Search Results for: ABUSE

I quote from the Business Halacha Institute:

An elderly gentleman spends the final years of his life in a nursing home. In his will, which was drafted shortly before his death, he left a significant bequest to a member of the staff that cared for him during his final days. His family was, naturally quite upset, and suspected that the staff member had abused their position of power and influence over the increasingly feeble patient. What are the Halachic factors involved in asserting claims of undue influence?

…

What emerges is that undue influence is a very weak halachic argument. In contrast, there are very significant legal protections concerning undue influence, and it is a very prominent aspect of many will contests. The reason for this disparity of treatment arises from the very basis of choshen mishpat versus civil law. Civil law incorporates values- to the extent that it seems unfair to allow a person with a position of power to wield that power for their personal benefit over those that are helpless to resist, civil law creates limits and protections to prevent such scenarios. In contrast, Choshen Mishpat focuses on strict rights and obligations, without incorporating outside factors and considerations. While there is certainly a concept of acting Lifnim Meshuras Hadin that requires us to act in a fair and equitable manner, the actual halachos that define people’s rights are narrowly constructed. The parties, and to a limited extent Bais Din, should add these yashrus considerations to their behaviors, but the fundamental rights and obligations are generally unchanged by the ethical considerations. (emphasis mine)

I could not put it better myself (which is why I quoted them).

Did you know the Charedi ‘Gedolim’ still support him? See this old article from Rationalist Judaism; nothing has changed.

Who is Elior Chen? Read this.

See this:

In 2010 I wrote Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita a letter asking if he really signed on a letter supporting an indicted child abuser. He replied that he signs on whatever his own Rabbis sign on. His handwritten response can be seen on this blog here. I subsequently sent Rav Chaim a letter respectfully challenging his reliance on his Rav and his issuing decisions based on incomplete knowledge of the situation. I quoted Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky as saying: “דעת תורה אהין דעת תורה אהער דער פאקטס מוז מין העב’ן”, and the following from Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, the Seredei Aish, who wrote:

יודעים אנו על פי הניסיון כי מסביב לכיסאו של אדם גדול שורצים ורבים בריות שפלות, מין רמשים קטנים, אשר קטנותן תהיה להן למבטח כי לא תֵראנה ולא תִמצאנה, ועל כן יכולות הן, בהאפילן על עצמן בטליתו של ה”גדול”, לעשות כמעשה הרמש, ולרדוף אחרי כל אדם ישר באין כל סכנה לנפשן. ויש לפעמים אשר אנשים ישרים נפגעים על ידי גאון מפורסם מבלי הבין את חטאתם ופשעם, כסבורים הם שזאת היא “עקיצת עקרב” ומתמרמרים על הגאון, בעוד שבעיקר הדבר אין זאת אלא “נשיכה של שועל” היוצא מבית קודשי הקודשים של גאון, או לחישת נחש המתחמם בחיקו…” (מתוך ספר לפרקים)

The previous Bostoner Rebbe has said the current approach to unfiltered internet abuse is wrong. The observant community needs to help sufferers seek treatment and rehabilitation, just like with any other addiction (such as alcohol); not ban users from the community or synagogue.

But then why did he not seek to ameliorate the Israeli anti-drug laws, too, shifting from the criminalization model to the medical care one? I’ll tell you why. He doesn’t care about the Jewish public at large, that’s why. The Bostoner Rebbe’s community would not contain many drug addicts. The Rebbe was sincerely thinking about the good of his own congregants, without Status-Quo Bias (while all those Rabbis who disagree/d with him on the ‘Moetzes’ were not even doing that much!).

Charedim lack what Feiglin calls the ‘Leadership mentality’, and always have.