both low and high. Off the top of my head, the Australian community has seen outrage after outrage involving Haredim abusing their own brothers & sisters that secular society had to step in to resolve. In proportion to the relative small sizes of these communities (and their self-image as a moral vanguard) the prevalence is striking. But the crux here is not that secular society does not have its predators - or that some in society are willing to accept it for gain, but that the moral standing and transparency of Haredi leadership on these matters is largely absent and ultimately debased.

    2. When reduced to hideous crookedness and pedophelic immorality, you are basically saying that Chareidi and secular society are no different from each other. Both are corrupt, so why would I trust the character rules/halacha of either. Your morals are as fraudulent and untrustworthy as theirs. Why would I trust much of you say and do? Why would anybody?

    3. Well, someone took a course in missing the point.

    4. "cherry picked"
      When life gives you cherries, pick 'em.

    5. MM, UW, you misunderstood. I am not saying secularists are as bad as chareidim on this matter. I am saying they are much worse. Did you miss the "much, much, much" at the beginning of my comment? This extreme prevalence of abuse stems from the fact that secular culture is completely immoral, debased, and perverted, with 0 boundaries. No surprise that we end up with a situation where allegedly "We Are All Sexually Harassed in the Israeli Army, Almost on a Daily Basis".

    6. Nahum, I am not missing the point, that's the whole point of this post. Read before you comment.

    7. Why does secular society being worse than charedi society somehow make charedi society’s glaring shortcomings any better?

      Is secular society the yardstick by which we measure our own morality? Or do we claim to have a higher level?

      Pointing fingers at other people’s shortcomings is called whataboutism. It distracts from the problem we are facing and solves nothing.

    8. Oh, you’re not misunderstood. We understand perfectly that Chareidi/Chasidish society is presently incapable of excising its halachically embedded sexual demons. Confession of sexual immorality can’t be professed in that society because Chareidi Halacha mandates protection of the pervert. Like the Catholic Church, Chareidi “Gedolim” and leadership need to confess their sins and acknowledge that their sexual perversions are as prevalent in the house of their God as it was in the house of their’s. When was the last time that a majority of Gedolim stated that victims need to come forth unafraid and name names. Never. Until the actual statistics are detailed, there is no reason to believe that Chareidi society is any less corrupt than secular society.

      Here’s a worthy example of Chareidi pedophelia. The Chareidi Principal of a Satmar boys yeshiva. Caught on camera molesting a young child. THE PRINCIPAL OF THE YESHIVA. A spokesman for Satmar defended the principal as exhibiting nothing more than fatherly love! How could anyone believe that? Yet, I haven’t seen any denunciation of Satmar society by any “Gedolim”. The guy is still walking the streets. What an indictment of Chareidi society!
      Grab a barf bag before viewing the video.

    9. "I am not saying secularists are as bad as chareidim on this matter. I am saying they are much worse." But are they? I think there is an argument to say that proportional to their own societies, it may well be statistically worse in the Haredi sector.

    10. Happy I find it insulting to call Trump assault allegations. These are lies and there are no such allegations and you know it.

      Although I agree with you that the secular world is much worse than religious people. I find it an insult to berate Trump who has helped Israel and US so much. Please take it back.

    11. UW, MM there are thousands of women allegedly abused in the IDF on an annual basis, and yet it's the most celebrated Israeli institution, with Israeli leaders constantly singing its praises. And secularist apologists like yourself tripping over their own shoes to defend the IDF. Disgusting and disgraceful.

      MM, of course it's much worse. Secular culture is completely awash with promiscuity, immorality, and perversion. No boundaries at all. Zero. They think nothing of sending their daughters to drunken parties with males. Asking for statistics is is like asking for statistics that parachutes work better than just jumping out of airplanes.

      EDTeitz, you're kidding, right? Pointing fingers at other people’s shortcomings is called whataboutism. Pointing out other people's (chareidim) shortcomings is, like, the entire purpose of this blog. Never ever a word of criticism for his own culture and society that is doing MUCH worse.

  2. Given the extremely large chip on your shoulder, it certainly makes sense you circle around this topic. Benefit of the doubt simply doesn't exist for you, does it? Bear a grudge much? All you have to go on is an article by HaAretz and statements by Shmuel Eliyahu that he heard testimony about the alleged abuse, but didn't hear from a single actual victim.

    Yet, abuse on the scale Chaim Walder is alleged to have done cannot be done without help, or at least looking the other way by people who know, particularly of people still alive, who are themselves criminally negligent and civilly liable if the allegations are even remotely true.

