The Great Controversies Of The Chofetz Chaim

The Chofetz Chaim was a European Orthodox rabbi who lived at the turn of the last century. According to Wikipedia: “Yisrael Meir (Kagan) Poupko (Dziatłava, 1838 – Radun’, 1933), known popularly as The Chofetz Chaim, was an influential Lithuanian Jewish rabbi of the Musar movement, a Halakhist, posek, and ethicist whose works continue to be widely influential in Jewish life. His surname, Poupko, is not widely known.”

The rabbi’s most famous book is known as the Chofetz Chaim (Desiring Life) and it is against gossip. Like many leading rabbis, Yisrael Meir became known by the name of his leading publication.

In his first lecture on R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk for Torah in Motion, history professor Marc B. Shapiro says: The Mishna Brura (the most influential commentary today on daily Jewish law for Ashkenazi Jews compiled by the Chofetz Chaim) only became canonical in the last 30 years.

R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk attacked the Chofetz Chaim at a rabbinic meeting in 1910. R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk said the meeting was only for congregational rabbis.

Various rabbis made fun of the book Chofetz Chaim. The Chazon Ish is said to have made fun of the Chofetz Chaim book on gossip. “Even if these stories are not accurate, that they are told in the yeshiva world shows that this is an ethos that great rabbis shared.”

Chazon Ish said the Chofetz Chaim did not know what he was talking about in this book.

According to his critics, the Chofetz Chaim created halacha (Jewish law) out of mussar (ethical exhortations, frequently extreme). That he took aggadic (stories) things and turned them into halacha. That he took ethical statements and turned them into Jewish law.

“I don’t know today if anyone would have the courage to say something like that [to make these criticisms of the Chofetz Chaim book].”

Marc Shapiro emails to correct my flawed early version of this blog post: “I was asked what the Chazon Ish thought of the book called Chofetz Chaim, which is a book about Lashon Hara. That is what the Chazon Ish is said not to have liked, not the person known as the Chofetz Chaim. The Chazon Ish thought the world of the person the Chofetz Chaim, and also his book Mishneh Berurah. But he wasn’t such a fan of the BOOK Chofetz Chaim.”

According to the Chofetz Chaim, no gossip is permitted, even between husband and wife. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach thought differently.

Today, the Chofetz Chaim is the last word in these matters and that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach would have the temerity to tell yeshiva students that they don’t have to listen to the Chofetz Chaim, that’s a bit difficult in the yeshiva world today and so they removed it [from a haredi publication of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach].

According to Rabbi Jacob Emden, you could say Lashon Hara (gossip) about anyone who was your enemy. I guess this is a justification for all the Lashon Hara he tells in his own books.

There are all sorts of heterim (permissions) for Lashon Hara. The Meiri says that if you say it publicly, it is not Lashon Hara. There are all sorts of views out there by great rabbis. Then the Chofetz Chaim codified Judaism’s teachings on gossip and made it appear as though Judaism had a universal prohibition on speaking ill of others.

If you read the writings of the great rabbis, almost all of these gadolim violate the laws of the Chofetz Chaim (Desiring Life). Of course, these great rabbis do not think they are saying Lashon Hara. They believe the target of their enmity deserves it. If their target is doing bad things, then they deserve.

It’s depressing. For many of these rabbis, it’s just a personal weakness, though none of them would admit it. They’d say they are exposing hypocrites as the Talmud commands.

Related link.

Posted in Gossip, Hafetz Hayim, Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on The Great Controversies Of The Chofetz Chaim

Marc Shapiro: Hershel Schachter’s Books Are Interesting

In his first lecture on R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk for Torah in Motion, history professor Marc B. Shapiro says: Hershel Schachter’s books are very interesting. The halachic stuff is great. Unfortunately, so much of the history is garbled. Rav [J.B.] Soloveitchik made a number of mistakes with history. His son Rav Haym Soloveitchik mentioned this as a reason for not republishing some of J.B.’s things.

