The Simon Wiesenthal Center

I love to attend events at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance because everything is done first-rate. I’ve not taken in a disappointing program yet. I’ve seen movies there and speakers and panel discussions. I’ve taken Torah classes. I’m a big fan of the YULA beit midrash. I’ve taken a lot of classes there in the evenings. I’m a big fan of many of its rabbis, including Rabbi Ari Hier, Marvin’s son who’s a motorcycle riding rebel.

Marvin Hier was called the most powerful rabbi in America by Newsweek magazine in 2008. He’s an eloquent speaker and a formidable fundraiser and organizer.

Joe emails: I was there. Rabbi Marvin Hier has not designated a successor yet. That keeps everyone in line.

The three possibilities — Rabbi Meyer H. May (RCC president), Rabbi Abraham Cooper and SWC director Liebe Geft.
Rabbi Meyer May was told to stop galavanting around Hashem’s green earth because once SWC scored $10 million in funding from the state under George Deukmejian (the greatest Jewish coup in winning support from the gentiles since scaring President Nixon into the “give me everything” resupply flights during the Yom Kippur War) dialing for survivors was deemed a much less effective use of his time.

Rabbi Meyer May was in the Yeshiva University Kollel and in social work. He started helping with SWC fundraising and bullied his way to near the top but he won’t get to the top if Rabbi Abraham Cooper has something to do with it. Abraham Cooper was an activist in Yeshiva University at the time we all protested the KGB and fought for Russian Jewry. His wife’s uncle is loaded. Meyer May and Abraham Cooper seem to hate each more then they hate Nazis. The shouting in the corridors is infamous. What is worse is the non-speaking relationship that follows. They spy on each other and make the staff’s life miserable, faulting them for siding with the one or other.

As for Janice Prager, first off, there was a much hotter gal at SWC at the time, her last name was, I kid you not, Lydia Triantopoulus – a gal with the kind of breasts King Solomon wrote about. She was Abraham Cooper’s candy. She was very close with Abe, as close as Janice Prager was with Meyer May. Lydia traveled with Abe and spoke with him.

Lydia became Director of PR. She knew how to use her breasts. She wore miniskirts and push-up bras underneath see-through blouses. She had a lot of power. She was pretty and did her job well. She was always ready to help. She was liked. She spoke openly. She was so different from them all, she was a Gentile girl who was shocked by their shticks.

(Lydia’s the author of the classic “Simon Wiesenthal: The man and his legacy“.)

Lydia worked for the SWC radio show, which to my knowledge, never existed. She was paraded through SWC to show how cool the Hiers were in appreciating fine shiksa plumage.

One day suddenly Lydia Triantopoulus was gone. No one was allowed to mention her name or to ask any questions. She was forced to resign. The details were sealed. I wonder if they made Lydia sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Dr Gerald Margolis, the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was forced to resign when a second secretary in a row complained of abuse of power and sleeping with him. He was caught once by students smooching with his secretary in the back staircase. The center settled with the secretaries for about $200,000.

Dr. Margolis moved on to Bnai Brith.

Sidney Green coached the bimbo fundraisers but the girls laughed at him behind his back.

As for Janice, realize that at the time, the YULA boys were striking out hard due to (a) the end of Bnai Akiva and sleepaway camps at which action was possible, and (b) Rav Aron Tendler making it with a few of the more eligible gals in the classes of 1986-1988. She did wear leggings before yoga became popular. She was fun to watch walk to her car.

She married a Hollywood drug user. It only lasted a few months. She kept her last name of Prager.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center became known in the community as the best little whorehouse on Pico.

There is so much more going on at SWC in terms of annuities for the Hiers and taking money much needed for Jewish day schools in favor of holocaust museums in more places than Disneyland that the sex aspect is trivial.

The LA Weekly reported July 3, 2003: “That one private museum should continue to receive such disproportionate public funding is particularly troubling in an era when federal tax cuts are driving many states toward bankruptcy and the public services they provide into oblivion. Meanwhile, according to 2001

Posted in Museum of Tolerance, R. Abraham Cooper, R. Marvin Hier, R. Meyer May | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Simon Wiesenthal Center

The Deal

From my biography of Dennis Prager:

After reading George Gilder’s book, Men and Marriage, one of the five
books he says that most influenced him, Dennis decided that he should
marry quickly. In the summer of 1980 he met the Brandeis-Bardin Institute
(BBI) nurse Janice Adelstein.

Though beautiful, Janice did not have a reputation for brilliance. "Don’t
get sick, remember who’s the nurse," was a joke at the time on campus.

Dennis and Janice married in the beginning of 1981. Two years later,
Janice gave birth to their son David.

"The [1980] election of Ronald Reagan affected my happiness,"
said Prager on his radio show March 2, 2006. "There was a chance
to turn this thing around."

In 1982, KABC general manager George Green, a secular Jew, told educator
Roberta Weintraub that he needed someone to host the public affairs Sunday
night show Religion on the Line. She suggested Prager.