    Since you are conflating the two, let's see what happened after Jimmy Savile's death, shall we?

    By 11 October 2012, allegations had been made to thirteen British police forces, which led to the setting-up of inquiries into practices at the BBC and within the National Health Service. On 19 October 2012, London's Metropolitan Police Service launched a formal criminal investigation, Operation Yewtree, into historic allegations of child sexual abuse by Savile and other individuals, some still living, over four decades. The Metropolitan Police stated that it was pursuing over 400 lines of inquiry, based on the claims of 200 witnesses, via fourteen police forces across the UK. It described the alleged abuse as being "on an unprecedented scale", and the number of potential victims as "staggering". By 19 December, eight people had been questioned as part of the investigation. The Met stated that the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile.

    And that is just the start of numerous inquiries.

    Chaim Walder? Not so much. Not one named victim except one who is conveniently dead herself. No police investigation announced into his helpers, which have to exist. Nothing, zip, nada, from the Charedi-hating media, nor governmental pronouncements, nor investigation, from a government free of Charedi involvement entirely, that is also overtly hostile to Charedi interests. On the contrary, the media circus has moved on and there is not a peep about Walder's allegedly great misdeeds.

    When your name first entered my consciousness back in the day when your books were banned, I complained to my rabbi about what I believed was outrageous treatment. It was conversation that did not resolve to my satisfaction. Later, I read some of the material you wrote, and I saw, with my own eyes, that you indeed misconstrued or or misinterpreted, whether intentionally or not, Rav Dessler's words, and that you did not back down from your words. Then I knew that, however unfair the whole process seemed, they were right, and you were wrong, and you have been too full of gaavah since then to back down. This is a new low by you, who wants to believe so much every Charedi sin, you will believe completely unsubstantiated accusations based on the flimsiest of evidence. Why? Is there no shortage of actual substantiated and documented problems and villains among Charedim? You need help.

    1. In a book discussing Rambam, his son R' Avraham, Pachad Yitzchak, RSRH, and more, close to the least authoritative figure cited would be R' Dessler, so I'm not sure how much that matters to Slifkin's thesis, but anyway, what was misinterpreted about R' Dessler's words? Inquiring minds would like to know!

    2. Fascinating analysis by Reb Shimshon.

      I'm sure you're right to dismiss HaRav Shmuel Eliyahu. I believe you much more than the Head of the Beis Din of Tzafas.

      Please provide your credentials for providing such comments.

      Also, please provide counter-evidence to the research done by the journalists for HaAretz, and the evidence provided to the Beis Din.

      Your total lack of sensitivity and understanding of this scandal shows your complete ignorance of what people go through after being attacked. And that's me putting you in the most positive light that I dare. Other readers may think that I have been too complimentary to you.

    3. Dave, it was over 15 years ago. Do your own research. Slifkin's words are in the public record.

      Richie, how can I counter anything that is unsubstantiated?

      Shmuel Eliyahu, as Chief Rabbi of Tzvat, may be a rabbi, but he is a government functionary by profession. One lambastes Walder (him), while one eulogizes him (the Chief Rabbi of the state). Further, Eliyahu implies through his words that he heard from actual victims, something all the dog pilers want to believe, while a more nuanced reading makes it clear he didn't. Why the evasiveness? Who did he actually hear from? The reporters from HaAretz? What did they actually say? Doesn't that make a difference to you? Sounds like a gigantic circle jerk to me.

      What lack of sensitivity? Who are his victims? We are told they exist. Since Walder is dead now, perhaps we can learn more about them?

      I know personally of people who have been abused, including incestuously, so spare me the faux outrage. This story sounds highly contrived to me. Where are the investigations? They would not stop simply because the accused is dead.

      I don't care what you think.

      My credentials are: I am a Jew who has not outsourced his discernment. You clearly have.

      Here are some questions for you: Where did Walder get the gun? Was he the legal registered owner? What about the surveillance footage from the cemetery? Did Jeffrey Epstein kill himself? How about John McAfee?

    4. Rabbi Chananya Weissman, for simply stating the proper, halachic response, to this issue, along with raising questions as to the propriety of a so-called rabbi's unseemly involvement, is 10x, even 100x the rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu claims to be.

      I lack paper credentials calling myself a rabbi. He does not. Do you believe him?

      Does halacha matter, or not?