Posted in Hershel Schachter, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Marc Shapiro: Hershel Schachter’s Books Are Interesting

If I Had A Job, Today Would Be Hump Day

My friend Daniel says: “If you had a job, every day would be hump day.”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on If I Had A Job, Today Would Be Hump Day

The Next Susan Boyle

Only the hardest heart won’t shed a tear here:

Posted in Music | Comments Off on The Next Susan Boyle

How Do You Run A Modern State According To Jewish Law?

In his sixth lecture on R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinksi for Torah in Motion, history professor Marc B. Shapiro says: According to Rav Nissim of Girona (aka The RaN) says that in our Jewish system, there are two types of governance — Torah law and the law of the king. Take a look at how difficult it is to convict people in Jewish law. You have to have two witnesses. The perpetrator needs to be warned. How do you run a state like this? How do you put people in jail? Every single person in jail would not be in jail by Torah law. First, there’s no jail in Torah law. None of these people were warned before committing their crime.

According to Wikipedia: “Nissim ben Reuven (1320–1376, Hebrew: נסים בן ראובן) of Girona, Catalonia was an influential talmudist and authority on Jewish law. He was one of the last of the great Spanish medieval talmudic scholars. He is also known as the RaN (ר”ן, the Hebrew acronym of his name).”

Marc: The standard view is that the Beit Din has the authority to do whatever they want to do as an emergency measure. There’s a famous case in the Talmud where the rabbis executed someone for riding a horse on Shabbos even though that’s only a rabbinic prohibition. To establish Torah law, the rabbis are allowed to break with Torah law and to do extra-judicial measures. The Beit Din can do what it needs to do. That’s the way Jewish society worked in medieval time. All sorts of punishments were given to people that were forbidden by Torah law.

The RaN said that Torah law and real law (law of the king) operate in different spheres. According to Torah law, you need two witnesses to convict someone but the law of the king can set up any proof it wants. The king sets up a parallel legal system.

You could conclude that Torah law is only meant as some theoretical law. It is clearly impossible to run any sort of society based on Torah law. It’s almost law for a messianic society and not meant for the real world.

The RaN is not talking about emergency measures. He’s talking about a complete parallel legal system. Many people aren’t aware of this. They think that if you don’t have at least two witnesses warning someone, you can never convict. I think this is a disgrace to the Torah because it makes people think that Jewish law can not function in the real world.

If someone has half a brain and they’re in yeshiva and learning all the laws and that’s all they’re told about how a Jewish system will function, they will have to conclude that Jewish law is not suitable for a real society. How can you have a society where you can’t send criminals to jail?

Obviously Jewish law can function in a real society. It has functioned in a real society. If you want to know how Jewish law has functioned in a real society, look at the responsa literature. There you see what Jewish societies did with criminals. They did what they needed to do. Some punishments were quite barbaric. Cutting off noses. Yitzhak Baer discusses this in his book A history of the Jews in Christian Spain. The Tzitz Eliezer has a great teshuva on how Jewish law functioned and how the courts were able to punish people. Simha Assaf has an entire book, Punishments after the close of the Talmud.

Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog naively believed that Israel’s criminal law could be run according to Jewish law.

R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinksi writes back to Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog that you have to use the RaN’s conception.

If I were to go in to most shuls and to talk to people, even learned Torah scholars, and say that Jewish law was not practical and that if we had a state, we’d have to punish people in non-Torah ways, they’d say I’m a heretic. The amount of ignorance on this issue about how Jewish society has functioned and how leading rabbis have said it should function. I don’t know any area where there is such ignorance.

Posted in Israel, Jews, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on How Do You Run A Modern State According To Jewish Law?

How Much Loyalty Should Jews Have To A Gentile State?

In his sixth lecture on R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinksi for Torah in Motion, history professor Marc B. Shapiro says: For us today, if, say, the United States instituted some anti-Semitic decrees, we would all assume immediately that we no longer need to be loyal to it. It is no longer a valid government. Therefore, the law of the land is no longer binding on the Jew. And yet that would be incorrect.

Until the past century or so, every government in history was anti-Semitic to greater or lesser extent and no one ever said that the Gentile law of the land was not law to the Jew. The Jewish law that the Gentile law of the land (as practiced, not just theory or law on the books) is law to the Jew was developed under the Greeks and the Romans, terribly anti-Semitic governments.

