Would You Rather Work For A Man Or A Woman?

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

The Disney years (beginning 8/5/95) at KABC radio were not a happy time for Dennis Prager, nor almost anyone at the station. New program director Maureen Lesourd called him in to reprove him for using the word “thesis. Use view, theory, not thesis.” He had similar run-ins. He was ordered to talk about the Eddie Murphy picking up a transvestite hooker story and he refused, saying it was gossip. A religious Jew is not allowed to gossip.

“Everybody hated it when Disney took over,” said a former KABC employee to me. “[Program director] George Green left after running the show for about 35 years. Maureen Lesourd came in. Nobody liked her. She lasted 18 months. ‘Synergy’ is the word for Disney. It means that everybody supports everybody. It means that everybody is a tool for everybody. Disney only bought ABC as an outlet for their programming.

“It was a smaller, more friendly company, before Disney bought it. Then it became just another arm of a huge corporation.”

On his radio show April 26, 2010, Dennis said: “I have a story about the word ‘thesis.’ This is a true radio story. I’m not sure that even my two spouses (Sue and Prager’s producer Allen Estrin) know this.

“When I was with my first station, I was with ABC in Los Angeles for 17 years. I have only warm feelings for those years.

“When Disney took over ABC, it decided that the only thing that mattered were ratings. And so they put in a general manager at the station who said, ‘None of this high-quality talk stuff. We’ve got to go down in the gutter.’

“It was a very bad period. I thought I’d be let go because I wasn’t prepared to do everything this woman wanted me to talk about. It was a very tense time. She left eventually. I stayed.

“I once used the word ‘thesis’. I was called in to the program director’s office. He said, ‘Dennis, I was listening to you today and you used the word ‘thesis.’

“I remember thinking, what could possibly be wrong with that? Did he think I used the word ‘feces’?

“He said, ‘Dennis, that is too highfalutin a word. If you want really high ratings, you don’t use the word ‘thesis.’

“Whenever I have used the word on the radio since then, I see this program director in front of me. ‘Dennis, no, don’t use the word ‘thesis’.”

On his show Aug. 29, 2011, Dennis said: “I am surrounded by good men, folks. I’d rather be surrounded by good women but you can’t have everything. Actually, that’s not true. I don’t have a preference.

“I think that both men and women would rather work with men…

“Who would you rather work with and for? I had a female boss once in my life. She was the head of a previous station. It was a horror. She wanted me to lower in every way the level of the show. To speak about sex scandals in Hollywood. That was the big one. I’ll never forget. It was the only time in my life in 29 years of broadcasting that I thought I might be fired because I said no.”

Posted in Dennis Prager | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Would You Rather Work For A Man Or A Woman?

Jerusalem Post Fires Larry Derfner For Justifying Terrorist Attack On Israelis

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Larry Derfner is a far-left Israel-hating writer who has frequently contributed to the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles.

How could an Israel-hater contribute to the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles? Because the Jewish Journal is a leftist publication and the left is home to most of the hatred of Israel today.

JTA reports: The Jerusalem Post fired senior reporter Larry Derfner after he penned a controversial blog post justifying terrorist attacks against Israelis.
The post, titled “The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror,” appeared on a personal blog Derfner shares, Israel Reconsidered. It stoked a firestorm of controversy in Israel for appearing to justify the recent terrorist attack near Eilat, which left eight Israelis dead. It was later deleted from the blog.
“Whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile the ideology was, they were justified to attack,” Derfner wrote, according to text from the blogcited Sunday by Jerusalem Post columnist Isi Liebler.
“But while I think the Palestinians have the right to use terrorism against us, I don’t want them to use it, I don’t want to see Israelis killed, and as an Israeli, I would do whatever was necessary to stop a Palestinian, oppressed or not, from killing one of my countrymen,” Derfner wrote in his original post. “What’s needed very badly, however, is for Israelis to realize that the occupation is hurting the Palestinians terribly, that it’s driving them to try to kill us, that we are compelling them to engage in terrorism, that the blood of Israeli victims is ultimately on our hands, and that it’s up to us to stop provoking our own people’s murder by ending the occupation.”

Posted in Israel, Jewish Journal, Jewish Journalism | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Jerusalem Post Fires Larry Derfner For Justifying Terrorist Attack On Israelis

When You Watched News Coverage Of Hurricane Irene, You Realized How Secondary FEMA Is

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Bill Kristol made this point on Fox News this afternoon. State and local government have the primary response to disasters.