      Like him, I don't know what actually happened. Neither do you, Dave, Richie, and Slifkin. The difference is, I know I don't know, and protest those who claim to. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the official story we are told of Walder, despite actual severe and perhaps even widespread abuse in the Charedi world. You, on the other hand, don't know, but are certain you do, and condemn a man based solely on literal hearsay. Because HaAretz and media courtesan Shmuel Eliyahu says so.

      You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    5. Shimshon Ha-Aino Gibor, please in your great wisdom can you explain why Mr Walder The Innocent preferred to commit suicide, something that no other charedi accused of molestation or rape has done (bar Meshi Zahav). I don't want to name names but there's a very long list of people who tried to fight to clear their name or settled privately

    6. Shimshon, you're a foul-mouthed boor. R' Slifkin, you may not understand the extremely crude term he used there, but it has no place here.

      Chananya Weisman has, sadly, gone way off the deep end in general. But it's the nivul peh that is really bad here.

    7. By the way, your sock puppet up there loves quoting Haaretz. Be consistent.

    8. If Walder committed suicide, I would say, innocent people don't usually do that. I don't know that he did that. And neither do you, regardless of what you read in the media. It's not called Fake News without reason.

      The alleged suicide is something I have struggled with, for just the reason you raise. But I know, with certainty, that many people have been suicided over the years. There's even a term for a specific type of suicide (or otherwise very unusual form of death) associated with a certain well-known crime family: Arkancide.

      As far as Meshi-Zahav, are you saying that because he's guilty, Walder is too? The former, to my understanding, had murmurings against him for many years, and he insinuated himself into a position of power and influence he didn't really earn.

    9. "Rabbi Chananya Weissman..." a maverick contrarian. And God bless the mavericks, for who else will shake things up? But this time, he's wrong.

      "the proper, halachic response, to this issue,"
      Chananya is not a halachic authority. I don't see how you can cite Chananya as a halachist & dismiss Rav Eliyahu as a "media courtesan".

    10. How is he wrong? Because you want to believe he's wrong? Saying he is wrong does not make it so.

      Nothing Shmuel Eliyahu did in this case is according to halacha. There are procedures to follow, and they were not followed. I know this without having to cite someone as a "halachist" (and who would likely bristle at such). By his own words, not a single actual victim testified. It even sounds like he is relying solely on the HaAretz article and authors to render his judicial decision. He won't say who he actually heard testimony from. If not them, why not? Who is he protecting and what is he trying to hide? I don't know, and neither do you, because his words are so evasive and equivocating.

      You want to believe, because it suits your preconceived notions, period.

      You don't have to be a "halachic authority" to smell a rat.

    11. Nachum, with a blog named after a false god, you are probably the wrong person to raise an objection. I'm sure Slifkin is familiar with the term. You obviously take him for an idiot. I don't.

      Let me clarify, even though there is no need.

      Is the alleged media courtesan hungry for media attention?

      Does he have something halachically substantial to add to the discussion?

      Does he have discernible principles beyond adherence to simple halachic issues like kashrus and Shabbos?

      Does the end of appearing in the secular media justify the means?

    12. Ah, so you didn't expect to be challenged on that throwaway about R' Dessler, since you obviously can't back it up?

      Anyway, if anyone wants to see where Chananya Weisman is these days, just take a look at his "31 reasons he won't take the vaccine." Even for an anti-vaxxer, he says a lot of stupid things there.

    13. Dave, I don't care about your "challenge" and I wasn't trying to back anything up. I don't need to do so. I said that what I saw satisfied me. No doubt, even were I to recall what I read back in 2005 that swayed me, you would find some way to disqualify it. This is the nature of the "debate" you sought by demanding sources. I am not trying to convince you of anything, just explaining my perspective of Slifkin and his axe-grinding.

    14. Shimshon I actually know someone who was assaulted by cw years before the allegations came out against him. So yes the accusations are real.

  3. I agree with the comments about the Chareidi press. I'm not sure that this is a fair criticism regarding the tombstone.

    The wording is chosen by the family. At this point, we haven't heard anything from them about CW's crimes. For all we know, they are still struggling with the idea that their beloved father/husband was a monster. That they've inscribed wording of high praise is hardly shocking.

    I don't know how much we can expect from them. They are, in many aspects, victims of CW, as well.

    That they are unlikely to be hounded by the Chareidi press is certainly true. However, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I want a press that vigorously investigates societal dangers. I don't want one that hounds and traumatizes the family of perpetrators.

    However, people who are close to the family should encourage them to have the wording changed, to not cause further pain.