According to the Shulchan Aruch, even if the government taxes Jews more than non-Jews, this is still binding on the Jew, unless the tax differential is excessive or the Gentile government started confiscating our property.

If this discrimination happened today, some Modern Orthodox poskim would probably rule that such laws are not binding on the Jew because in the modern era, we have more appreciation of human rights.

The Gerrer rebbe suggested bribing the Nazis.

Posted in Jews, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on How Much Loyalty Should Jews Have To A Gentile State?

Yisroel Pensack: None Dare Call It Conservadox

Practically around the corner from where I live is a big old synagogue called Congregation Chevra Thilim that describes itself as “San Francisco’s oldest Orthodox congregation.”

Chevra Thilim is currently undergoing a $1.6-million, months-long renovation, upgrade and expansion of its social hall building, which is immediately behind, contiguous with and connected to the congregation’s sanctuary building. The two structures are virtually, if not literally, under one roof. There is also a separate classroom building on the congregation’s property that is presently being used as a non-Jewish school which is located some distance behind the sanctuary-social hall structure and not contiguous with it. That school building is not part of the upgrade project.

Plans to renovate, partially redesign and upgrade both Chevra Thilim’s sanctuary and social hall were first announced during Yom Kippur services in September, 2009. The work now underway on the social hall is the first stage of that project.

Primarily for personal health reasons, I had stayed away from Chevra Thilim since last November when the partial demolition and construction work began, but I did drop in briefly on Purim night and I attended services there the Shabbat morning before last, March 17.  That day happened to be the 23rd of Adar on the Jewish calendar, the day Moses and the Children of Israel first erected the Tabernacle, or portable Temple,  in the wildnerness after the exodus from Egypt. The Torah reading for that morning was portions Vayakhel and Pekudei. We learn from portion Vayakhel that in general, even work on the Tabernacle was not to be done on Shabbos, despite the sanctity and importance of that structure.

I was surprised to see from the sidewalk as I approached Chevra Thilim that Shabbat morning that workers were working on the building. From inside the sanctuary, workers in hard hats could be seen and heard through “frosted” windows walking alongside the shul to and from the work area located toward the rear of the building. That night after Shabbos, I sent this email to the rabbi’s email address with “UNSUBSCRIBE” in the subject line:
Please remove me from Chevra Thilim’s email and regular mailing lists. In addition to other serious religious issues at Chevra Thilim, I saw today that, contrary to this morning’s Torah portion, you are building your shul building’s social hall, etc. on Shabbos, despite your previous announcement that the shul building’s social hall, etc. would not be being built on Shabbos because that is prohibited by Jewish law.

I do not wish to have any direct personal connection to or with any non-Orthodox shul as an institution, nor have I had any such connection for almost 30 years.  I have absolutely no interest in Reform, Conservative or Conservadox “Judaism” or their “Temples” — with or without a mechitzah.

In my opinion, Chevra Thilim is 100 percent Conservadox, and so are you personally.

Jewish law prohibits Jews from building on the Sabbath. The issue in this instance is whether gentiles working for a gentile contractor can work and build on Jewish-owned property on the Sabbath, and, in particular, whether gentiles can build a synagogue’s social hall on the Sabbath.

In a 2008 article titled “Building on Shabbos,” Gil Student, a Yeshiva University-trained Orthodox rabbi and blogger has written that

A Jew is not allowed to ask a gentile to perform forbidden labor on Shabbos. If a Jew can’t do it, he can’t have a gentile do it for him. However, if the Jew pays the gentile for a project rather than by the day, then the gentile can choose whether he wants to do it on Shabbos. For example, if a dry-cleaner cleans your clothes on Shabbos, it doesn’t matter because it is his choice to do that work on Shabbos and you are only paying by the suit and not hourly or daily wages.

An exception to this is property work. Because people know who owns property, a gentile cannot do work on a Jew’s property on Shabbos even if he is being paid by the project. People will not know about the payment arrangement and might assume the worst. Because of this potential for suspicion and confusion — chashad, the law is very strict about gentiles working on Jewish property on Shabbos. This is all explained in Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 242.