"I had my first tryout on radio at KABC Radio on a Sunday night
in August, ’82," remembers Dennis, "and I was so nervous, I
was dripping [sweat]. And then, at 11 p.m., the program director [Wally
Sherwin] slips me a note, "Tell them you’ll be on next Sunday night"
— one of the happiest moments of my life, because I ached to get my ideas
out. I’m like a cow who has milk to give and I’ve been dying to give it
my whole life. So I was engaged in interfaith dialogue every Sunday night
with a priest, minister, rabbi for 10 years, and it is one of the things
that changed my life." (CSPAN Booknotes)

"I had a feeling that if I did well [on his radio debut],"
remembers Prager on his radio show January 3, 2006, "that it would
change my life."

In 1983, Prager and Telushkin published their second book: Why the
Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism
. They write in their preface: "Finally…our
thanks to Janice Prager who, despite her time-consuming work on a book
on Jewish moral values for children, was the single greatest source of
suggestions, criticisms, and morale boosting."

While running BBI, Prager gained a reputation as a strict disciplinarian
who kicked out students he found troublesome. Prager ejected musician
Sam Glaser for playing non-Jewish music. Another college student, a philosophy
major from Berkeley, was tossed for raising disruptive challenges.

This was an era when prohibitions on dating between staff and students
were considerably relaxed compared to today.

Himself not happy with strict oversight, Prager chafed under the BBI
board, frequently regarding it with contempt. Many on the board returned
his hostility.

In his speeches since working at BBI, Prager mocks his BBI board. He
tells one story of wanting to do singles weekends. Prager says the board
was shocked. What would we talk about? Prager said that knowing how the
board thought, he told them he’d take a week or two to study the matter.
Then Prager returned to the board and said they’d done a study and found
that the brains of single people were very similar to the brains of married
people. Therefore, Prager proposed a similar curricula – study of Judaism.
The board found his condescending manner obnoxious.

BBI hosted college students who would often put on skits. Shortly before
taking charge, Prager witnessed one skit that was deliberately filled
with the sounds of flatulence. Prager decided that once he took charge,
all student skits would have to be cleared before performance to make
sure they upheld Jewish norms of decency.

"[H]aving been a camp counselor and camp director for ten years,"
Prager writes on page four of his 1995 book Think A Second Time, "I
know that few things come more naturally to many children than meanness,
petty cruelty, bullying, and a lack of empathy for less fortunate peers.
Visit any bunk of thirteen-year-olds in which one camper is particularly
fat, short, clumsy, or emotionally or intellectually disadvantaged, and
you are likely to observe cruelty that would shock an adult."

In September of 1983, Prager left the Brandeis Bardin Institute. He writes
in his autobiography: "While the membership and I loved each other,
the heads of the board of directors and I did not. Indeed, I left BBI
largely because the president/chairman of the board [William Chotiner]
made life miserable for me. I occasionally reflect on where my life would
be today had he and others of the lay leadership treated me differently."
(Prager CD)

Joseph Telushkin writes on page 104 of his book Jewish Humor about Prager
and Brandeis-Bardin:

Several years ago, a friend of mine, who had directed a major Jewish
institution in California, was considering running for the U.S. Congress.
He met with a powerful Democratic congressman from Los Angeles [Henry
Waxman?], himself a very committed and active Jew, who advised him in
all seriousness: "If you’ve survived the political infighting in
Jewish life for ten years, when you make it to Congress, you’ll find
the atmosphere there much gentler."

Prager and Telushkin portray Prager’s experience at Brandeis-Bardin as
that of the marty, but some of those who had to work with Prager felt
like they were the martyrs.

While Prager claims he quit, a Jewish Journal cover story in early 1986
indicated he was pushed out. Many on the board said Prager was a lousy
administrator.

Sheldon Teitelbaum writes in the March 14, 1986 edition of the Jewish
Journal (the third issue of the paper):

At the time of Bardin’s death, [Prager] was 27 years old. According
to Dr. Victor Goodhill, a former institute vice-president, "He
was almost a small, younger Shlomo."

Prager, now a talk show host for KABC radio, says that Bardin had actually
asked him to succeed him as director of Braindeis-Bardin, mainly, he
says, "because I articulated the values he himself held — that
the Jewish role in the world is to repair it under God’s rule."
[Michael] Harris [Bardin’s assistant from 1961-71], however, argues
that, "Dennis was simply there at a time when Shlomo was most vulnerable.
He saw the end coming and he needed to pitch somebody." Prager’s
association with the institute was only a few years old and his appointment
was not to everyone’s liking. Indeed, says Goodhill, "There were
people on the board of directors who were violently opposed."

The sources of this opposition are numerous and complex. Goodhill maintains
that Prager was too young to successfully move into the slot vacated
by a man considerably his senior. As Prager himself observed, "Some
of the people on the board had children who were older than me."