I suppose FEMA was particularly needed in New Orleans because so many people there were sucking on the welfare teat and had gotten used to having the government take care of them. They were feeble when it came to take care of themselves. State and local government in Louisiana was incompetent and corrupt and inadequate to the situation.

I contrast this with the fires in San Diego a few years ago when people banded together and largely took care of themselves.

Did you feel reassured on Saturday when President Obama flew back from Martha’s Vineyard to take control at FEMA headquarters. Hurricane Irene was milder than Katrina. Must be to Obama’s credit!

What extraordinary intellectual powers was Obama applying when he sat at the FEMA desk, asks Charles Krauthammer.

In Obama’s campaign, he promised to slow the rise of the oceans.

Dennis Prager: It shocks me that Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo were proud of what they did. Has the New York subway ever been shut down? They closed the bridges and tunnels.

“If the left believes it, I assume it is hysterical.”

Dennis Prager’s deadline for his new book on America is four days away.

Posted in Dennis Prager, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on When You Watched News Coverage Of Hurricane Irene, You Realized How Secondary FEMA Is

The Modern Orthodox – Haredi Split

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes: In Europe, every small town had a rav. Sometimes the rav was an adherent of Agudah, and other times a follower of Mizrachi. But as far as the townspeople were concerned, that didn’t matter. He was the rav and if there were halakhic questions in the town he was the one to decide them. If you were an Agudist and the rav was a Mizrachi man, when you had a halakhic question you would go to your rav. The politics of the Jewish world did not interfere when it came to halakhah. Furthermore, the various Agudat Rabbanim in Europe (and also in the U.S.) welcomed all rabbis, regardless of where one stood in the Agudah-Mizrachi dispute. In the post-World War II world, however, the haredi world has entirely changed all this and rewrote the rules. They were able to convince their followers that unless a rav follows the haredi Daas Torah he is not a reliable rav, and therefore he should not be consulted on halakhic matters. In other words, the halakhic competence of a rav was made dependant on his political outlook. This is a complete break with Jewish tradition, as it existed in Europe. While some might regard this development as simply another example of haredi “shtick”, I think it is more significant as it illustrates once again that haredi Judaism can be just as modern and revolutionary as that which it sees itself as fighting against

Posted in Haredi, Marc B. Shapiro, Modern Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Modern Orthodox – Haredi Split

Must A Kosher Home Have Two Sinks?

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Marc B. Shapiro writes: Among my children’s generation, many kids believe that there is a halakhic requirement to have two sinks. Some of these kids have literally never been to a kosher home which doesn’t have this. If they saw such a home, they would probably assume that there must be a heter for one sink, but only for those who can’t afford to redo their kitchens.

Posted in Kashrut, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Must A Kosher Home Have Two Sinks?

Are All Standard Gums Kosher?

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Yehuda Bukspan of Los Angeles has ruled that all standard gums are kosher.

Marc B. Shapiro writes: “I wonder if R. Moshe would agree with R. Yitzhak Abadi that all the standard gums (Wrigleys, Trident, etc.) are kosher.”

The kashrut organizations assume that gum needs a hashgachah. Here is what R. Zushe Blech has to say on the subject

The need for reliable Hashgacha for gum stems from many ingredient concerns. Plasticizers can be pure lard or tallow and emulsifiers are also often made from animal fats. Flavors and glycerin can also be completely non-Kosher. Even if all of the ingredients in a Kosher gum were acceptable, the equipment on which the product is made requires a Kashering from non-Kosher productions. Although the gum itself is not swallowed, these fats and flavors migrate from the gum into the mouth.

See here. (What does Blech mean by “reliable Hasghacha”? Does it mean that hashgachot that disagree with his understanding are not “reliable”?)

Let’s leave flavors out, as none of the flavors in the major gums are non-kosher. Let’s also leave out the issue of equipment, since this is not a real halakhic concern (as anyone who has ever lived in a place other than Israel and America, and thus has to buy foods without hashgachah, is well aware.) The issue is glycerin, emulsifiers etc. I don’t understand why this should be a problem. Even assuming that it is forbidden to swallow these things as part of a food, why would it be prohibited to simply chew on these tasteless items? Is there any kashrut problem when my son chews on his pigskin baseball glove while waiting patiently for a ball to be hit to him?

Posted in Kashrut, Marc B. Shapiro, R. Yehuda Bukspan | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Are All Standard Gums Kosher?