When the prevalent practice in a community is to pay workers by the project, then there would seemingly be no concern of chashad because everyone would assume that the workers on someone’s property are being paid by the project, which is permissible. The Mishnah Berurah (242:7) quotes the Taz who prohibits this, R. Akiva Eiger and the Peri Megadim who permit it, and concludes that you should be strict regarding a house. In other words, you may not hire gentile workers to work on your house on Shabbos.

However, R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:35) argues strongly against the Mishnah Berurah and claims that, in theory, this should be entirely permissible. He is not even concerned with guests from out of town who might not be faimilar with the community’s practice of paying workers by the project because today it is so common throughout the country, if not the world. However, for explicit public policy reasons he does not allow this.

It’s important to note that the Gil Student article and the opinions cited in it are addressing the general issue of gentiles doing work on a Jew’s property on the Sabbath but apparently are not specifically addressing the situation at Chevra Thilim where workers are building a synagogue social hall on the Sabbath which in my non-expert, layman’s opinion, should call for even greater halachic strictness than ordinary Jewish-owned property such as a home or business. Apart from purely halachic considerations, das passt nisht (it is unseemly); it simply doesn’t jibe with the concept of Shabbos and is entirely inappropriate, in my view.

Student in his article cites exigent circumstances which elicited a lenient ruling from the halachic authority known as the Chasam Sofer on the question of hiring gentiles to work on Jewish houses in war-torn Pressburg in the mid-1800s in Europe. According to Student, “Houses had been destroyed during war and there was ample work for builders. However, when Jews would insist that the builders cease work on Shabbos, they would find another house to work on and not return to finish the Jewish house. This was causing a severe housing crisis in the Jewish community.”

That is not the situation Congregation Chevra Thilim is facing, however. Nor is Chevra Thilim grappling with the problem of “hiring of a gentile contractor who uses gentile workers to build houses on Shabbos in Israel so as not to cede land into Arab hands,” another situation which Student also writes about.

Although I am speculating, it seems to me the more likely “exigent” circumstance that Chevra Thilim and its longtime rabbi, Lubavitcher chassid Shlomo Zarchi, may now be facing, if any, is that contrary to previously reported expectations (see also here), the social hall building may not be mostly completed by next September in time for Rosh Hashanah unless work on the project is performed on the Sabbath. Work was being done there last Shabbos, too, but I saw no workers there this past Sunday afternoon — their day of rest.

When I was in Chevra Thilim on March  17, a congregant told me work was being done there for approximately the previous four Sabbaths. “It’s against Jewish law!” he said. I was wondering why two other Lubavitcher rabbis who regularly worship in Chevra Thilim on Sabbath mornings — Yosef Langer, the senior official Chabad-Lubavitch shaliach (representaive) in San Francisco, and Shimon Margolin, a Russian-speaking rabbi — had apparently not objected to the Sabbath work and put a stop to it.

Shlomo Zarchi has some other unusual halachic views and practices for a chassidic rabbi. He routinely officiates in the cemetery at funerals, even though he is a kohen and the Torah generally forbids male kohanim from coming in contact with a corpse. When I asked him about that years ago he cited “meis mitzvah” (a kohen, even the high priest, can bury a human corpse if no one else can perform the burial). When I replied that meis mitzvah was not applicable to a kohen in a city like San Francisco where many Jews, including several non-kohen Orthodox rabbis are available to bury the dead, he said, “There’s a way to do it [the funeral/burial] so you don’t become tamei (ritually impure).” My guess is he’s incorrectly applying a lesson he may have “learned” by figuratively tiptoeing through the tulips to visit the grave of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, which is set up to accommodate visits from kohanim (see footnote 9 here). I further suspect there may have been an exigent circumstance of a financial, contractual, or employment-condition nature motivating the rabbi to do funerals/burials, for most people do not have a yetzer hara (evil inclination, desire or temptation) to officiate at burials.

I’ve never heard of any other supposedly Orthodox kohen rabbi who regularly officiates at funerals and burials, although the Conservative rabbi of the Conservative congregation my family belonged to in my youth was a kohen who did cemetery funerals and burials. He ultimately died — from lung cancer, I believe — at a relatively young age, leaving a widow and children, and not long after that one of his two young adult sons was killed in a car crash.