But it was not simply Prager’s youth inspired controversy. Nor was
it Prager’s personal style, alternately charming and abrasive, inspired
and, some say, demagogic. Rather, implies [William] Chotiner [Brandei-Bardin’s
first president], perhaps Prager’s most vociferous critic, the issue
was nothing less than a fight for the soul and future of Brandeis-Bardin.

Chotiner’s case against Prager was based upon his conviction that the
type of Judaism Prager advocated was too rigid. If allowed to impose
his values upon Brandeis-Bardin, Prager would ultimately betray Shlomo
Bardin’s vision of the institute as a place for all Jews to enjoy. In
a sense, Prager concurs with this assessment, though he insists that
Chotiner was motivated by great personal animosity toward him."

Dennis Prager served as institute director for seven years, despite
the existence of a virtual split within the executive board as to his
efficacy. During this time, claim both Prager and his adherents, he
quadrupled the BBI membership. "I had the largest BBIs in history,"
argues Prager, "which raised more money in membership fees than
ever before. I was a superb administrator, and under my own administrator,
Bob Bleiweiss, the place ran like clockwork."

Even Prager’s opponents credit him with some accomplishments, specifically
the singles program which he initiated. But he had no staying power,
they say. "Under Dennis’s directorship," says Chotiner, "Brandeis
was a swinging door. We were picking 200 members one year and losing
150 the next." Chotiner is not alone in his contention that Prager
lacked intellectual depth. His critics argue that he was basically a
"three-speech man," and the membership grew tired of hearing
the same speeches time after time. Others grew weary of what they claim
were repeated bouts of vindictive, almost paranoid behavior by Prager.
But there are also those among Prager’s detractors who did not share
this view. Says Dr. Goodhill, "Dennis was a brilliant man. He was
also very courageous — there was never anything bashful about him.
I think that’s what bothered the older people on the board was the strong
and rather major dominance at the institute that Dennis wanted and did
exercise. We accepted that in Shlomo because it took that kind of personality
to get things going. And Dennis did have to be a one-man show!"

Unfortunately for the institute, strife and dissension within the board
over Prager’s leadership resulted in a brief but traumatic conflict,
between 1979 and 1981, over the actual decision-making process at Brandeis-Bardin,
which some called "elitist" and "un-democratic."

Prager has long despised the Jewish Journal, and regularly given vent
to his feelings on this matter publicly, usually expressed in political
terms. For example, "it is the most left-wing Jewish newspaper in
the country."

David Margolis writes
in the Jewish Journal
in December 1992:

The seven years of Prager’s tenure in Simi Valley, however, were filled
with conflict between himself and the Brandeis board, whom he accuses
of treating him "miserably." At Brandeis, Prager says now,
not without bitterness, "I learned that many Jews are uncomfortable
with paying another Jew to do something Jewish."

Or was the problem, as some board members complain, that he tried to
make BBI into an Orthodox institution? Prager acknowledges trying to
push individuals toward greater observance, in a marked change from
Bardin’s non-religious orientation that was sure to threaten and antagonize
many. But he castigates the view, which he ascribes to much of the non-Orthodox
community, that keeping kosher and not working on Shabbat define someone
as Orthodox.

Even his critics acknowledge that Prager succeeded in exciting many
young people about Jewish observance and bringing them into the Jewish
community. But that enterprise had its down side as well. He developed
"followers," explains one BBI insider during those years,
but he turned off many people by leaving no room for “intelligent disagreement.
His bullying antagonized a lot of people."

Some students back up that view of Prager as a bully. One believes he
was tossed from the institute for his vigorous and public disagreements
with Prager on intellectual matters.

Rabbi Telushkin writes about Dennis in his 1996 book, Words That Hurt,
Words That Heal
:

A friend of mine hosts a radio talk show. Although he passionately
espouses often controversial political views, he makes it a point never
to insult callers who dispute his positions. Rather, he listens carefully
to what they say, and always responds courteously. He told me that he
reads every letter from his listeners, particularly those written by
people who clearly abhor his views.

If my friend sounds unusually open to others’ criticism, that is an
acquired trait. In his early days as a public speaker, he often fended
off his critics with sarcasm, biting wit, and occasional anger.

In late 1983, Prager replaced the retiring Hilly Rose on AM 790 KABC
from seven to nine p.m. during the week (except Friday night).  Initially
the station balked at giving Dennis Friday night off, but he refused to
do the show if it would force him to violate the Sabbath.

Prager wrote a regular column for the now defunct Los Angeles Herald
Tribune. He wanted to write a weekly column for the Jewish Journal but
Editor Gene Lichtenstein thought Prager was not a good writer. Gene liked
Dennis in person but found his writing pompous.

Dennis became convinced that he was turned down because of differing
politics, even though Gene regularly published somebody far to the right
of Dennis — Orthodox Rabbi Dov Aharoni.