Stories About Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes: For another such story, see p. 20 where he records how R. Moshe told a certain Rosh Yeshiva that it was inappropriate for him to refuse to be mesader kidushin just because there would be mixed seating at the wedding. See also p. 22 that R. Moshe refused to write a letter to the judge on behalf of one who was to be sentenced for drug dealing. R. Moshe told the criminal’s father that his son damaged people’s lives and therefore “Let him sit in prison.” On p. 28 he quotes R. Moshe’s positive view of R. Kook. On p. 73 he quotes R. Moshe that a male massage therapist can massage a woman if he does not have a continuing professional relationship with her (!), a man can cut a woman’s hair, and a male teacher or principal can be present when girls in the school sing as the assumption is that he is involved with other things and not paying attention.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, R. Moshe Feinstein | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Stories About Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

Orthodox Views On The Zohar

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Here’s more about the Zohar.

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

In the next issue of Milin Havivin, I deal with Orthodox views of the Zohar. In the meantime, I was surprised to find that R. Berel Wein describes the Zohar in an unsympathetic manner. Although some may claim that Wein was only presenting the history, his less than reverential attitude towards the book comes across very clearly, even if he didn’t consciously intend this. See the video here.

For another surprising piece by Wein (called to my attention by Mel Barenholtz), see here.

Wein describes Midrash as “legend.” While this might be a term used by academics (and is in the title of Louis Ginzberg’s great work), the Yeshiva World has always rejected the word as a proper description. Wein’s entire article can be seen as a reflection on the fact that rabbis, in their sermons, quote all sorts of Midrashim as if they are historical, which they are of course not. So what value do these “legends” have, and why should we use them to fill in the “missing parts” of the biblical text? That is the question Wein deals with.

In fact, Wein’s entire article, with its demand for truth in history and the need to abandon fantasy, is the sort that in today’s day and age could generate a herem. Here, for example, is one very provocative sentence: “Many times legend becomes myth. Myth is a sense of human recognition that the story being told is not factual but it nevertheless changes legend from history or biography into literature and philosophy – sometimes sacred holy literature and philosophy.” (emphasis added). And how about this paragraph, which uses the word “mythology,” certainly knowing the knee-jerk reaction it will provoke among people.

The Torah does not deal with myth per se. Yet the Flood and Noah’s ark, the Tower of Babel, the centrality of the land of Israel, factual as they all are in the biblical narrative, nevertheless were all combined to create a basis for the holy mythology of the Jewish people. In addition, the idea that the “events of the works and decisions of our founders, the fathers of Israel, are a sure guidepost for their descendants” helped strengthen a mythology that binds the Jewish generations together and gives us insights into the values of Judaism and historical events, past and present (emphasis added).

In speaking of the Flood, Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel, Wein states that they are factual “in the biblical narrative.” Does this mean to imply that they are really not historical events, but it is only in the biblical narrative that they are regarded as factual? Since these events, Wein tells us, are among the great myths of Judaism, and he just finished telling us that myth is not factual, this seems to be what he is saying.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, R. Berel Wein | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Orthodox Views On The Zohar

When Do You Report Child Abuse?

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

After my previous post on ultra-Orthodox tolerance of sexual abuse, there were some who doubted that there is any rabbinic support for this. Those who can read Hebrew, please read the following responsum from R. Menasheh Klein, Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 16, pp. 169-171.

…According to Klein, there is never a time when sexual abuse can be reported to the police, even if a child is being continuously raped. That is because there are never two male witnesses who see the abuse. If someone does report the abuse, it is a mitzvah to kill the moser. If anyone has a difficult time understanding why a segment of the hasidic world time and again offers support for the perpetrator and ostracizes the victim, this is all the explanation you need. From their perspective, the victim who goes to the police is worse than the sexual abuser. Based on Klein’s understanding, I don’t think there is a “heter” for a woman who has been raped by a Jew to go to the police, because there is no halakhic evidence of a crime. (He also says that it is forbidden to turn in a murderer. In case anyone needs to be reminded how crazy this viewpoint is, I am writing these words only a few hours after the monster who killed Leiby Kletzky was identified.)

A friend insists that there is no difference between Klein’s position and that of Agudat Israel. This is not true at all. Whereas Klein states that someone can never be turned in to the police, the Agudah position is that a molester can be turned in, but only after a rabbi gives approval. The Agudah position continues to develop, and I have no doubt that in the end the Agudah will end up holding a position identical to that of the RCA. I also think that it is public pressure that will move Agudah in this direction, as public pressure has been responsible for all the adjustments in the Agudah’s position that we have seen until now.