  4. Sexual abuse and its being covered up is a serious problem in all societies. It effects our religious world as well as secular society. Debating which community is worse is not productive. What should be discussed is how to improve the response within our community. I intentionally did not use the word "Haredi" because the rest of Orthodox Jewry isn't doing much better.

    1. Not doing better how? The problem is post-publicity coverups here.

  5. "Reality is what I say it is." There is a tremendous problem with official Chareidi thinking. There is Torah and then there is reality. We have an obligation to understand Torah through what reality shows us. For these Chareidim, it's the opposite. How I understand the Torah is primary and if reality doesn't reflect it, then reality is wrong! That they might not understand the Torah properly is inconceivable.
    For Walder's Chareidi supporters, reality is that he was innocent, that his accusers were all mentally unstable and that he earned every letter on that gravestone.

    1. No, for the honest truth seeker, the reality is we don't know based on public information whether he is innocent or guilty. Presumption of innocence is therefore prudent.

  6. Hold on there one second. A quick check over on Wikipedia tells me that allegations were made against this creep Savile since the 1960s. Over the years things kept cropping up. The notion that his family was blissfully unaware is highly unlikely. They certainly knew plenty.

    So the comparison doesn't seem so good anymore. Why was so much spent on this creeps tombstone? The answer likely is, the family did NOT care about the moral element of the old man. They didn't lose sleep over the people he hurt.

    They likely were afraid they would look bad with the fancy tombstone now that it hit the fan...if not for that, they would have been happy to keep the fancy tombstone....what a joke of touting their moralistic values!!

  7. I'm surprised you didn't mention the clumsy but extremely offensive way Rabbi Yair Hoffman tried to refer to the Kolko episode in the most polite and respectful manner, but failed big time.

    Call a spade a spade, man.

    Unless I've just chupt what ולא קרדום לחפור בה really means - when it comes to Charedi Torah life, noone ever calls a spade a spade

  8. Harping on tombstones put up by the family is nice, but what Rabbi Slifkin isn't mentioning is the absence of the public eulogies you would normally see arranged for the sloshim.
    This probably means the unofficial word is that Walder is not deserving of posthumous praise.
    What is printed in chareidi media and what is known or believed by the average chareidi on the street are two entirely different things.
    Ever heard of a yeshivah coffee room?

    1. Why do you need the distinction?
      Why can't it be possible to speak to the truth in public forums?
      Why is it necessary to keep such things in the yeshiva coffee room?

    2. You are exaggerating. There are indeed people speaking the truth in public forums. Rabbis Berkowitz and Meiselman are just the most recent examples.
      But the mainstream frum print media just isn't one of them.
      The fact that RNS likes to conflate "chareidi society" with what the frum print media publishes is just his typical disingenuous way of scoring political points against his opponents.

      You can tell RNS doesn't genuinely care about Chaim Walder's victims from this post.
      I'm sure very few chareidim knew what the family wrote on Chaim Walder's tombstone--due to the frum media blackout. Imagine if one of Walder's victims read this blog and saw what was written on it. I'm sure it would be deeply disturbing and triggering. But if he can score a hit against "chareidi society" at the expense of a victim's pain, RNS seems to think it's worth it.

      Maybe the frum print media didn't cover the tombstone inscription precisely because it would cause unnecessary pain to the victims?

  9. Now, how is it possible that secular non-Jewish society does not tolerate the glorification of a serial rapist, and charedi society does tolerate it?
    As you surely know, in a secular society one can be convicted by media, bloggers, etc. Even in a legal judicial procedeeing one can be convicted (rightfully or wronfully) by indirect evidence or even without evidence just based on claims of alleged victims. In the Torah world, as you surely know too, even a murderer can't be convicted without two kosher whitnesses. Can a person get away with his crime? Possibly, but only in this world. He will be eventually punished by the heavens either here or after his death.

    1. עשו סייג לתורה Sforno explains that it's a recommendation to for extra judicial punishment שמעתי שבית דין שעונשים שלא מן הדין. No society can function under strict application of halacha. The Jewish kings applied their own justice to maintain order and control. A society has a right to protect itself against criminals. Rabbi Shimon Ben Shatach hung 70 (I maybe wrong about the exact number) witches on one day. Hiding behind technicalities is protecting the criminals.

    2. See also דרשות הר"ן יא. He summarizes the strict halacha that Sanhedrin has to follow to convict a murderer: witnesses, cross-examination, warning the would-be murderer not to commit the deed, etc...