In 1985 Dennis launched his personal journal of thought, the quarterly
Ultimate Issues, which never quite achieved 10,000 subscribers. It became
The Prager Perspective in 1996 and folded in the year 2000. "I
wrote it because I never wanted to be edited…" (Prager CD)

In 1985 and 1986, Prager received commendations for his journal from,
among others, William F. Buckley, Richard John Neuhaus, Martin Peretz,
Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut, Rabbi Norman Lamm, and Rabbi Jakob J. Petuchowski.

Prager began selling cassette tapes and eventually VHS tapes of his lectures
through Ultimate Issues. "It was actually the Ayatollah Khomeini
who made me aware of the power of tapes. If he led an Islamic fundamentalist
revolution through tapes, I figured, why not do the same for Judaism and
ethical monotheism?" (Ultimate Issues, Jan – Mar 1991, pg. 11)

In August 1986, after visiting Afghanistan and publishing an essay about
it in Ultimate Issues, Janice initiated a divorce.

Many of Prager’s Orthodox critics whisper that the moral leader was secretly
an adulterer and philanderer and that his sexual sins caused his divorces
and his alienation from Orthodoxy.

These accusations have always been presented to me without evidence.

"Of course I am committed to it [sexual fidelity]," said Prager
on his radio show Dec. 9, 2009. "How could I do this show if I weren’t?"

On his radio show Dec. 2, 2009, Dennis Prager said: “Conservatives read
divorce statistics as an immediate indictment of the morality of a society.
I see it more as tragedy than as evil. I don’t have this image that people
just divorce at the drop of a hat. Maybe they exist. I never met them.
Everybody I know who divorced divorced after hell, after years of therapy,
of trying and hell, including me.”

Says Dennis: "The week my marriage broke up [8/86], I was fired
from my daily radio job, I had no money to speak of and was living at
my friend’s [director Jerry Zucker] house because I could not afford an
apartment." (Prager CD)

After the divorce, it appeared that some sort of arrangement was made
between the Pragers and the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC). Janice was
immediately hired as a fundraiser and in exchange Dennis agreed to speak
for the center. He had no money at the time and this helped him with the
alimony and it gave them a speaker who attracts lots of people to attend
co-sponsored events at places such as the Stephen S. Wise temple.

Janice kept her last name of Prager. She dressed provocatively in her
new role, to the delight of the YULA boys next door who’d ogle her. She
particularly favored skintight pants that left nothing to the imagination.

Rabbi Meyer May had a guy by the name of Sidney Green who would groom
Janice and the bimbo squad who worked with her. They’d dress sexy and
go to parties and try to hook in male donors. They had a list to contact.
The number one girl at this task was Janice. They would send her to Palm
Springs or wherever there was money to be raised. She got a paid membership
at a pricey workout place thanks to the SWC.

Janice loved to tell spicy stories about the men she met. Janice said
that prior to her marriage she worked as a nurse in a fertility facility
where her job was to distribute erotic magazines to the male patients
and then collect the semen. It appeared she was doing a very similar service
at the SWC.

Janice’s relationship with Rabbi Meyer May was close. She could walk
into his office any time without announcement or a knock on the door.
He might be heavy at work as she stuck her head in but he was always glad
to see her. She’d open herself up to him emotionally and physically, stretching
her legs out over the sofa or chair. She’d open her mouth wide and say
"Meyer, I am so thirsty." You felt like you were watching a
porn movie.

At such moments, Rabbi May would say, "I’ve had enough of work.
I want to play." And he’d stay with Janice behind closed doors.

They’d go everywhere together, including trips. At times Janice would
appear to be high. Rabbi May got extremely moody and would gain and lose
weight dramatically.

Rabbi May would change his staff like socks but Janice always stayed
and she kept getting better salary and titles.

Rabbi May never wanted to go home. His frequent flier miles exceeded
rabbis Hier and Cooper until Rabbi Marvin Hier told him to cool it.

Rabbi May would watch TV much of the day, favoring the girly crime dramas
such as Charlie’s Angels. He’d still be in his office at 1 am. At home
he did not have a TV. At home he lived like a Hasid. At work, he could
do what he liked.

At the time, Janice lived across the street from the SWC.

Realizing that something was wrong with his life, Dennis entered therapy,
which lasted almost a year, with the late psychiatrist Samuel Eisenstein.
During his few intense sessions, Dennis at one point doubled up with pain.
Another time, when he related a traumatic story from his childhood, Dr.
Eisenstein replied that he doubted the story happened the way Prager described
it. Dennis wanted to punch him. (Related by Prager at a Sabbath morning
sermon he gave at Stephen S. Wise Temple in the Spring of 1998.)

Dr. Eisenstein published this letter in the Oct – Dec, 1990 edition of
Ultimate Issues:

I read with great interest the article, "Judaism, Homosexuality
and Civilization." I was very impressed by the Jewish aspect of
your work and also the way you dealt with the psychological problem.
You managed to convey clearly where the issue stands at present. Of
course, there will be psychiatrists who will disagree with you, but
this usually doesn’t seem to bother you.