Chevra Thilim’s regular or frequent lay prayer leader apparently does not say the three politically incorrect blessings in the morning service: “…Who has not made me a gentile; …Who has not made me a slave; …Who has not made me a woman.” Rabbi Zarchi was aware of this, but the man continued to serve frequently or regularly as congregation’s prayer leader nevertheless.

Several of Chevra Thilim’s most influential lay leaders and supporters are from Conservative Congregation Beth Sholom, and some apparently maintain connections there.

I reported last November 13 that Chevra Thilim’s president David Kimel said the money needed to fund the work on the social hall building had already been raised. Subsequently, however, I was surprised to find that the congregation was still appealing for funds for the social hall project. When I then asked Rabbi Zarchi about that apparent contradiction, he told me it was not true that all the requisite money had already been raised for this phase of the project.

A local Lubavitcher rabbi recently told me Rabbi Zarchi told him I could contact or see him if I want his explanation of why work was being done on Chevra Thilim’s building on Shabbos, but in light of Gil Student’s article and other factors there is no explanation Rabbi Zarchi could possibly give me that would alter my conclusion that Chevra Thilim is essentially a Conservadox outfit operating under the mantle of supposedly chassidic (a term which normally implies ultra-religious) rabbinic leadership. Zarchi, who was born into a Lubavitch family, is the son-in-law of Orange County, California, Chabad shaliach Rabbi David Eliezrie.

Posted in Chabad, Conservative Judaism, Conservatives, Dovid Eliezrie, Judaism, Modern Orthodox, Orthodoxy, San Francisco, Synagogue, Torah, Yisroel Pensack | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yisroel Pensack: None Dare Call It Conservadox

Get Ready For Female Modern Orthodox Rabbis

Historian Marc B. Shapiro writes:

Leaving aside the issue of serving as a dayan, it is obvious to me that women rabbis are coming to Modern Orthodoxy, even if the powers that be are standing firmly against it. Yet they have already let the genie out of the bottle. By sanctioning advanced Torah study for women, there is no question that the time will come when there will be women scholars of halakhah who are able to decide issues of Jewish law. The notion that a woman who has the knowledge can “poskin” is not really controversial, and has been acknowledged by many haredi writers as well.[4] Very few rabbis are poskim, but every posek is by definition a “rabbi”, whether he, or she, has received ordination or not.[5] So when we have women who are answering difficult questions of Jewish law, they will be “rabbis”,[6] and no declarations by the RCA or the Agudah will be able to change matters. I am not talking about pulpit rabbis, as this position has its own dynamic and for practical reasons may indeed not be suitable for a woman. Yet as we all know, very few rabbis function in a pulpit setting, and much fewer will ever serve as a dayan on a beit din.
The reason why the issue of ordaining women has been so problematic is because the Orthodox community is simply not ready for it. Yet when women will achieve the level of scholarship that I refer to, and are already deciding matters of halakhah, then their “ordination” will not be regarded as at all controversial in the Modern Orthodox world, and will be seen as a natural progression. People will respond to this no differently than how they responded to the creation of advanced Torah institutes for women. [7] Since women were already being taught Talmud, the creation of these institutes was a natural step.
There is one more thing that needs to be added, and that is that we have not reached the point where there are women halakhic authorities.[8] I hope I won’t be accused of bashing women by pointing out the following fact, that as of 2012 not one traditional sefer, in Hebrew, written by a woman has been published. By traditional sefer I mean a halakhic work or a commentary on a talmudic tractate. I am waiting for this day, which I hope won’t be too long in the future. I also hope that a learned woman is currently working on a commentary to a tractate, even if it is one of the easier tractates such as Megillah. The point is that for women to be recognized as talmudic and halakhic authorities they will have to do exactly what the men do, and that is show the world that they are serious talmidot hakhamim. The major way to do this is through publishing.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Get Ready For Female Modern Orthodox Rabbis

Was Isadore Twersky A Rationalist Or A Mystic?

Marc B. Shapiro was Harvard professor Isadore Twersky‘s last major student.