Yet even without public pressure, the current Agudah position is so untenable, that it will have to be updated. For one, it asks people to violate the law. The law is clear that some people are obligated to contact the police when they suspect child abuse. By insisting that a rabbi be consulted before doing so, mandated reporters are being put in the position of being told by a rabbi to refrain from doing something that the law requires. Do the Agudah constituents realize that listening to the rabbi in these circumstances can open them up to both criminal and civil penalties?

As for the rabbis, I can’t imagine who would agree to be on the Agudah’s panel of rabbis that will examine accusations of abuse in order to determine if it is permitted to go to the police. If one of these rabbis rules that the evidence is not compelling and it is therefore forbidden to go to the police, and the rabbi is wrong, he opens himself (and the mandated reporter) to a lawsuit by the parents of the molested child. Whatever the ultimate verdict, the lawyer fees alone will end up bankrupting the rabbi. Is the Agudah prepared to set up a fund to defend rabbis sued by parents of molested children? Certainly not, which is why no rabbi who is thinking straight will ever agree to put himself in such a circumstance. The Agudah’s position also leaves the organization itself vulnerable to a lawsuit by parents of victims.

Finally, unlike so many of the cynics in our community, I don’t think the Agudah position is all about protecting rabbis, guilty or not. I really do believe that the Agudah recognizes that there is a problem. It is convinced that the rabbis it will charge with examining abuse cases will indeed make sure that molesters are turned in. The problem, however, is that we have seen all this before. We have seen over and over again that it is precisely the rabbis who have failed in this matter, often because they are not willing to turn on their own. It was precisely because of this that the community of laypeople rose up and said “No more.” One doesn’t need to be a prophet to see that by relying on individual rabbis to determine if an accusation of sexual abuse is credible, there will continue to be cover-ups. (Am I wrong in assuming that these cover-ups never would have happened if women were in charge? Would mothers ever have permitted child molesters to continue to prey on the young?)

The Agudah position is thus both a public relations and legal disaster in the making. The Church tried such an approach already and it doesn’t work. I don’t understand why such smart people in the Agudah don’t see how their new position is doomed to failure.
[5] See here where I attribute the rabbinic silence to the money Tropper was handing out. I also brought proof that even great rabbis are not immune to being influenced by money. Regarding this point, see the recent biography of R. Zvi Pesach Frank written by Shabbetai Dov Rosenthal, Geon ha-Hora’ah (Jerusalem, 2011),, vol. 1, pp. 410-411. A letter from R. Frank is published in which he criticizes members of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate (of which he was a member). The subjects of his criticism were gedolei Yisrael, and yet he accuses them of being improperly influenced by Israeli government money.

Posted in Abuse, Agudath Israel, Marc B. Shapiro | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on When Do You Report Child Abuse?

Murder For Pious Reasons

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

What is new is that parents are now beginning to stand up. Here is a passage from a nineteenth-century memoir from which we see that in the past even murder was covered up. (The case described is definitely not manslaughter, which is what is described in Makkot 2:2 and Rambam, Hilkhot Rotzeah u-Shemirat ha-Nefesh 5:6. Incidentally, the latter two sources are only speaking about a society in which teachers were permitted to hit the students, and have no applicability today vis-à-vis most of the Orthodox world.)

One of the angry teachers I mentioned was nicknamed David with the tangled hair, as his head was covered with a mass of knotted hair. He was hot-tempered and frightening, and often came to within an inch of killing a pupil. When particularly enraged, he would lift a child up and ferociously throw him to the ground, so that he landed like a corpse. That actually did happen once. After the funeral the parents of the deceased never dared accuse him of murdering their child. They accepted it as preordained that their son should die while learning Torah, and so did the rest of the community. No one considered the melamed a murderer. Even the sons of M.S. who made it their business to ferret out sinners in the town, in order to cause strife and contention, kept silent on this matter, and David the melamed kept on teaching as if nothing had happened.

Yekhezkel Kotik, Journey to a Nineteenth-Century Shtetl (Detroit, 2002), p. 145. On p. 431, David Assaf, the editor, calls attention to a different memoir which tells of a child dying as a result of his melamed’s beating. On p. 145, Kotik also speaks of another melamed who “would take all his anger out on that particular part of the boy’s anatomy that is generally not mentioned in print.”

(In some segments of the hasidic world the cover-ups unfortunately also continue. Had the New Square madman succeeded and killed the five people in the house he was intent on burning down, does anyone think that the community would have assisted the police in finding the murderer? In a future post I will mention cases of murder and attempted murder carried out for “pious” reasons.)

Posted in Abuse, Marc B. Shapiro | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Murder For Pious Reasons