In the Summer 1987 edition of Ultimate Issues, Prager writes that his
four year-old son David, in the six months during which his parents separated,
became obsessed with making and shooting toy guns. David asked his dad
if there were "bad monsters." Dennis said yes. David proceeded
to kill them.

After six months, David said he did not have to kill any more bad monsters
and showed no further interest in guns and shooting.

On May 13, 1987, Janice Prager sued Dennis Prager (Case Number: D191749).

Posted in Dennis Prager | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Deal

I’m Afraid To Love You If I’m Not Positive You’re Going To Love Me Back Equally

People with a strong sense of self are less afraid to love. They don’t need to know that they will be loved back equally.

I have a weak sense of self. I find out who I am through the reactions I get from others. I write to get reactions. I say things to get reactions. I do things to get reactions.

If you take two days to call me back, I want to take at least three days to return your call.

If you don’t seem excited to see me, I don’t want to seem excited to see you.

If I am sure you are committed to me and exclusive to me, then I can be committed to you. But if you are not devoted to me, I’m not going to be devoted to you. I’m going to wander. There are so many great girls out there who will snap me up.

I see monogamy as a commitment to you. I want to see monogamy as a commitment to myself.

It’s really hard for me to love you, to be vulnerable to you, unless I can be sure that I won’t be vulnerable. That you’ll love me up.

I’m trying to put together a good life. As the pieces snap into place, I get a feeling throughout myself that I am on the right path. I’m learning to self-validate.

So if I love you more than you love me, what do I do? I write (on my blog or in my journal). I go to yoga. I talk to friends. I do Alexander Technique and keep my poise. I go to therapy. I go to shul. I go for a walk. I lose myself in a book. I listen to music. I lie in the sun. I self-soothe. I’m not totally needy. I’m not quite living life on my own two feet, but maybe I’ve got one down and planted and the other is on its way.

I hope I’m not leaning too heavily on you.

Ten more years of therapy and I’ll be right mate.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on I’m Afraid To Love You If I’m Not Positive You’re Going To Love Me Back Equally

The Return

Over the past 18 months, I spent less time in synagogue than at any point since I started going to shul regularly in the fall of 1993.

Until September 14, I was going through my Orthodox conversion to Judaism and I had so much fear that something would go wrong, I stayed away from shul to narrow my chances of disaster.

Before Rosh Hashanah, I finished the process. But I haven’t hurried back to shul.

I’ve had several reasons for this:

* Over the past year, I’ve dated women who weren’t into Orthodox Judaism. I couldn’t shlep them along to shul and I didn’t want to leave them behind. When given the choice between a hot body in the hovel and an invisible God at shul, I frequently chose to stay home.

* Getting booted from five shuls for my controversial writing took a toll on my psyche. Stepping into shul became scary. It didn’t feel like a safe place. To avoid anything going wrong with anybody, I distanced myself. I didn’t open up to many people. I didn’t engage deeply. I didn’t form many bonds.

* When forced to choose between my writing and my shul, I’ve always chosen my writing. By maintaining a fierce commitment to my blog, I’ve let other things come in second, such as a harmonious relationship with a shul.

* My best friend over the past two years got kicked out of the RCC conversion program last fall and has since moved in with a shaygetz and abandoned Judaism. I miss our friendship. It was one of the big reasons I went to shul.

* Since January, 2009, I’ve been meeting most of my communal and spiritual needs through the daily practice of yoga. I have a ton of friends at yoga. Nobody treats me like an unclean thing. I feel happy at yoga. I feel calm. I feel loving. I feel like I leave my cynical hateful side outside. Shul used to do that for me. It was a place I cleansed and dropped my defenses and became my best self. In 2009, I was most consistently my best self in yoga.

* Since January, 2009, I’ve been in Alexander Technique teacher training. Along with the yoga, this has taken most of my available energy. Too often when Shabbat rolls around, I’m exhausted and don’t want to leave the hovel.

It used to be that I went to shul because I loved the singing (the prayers) and I loved the rabbi and I loved my friends and I loved the learning and I loved the socializing. It was the high point of my week. Some stuff happened and it all went sour for me.

I found myself stuck at shuls where at least one of the above was missing. Perhaps the singing sucked. Perhaps the rabbi sucked. Perhaps I had no friends. And I hated myself and I wondered where did it all go wrong? Shul was my favorite time. I looked forward to it all week. Shul aka Stephen S. Wise temple had it all — peppy tunes, eloquent tomes, groovy chicks, inspiring rabbis, Dennis Prager. The works.

It all started going terribly wrong in early 1998 when I fell out with Prager and lost all the friends we had in common.

So now I’m going back to shul. I’m going to different shuls. And I walk in and I don’t know anyone. It’s weird. I feel like I’m back in 1993 and I’m starting my Jewish journey all over again.

I suffer from anxiety in shul. I fear connecting with people. What if they hate because of my blog? What if they just hate me?

I feel like I napalmed my first 16 years in Judaism. I had to destroy the village to save it.