In his fifth lecture on R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinksi for Torah in Motion, history professor Marc B. Shapiro says: If you went to Rabbi Isadore Twersky’s shul on Shabbos when he was wearing his long kaputta (black coat), you would see a Hasidic rebbe. On the other hand, if you were with him during the week like I was, you would see a rationalist. A Brisker. Which was he? His whole life was lived as a rationalist, as a Maimonidean. On his death bed, he said that if he had to do it over again, he’d be a rosh yeshiva.

“I met with him almost every day for five years and the Isadore Twersky I knew was very much a rationalist. How this works with being a Hasidic rebbe on Shabbos? I don’t know.”

“Professor Twersky could’ve been a leader of Orthodoxy in America. People confused him with Abraham Twersky. They didn’t know who he was. He was content to stay in his area (medieval Jewry). He could’ve been a scholar in residence at shuls. He could’ve written article like Rav [Aharon] Lichtenstein, putting forth his vision of Torah and modernity.”

“I didn’t go to Isadore Twersky’s shul except on rare occasions. I found it very hard to talk to him about Maimonidean stuff and then see him on Shabbos in a different mode. I didn’t know what to call him on Shabbos. During the week, I called him Professor Twersky.”

“Twersky got annoyed with me. He said I had a chip on my shoulder about the Hasidim. He said it bothered him that I was such a mitnaged. He thought I was prejudiced on behalf of the Vilna Gaon and against the Hasidim.”

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Was Isadore Twersky A Rationalist Or A Mystic?

Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival Rejects Important New Documentary About Rabbinic Sexual Abuse

How can L.A. festival chief Hilary Helstein continue after this? She’s a disgrace. How can she reject this new film recently written up in the Washington Post?

Hilary Helstein

Is Hilary right when she says this is a community that reveres its rabbis? We have more than our share of sexual predators in the rabbinate. We have a rabbi in the San Fernando Valley who does Orthodox conversions and is sexually predatory. We have Abner Weiss in Westwood. We have Joel Grishaver (not technically a rabbi, but still somebody with a past of molesting boys). We have an Orthodox rabbi on Pico Blvd with a sordid sexual past who’s had to settle sexual harassment lawsuits. In 2001, Los Angeles had three Orthodox rabbis plead guilty to sexually abusing children in separate incidents. Los Angeles hosted sexual predator Aron Tendler for decades, moving him around various positions in Orthodox Jewish life (from YULA to Shaarey Zedek). We’ve had a string of children molested at Beis Midrash Toras HaShem In North Hollywood.

Does Los Angeles revere these rabbis who either practice sexual molestation or abet it?

I don’t blame Hilary Helstein for refusing to publicly defend her indefensible actions.

Steve Karras comments on my FB: “I think that from the LAJFF’s myopic POV, the aim is to celebrate Jewish life, and not screen films that risk upsetting its benefactors. I don’t think the film maker should get his balls in an uproar over this. Festivals like these typically pass on shonda-like subjects. Did Capturing The Friedman’s play at this festival?”

JTA reports:

Producer Scott Rosenfelt, whose credits include “Home Alone” and ”Mystic Pizza,” is threatening a major Jewish film festival after its director raised concerns that Rosenfelt’s documentary about sexual abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community amounts to a “witch hunt.”

Rosenfelt sent a scathing email last week to the director of the Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival after learning that she had warned colleagues at other film festivals about “Standing Silent.”

The film, which features interviews with several victims of sexual abuse by Baltimore-area Orthodox rabbis, is slated to be screened at several Jewish film festivals across the United States. It was the subject of a lengthy feature article in The Washington Post.

In an email to Jewish film festival directors in September, L.A. festival chief Hilary Helstein wrote that while the film was well made, “Our committee felt with a community that reveres it’s [sic] rabbis this was not something they wanted to show.”

Rosenfelt called the email the “most unprofessional act” he has seen in his 35-year career.

“The idea that a festival director would go behind the back of a filmmaker and do this gives me great pause to ever recommend your festival to anyone,” Rosenfelt wrote to Helstein on March 22. “As you know, I’ve produced films such as ‘Home Alone,’ so I know a couple of people in the business. I plan on letting EVERYONE I know to stay away from you and your festival, because you are clearly not someone who supports filmmakers.”

Posted in Abuse, Rabbis | Comments Off on Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival Rejects Important New Documentary About Rabbinic Sexual Abuse