      "But if law-breakers were punished in this context alone, the structure of society would break down completely, for, in the absence of the fear of punishment, the number of murderers would dramatically increase. Therefore, for the well-being of society, the Blessed One mandated the appointment of a king, as stated in this parshah (Deuteronomy 17:14-15): "and when you come to the land… place a king over you…," this constituting a mitzvah to appoint a king...And the king can punish without prior warning as he deems fit for the good of the kingdom....the appointment of a king serves a common purpose for Israel and for the other peoples who require a societal structure, and that the appointment of judges serves a distinct purpose for Israel."

      The רן is saying two things here. One, that there is a legitimate judicial system outside the strict halachic confines of שופטים. Two, that the Sanhedrin laws form an idealistic system for the sake of Israel, that's not just about justice and law and order; but the judicial system outside of Sanhedrin which provides mundane law and order benefits mankind in general. (Read the whole דרשה for details)

      Now, I don't know whether the Ran's two points here are normative, or how his opinions on an "alternative" justice system are to be applied today. But it's clear that justice in the Torah world is wider that you claim, and not necessarily limited to punishment meted out by Heaven alone.

    3. A therapist who interviewed some of the victims involved said that the tendency is to believe the testimonies of the victims, because 22 independent cases of women, girls, and even young men could not be the results of some sort of collusion to defame Chaim Walder.

      The function of Rabbi Eliyahu's "beis din" was more to gather evidence, rather than to pass actual judgement.

    4. A therapist who interviewed some of the victims involved said that the tendency is to believe the testimonies of the victims, because 22 independent cases of women, girls, and even young men could not be the results of some sort of collusion to defame Chaim Walder

      I personally find it very unlikely that among 22 alleged victims (let alone hundreds as some claim) nobody but nobody reported to police.

    5. Which just goes to show that you understand nothing about abuse victims.

    6. "I personally find it very unlikely that among 22 alleged victims (let alone hundreds as some claim) nobody but nobody reported to police."

      According to their testimony, that's exactly the pressure that was put on them: "If you go to the police, I'll deny the whole thing. I'll reveal all of the schmutz that I know about your children! You'll never be able to live down the shame. You'll never succeed in marrying your kids off!"
      When 3 gathered up the courage to publicize, the other 19 cases also did also.

  10. Walder did commit adultery as attested by Beis Din documents and there was the tape and the suicide. Not innocent.

    1. Adultery (which is still very horible) is not sexually abuse. And in the note he allegedly left, he maintained his innocence.

    2. Adultery with a client(s) that come to seek counselling and taking advantage of their vulnerability is not your grandfather's adultery.

    3. The phone conversation is authentic.

  11. Since this a trend to destroy markers and the like, my humble suggestion is to exhume the bodies, and throw in a burner without ceremony or give them to predators in the wild. All of their property destroyed, their memory erased, illegal to mention them in speech, print, etc. In this way, you can effectively put an unpopular persons memory down the memory hole. Saville even if they deface the marker, etc people will still know the grave is there. It is just for show. Exhume the body and dispose of it in secret and raze the grave.

  12. doo wop rebbe since charedi claimes to be far moral than secular an outrageos act by them or any dati is therefore much worse

  13. since charedim claim to be far more ethical an outrageous ac is therefore much worse

  14. On the day of his hakamas matzeivah a private library in Bnei Brak took all of his books and burned them in front of his grave.

  15. "and sang praises of his holy life"

    Nah, they didn't. Or if they did, they didn't know him at all. He was a genius, a master builder of arguably the best school in town, an mega-able administrator, educator and head hunter, and some other qualities I can't remember right now. That's plenty, --but not other things. This is just a quibble, but in context a bit significant too.

  16. "This admission of breach of trust will never be admitted in the pages of charedi newspapers and magazines.

    "The Torah is adamant that evil must be punished and publicly denounced. This is just one of the ways in which mainstream institutions in the charedi community go against the Torah."

    I think the chareidi approach is more nuanced. Though chareidim denounced RNK & RDYL during their lifetimes, their passings were noted positively, & in the case of RNK, extensively, in the American Yated, with all the criticism hushed up and absented. These were the "nisht unzereh". So with the various "unzereh" villians they did the same. I'm not addressing the overall issue of covering for sinners, only about what gets into newspapers and magazines.


Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Tech Tzorress

It has come to my attention that there is a problem with the mailing system for my blog posts. A number of people have been spontaneously de...