Hmm. I fear that shul became a mirror I didn’t want to look in anymore.

Now I’m starting over. I shlep along a Jewish book to protect me. If I get bored, if I fear connecting with others, I’ll just open it up and start reading.

It’s hard acclimatizing myself to three hours of davening on a Shabbos morning. Just those enormous blocks of time the good Orthodox Jew spends in shul, it’s daunting. The repetitive prayers. The cliches from the bima.

Including kiddish, I lasted more than three hours this morning. Then my anxiety won out and I fled.

I went back for mincha-maariv (afternoon and evening prayers). I’m training myself to be a good Jew. I feel like my time in shul recalibrates my system so that I am more in tune with what God and Torah want from me.

It’s time to love again.

Posted in Personal, Synagogue | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Return

‘I Would Never Deliberately Do Anything To Hurt You’

That’s one of sayings I hate most because it is so dishonest.

Everybody in every relationship deliberately does things to hurt the ones they love (and hate). You can’t love someone without having a host of other emotions as well, including hate.

If you hate someone, it does not mean you can’t love them.

I hear this saying from women a lot: “I would never deliberately do anything to hurt you.”

It’s a lie.

Women are masters at appearing all sweet while simultaneously sinking their daggers into your psyche.

Until we can each acknowledge how much hatred we have for the other, we can’t make any progress.

It’s the same in all relationships. It’s true of my closest relationships with rabbis. I hated them and I loved them.

I’m loving this book “Passionate Marriage” by David Schnarch. He writes: “Disparate desire is a playground for normal marital sadism.”

Have you ever heard of the term “Mercy f—“? It is usually the woman, who has the lower desire and thus enjoys the power in the sexual relationship, who says to the man, you can do me but I won’t enjoy it. You can use my body if it will get you off my back.

I only had this happen to me once. We got home from shul. I was all stirred up. She was not. She said I could do her but she wouldn’t be into it.

I did her. And afterward, I felt horrible.

Our relationship started as passionate for the first week, but over the next three months it turned increasingly sadistic until it ended with her hooking up with her ex and me running away crying.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on ‘I Would Never Deliberately Do Anything To Hurt You’

The Jewish Press Sued

Here’s a pdf of the dispute (YAAKOV ABDELHAK suing The Jewish Press):

Here’s an excerpt:

Plaintiff is a physician specializing in high risk
obstetrics, whose patients are, almost without exception, women
of the Orthodox Jewish faith. Plaintiff is a practicing
Orthodox Jew and was raised as such by his parents. Plaintiff’s
father was an ordained Orthodox rabbi.
4 A-2023-08T3
In August 2004, defendant Tito, who was plaintiff’s wife,
instituted divorce proceedings and informed him that she would
seek custody of their two daughters and did not intend to honor
her earlier promise to raise the children as Orthodox Jews.
Although Tito had renounced the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, she
nonetheless demanded that plaintiff provide her with a Get,
which is a religious divorce granted by a husband to a wife.
Unless granted a Get, an observant Orthodox Jewish woman is not
free to marry again; a civil divorce is not sufficient.
Moreover, children born of any subsequent marriage are deemed to
have been born out of wedlock and bear a considerable stigma
among Orthodox Jews. Based on advice and counsel purportedly
issued to plaintiff by his spiritual adviser, Rabbi Rudinsky,
plaintiff took the position that so long as Tito continued to
refuse to raise their children in the Orthodox tradition, he was
not obliged to grant her a Get.
While the divorce proceedings were pending in the Family
Part, plaintiff’s and Tito’s rabbi, Aharon Ciment, of
Congregation Arzei Darom in Teaneck, provided testimony at a
deposition that was favorable to Tito. Rabbi Ciment’s
deposition testimony caused a deep schism in the congregation,
with some congregants supporting him and others, including
plaintiff, insisting that Ciment’s contract not be renewed.
5 A-2023-08T3
Defendants Rivkin and Scharlat became ardent supporters of
Ciment. At a meeting of several members of the congregation
that Rivkin hosted, he and Scharlat vowed to “destroy
[plaintiff] socially and professionally” unless plaintiff ceased
his criticism of Ciment. Rivkin also commented he would see to
it that plaintiff would never be able to remarry, promising to
send letters to the Orthodox community stating that plaintiff
was unworthy and attacking his character. Rivkin’s and
Scharlat’s antipathy to plaintiff grew so intense that the
Temple’s board of directors was forced to convene a special
meeting in December 2005 to “formulate the Board’s response to a
campaign that is going on to slander [plaintiff].” Ultimately,
the Board requested Rivkin to cease “his methodical campaign of
lashon harah1 against [plaintiff].”
Rather than refrain from further activity, as the Board had
requested, Rivkin, as well as Scharlat, intensified their
involvement in the dispute between plaintiff and defendant Tito
over whether plaintiff would provide her with a Get absent her
agreement to raise their children as Orthodox Jews. On January
12, 2006, they presented the Board with a “Confidential
Memorandum” requesting that the Board discuss “the continuing
refusal by [plaintiff] to give a Get to his wife . . . despite
1 This Hebrew term translates as “using insults.”
6 A-2023-08T3
her repeated requests.” Defendants Rivkin and Scharlat further
asked the Board to “consider the implications of this continuing
refusal . . . in connection with [plaintiff’s] continuing rights
and status as a member of this congregation.” Defendant Rivkin
also initiated a conversation with defendant Tito’s divorce
attorney, in which he discussed possible witnesses. For his
part, defendant Scharlat contacted Rabbi Rudinsky in an attempt
to verify whether the Rabbi had, as plaintiff claimed, advised
plaintiff that defendant Tito’s repudiation of Orthodox Judaism
justified plaintiff’s refusal to provide a Get.
As a result of plaintiff’s resistance to providing
defendant Tito a Get, she instituted a proceeding before the
Bais Din2 of America (BDA). By its ruling of July 28, 2006, the
BDA ordered plaintiff to “give a Get immediately” and “without
delay.”
Shortly thereafter, defendant Tito contacted The Jewish
Press, a newspaper that bills itself as the “largest independent
weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States.” The Jewish Press
champions the cause of women whose husbands refuse to provide a
2 Also known as a Beth Din or a Beit Din, the Bais Din is a
rabbinical court composed of a minimum of three rabbis who are
authorized to pass upon questions of Jewish law and practice
presented to them.
7 A-2023-08T3
Get by listing such men’s names on its Seruv list.3 The Seruv
list is designed to publicly shame such recalcitrant husbands
into providing the requested Get.
Upon being notified by defendant Tito that plaintiff was in
contempt of the Bais Din for his refusal to provide her a Get,
The Jewish Press contacted the BDA to verify Tito’s claim.
Rather than seek written confirmation from the BDA, The Jewish
Press telephoned the BDA and spoke to an unnamed staff member
who confirmed, erroneously, that a Seruv order of contempt had
been issued, when in fact the BDA had merely directed plaintiff
to provide the Get immediately.
Upon receiving the supposed confirmation that a Seruv had
been issued, The Jewish Press, in its September 6, 2006 print
edition, listed plaintiff’s name in its regular column entitled
“Seruv Listing.” Specifically, the “Seruv Listing” falsely
stated that a Seruv had been issued by the BDA against “Dr.
Yaakov Abdelhak, of Teaneck, N.J.” in August 2006. Of the ten
individuals listed in the September 6, 2006 Seruv Listing in The
3 A Seruv is an order of contempt issued by a Bais Din, a
rabbinical court, to a husband who refuses to comply with the
order of the Bais Din to give his wife a Get. A person issued a
Seruv is known as a mesarev ledin. Such person must be shunned
by all Orthodox Jews. He is also forbidden from reading the
Torah aloud during religious ceremonies, from being called to
the pulpit as an honor, from participating in any form of prayer
gathering, and from being buried in an Orthodox Jewish cemetery.
The word Seruv is spelled alternately in the record as Siruv.
8 A-2023-08T3
Jewish Press, plaintiff was the only person whose professional
title was included, even though one other doctor and a lawyer
were also on the list.
Three days later, plaintiff was advised by Rabbi Rudinsky,
for the first time, that he should provide defendant Tito with a
Get. The next day, September 10, 2006, plaintiff did so.
On September 15, 2006, after plaintiff notified The Jewish
Press of its error and advised the newspaper that no Seruv had
been issued against him, The Jewish Press issued a retraction in
its print version on September 15, 2006, blaming the error on
misinformation provided by the BDA. The retraction notice added
that “we also note that on Sunday, September 10, 2006,
Dr. Abdelhak gave his wife a Get.4
On November 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a nine-count
complaint in the Law Division against The Jewish Press, Rivkin,
Scharlat and Tito alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from their
roles in the false Seruv Listing published by The Jewish Press
on September 6, 2006.
4 The Jewish Press also published a retraction on its website.
The retraction did not include the announcement contained in the
print version that plaintiff had given his wife a Get.
9 A-2023-08T3
As a result of plaintiff filing a complaint and seeking a
remedy in a secular court, a different Bais Din, the Mechon
L’Hoyroa (MLH), issued a Seruv against plaintiff on March 13,
2008 for refusing to resolve his grievance against Scharlat, an
Orthodox Jew, in the Bais Din “after [receiving] several
summonses” issued on Scharlat’s behalf by that religious body.
The Seruv labeled plaintiff a “Mesarev Lavo L’Din” because his
“conduct violate[ed] Jewish law” by “willfully declinin[g] to
appear in front of Jewish courts.” The Seruv document commanded
the Orthodox Jewish community to “treat[] [plaintiff] in the
manner specified by Rabbi Moshe Isserless (Rama) in Shulchan
Aruch Choshen Mishpat 26:1.” The March 13, 2008 Seruv has never
been rescinded or withdrawn.
In October 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the
resolution of plaintiff’s complaint would entail excessive
entanglement of the court into religious affairs and practices.
On November 7, 2008, after oral argument, Judge Miller rendered
a lengthy decision, supplemented by a written opinion, granting
defendants’ motions to dismiss. A confirming order was issued
the same day.
10 A-2023-08T3
In particular, the judge observed that the proofs to be
presented by plaintiff at trial must be examined to determine
whether the jury’s task
would require excessive procedural or
substantive interference with church
operations. If the answer to either of
these inquiries is in the affirmative, then
the dispute is truly of a religious nature,
rather than theoretically and tangentially
touching upon religion, and the claim is
barred from secular court review.
Judge Miller found that adjudication of plaintiff’s claims would
require the court and jury to make no less than eleven
determinations regarding questions grounded in religious
doctrine:
1. the nature of a Seruv
2. whether [plaintiff’s] indifference to
the MLH Seruv indicates that it does
not hurt his reputation in the eyes of
Jews.
3. the difference in the alleged damage
to [plaintiff’s] reputation being called
a Mesarev Ledin by the MLH as compared
to the BDA.
4. the effect of being classified as a
Mesarev Ledin.
5. whether the publication of [plaintiff’s]
name in the Seruv Listing made the
followers of Orthodox Judaism in his
community shun him socially and
professionally.
6. whether Jewish women are not comfortable
using a male obstetrician who is not
married.
7. the significance of a husband withholding
or giving a Get.
8. was the plaintiff justified in withholding
a Get from defendant Ms. Tito.
11 A-2023-08T3
9. whether Scharlat was justified in
forwarding the Beth Din of America’s
July 28, 2006 letter decision to the
Jewish Press.
10. whether plaintiff withholding and
later giving the Get involves a matter
of legitimate interest within the
Orthodox Jewish community.
11. would a reasonable observant Orthodox
Jew experience extreme emotional
distress as a result of his name being
included in a Seruv.
The judge reasoned:
[A]lthough plaintiff has purportedly
asserted claims secular in nature, the
adjudication of such claims would require
this [c]ourt to determine issues of
religious doctrine in violation of the
Establishment Clause. . . .
. . . .
Specifically, for the defamation
claims, the [c]ourt would be required to
ascertain the difference between the MLH
Seruv and the initial Jewish Press Seruv
listing and how such are considered within
the Orthodox Jewish community. . . . [T]he
case is similar to Klagsbrun [v. Va’ad
Harabonim of Greater Monsey, 53 F. Supp. 2d
732 (D.N.J. 1999), aff’d, 263 F.3d 158
(3d Cir. 2001)], in that plaintiff’s claims
. . . are all rooted in claims of plaintiff
that deal with religious shunning as a
result of a Seruv. . . . The Orthodox
Jewish community is a closed community and
claims and remedies are rooted on
pronouncements within that community as
reflected by the Bais Din, and grounded in
religious doctrine and having a defined
meaning only within the Orthodox Jewish
faith.
12 A-2023-08T3
Likewise, the invasion of privacy
claims would also require this Court to
engage in an analysis of how a Seruv listing
is viewed within the Jewish faith and
whether it would be considered “highly
offensive to a reasonable person,” here
members of the Orthodox Jewish community, to
be accused of withholding a Get.
. . . .
While there are no shortage of Rabbis
for a Court and jury, the need for such
shows the excessive entanglement of the
“core ecclesiastical issues” in this case
which requires the Court to dismiss under
the Establishment Clause. Moreover, the
court also notes that a determination of why
the plaintiff’s medical practice allegedly
was damaged may rest not only on the issue
of the Seruv listing, but also the fact that
plaintiff is an unmarried man, with an
exclusive clientele for Orthodox Jewish
women, from an Orthodox Jewish community,
and their mores.
Consequently, only through excessive
entanglement with the Jewish faith,
doctrine and practice would such a
determination be possible. Such a
determination is inherently religious, and
while there may be some secular
ramifications in this ecclesiastical matter,
as there are in most ecclesiastical matters,
the “heart” or core of plaintiff’s dispute
is inherently religious in nature. The
“get” and the rationale of withholding such
on religious grounds, even the consequences
of the purported “legitimate second Seruv,”
as well as the claims and remedies are all
inextricably meshed in the Jewish faith,
doctrine and practice.
[(internal citations omitted) (paragraph
breaks added).]
13 A-2023-08T3
On appeal, plaintiff maintains that the Law Division’s
dismissal of his complaint was error because, contrary to Judge
Miller’s conclusions, plaintiff’s cause of action can be
adjudicated by applying neutral principles of law and without
excessive entanglement in religious doctrine and practices. In
particular, he argues the Law Division’s opinion focuses on
issues “irrelevant to the resolution of [his] claims.” He
maintains that the judge wrongly focused on the issue of the
“‘significance of a husband withholding or giving a Get’ and the
nature of a Seruv.” He argues that by focusing on such issues,
the judge “bought into the defendants’ attempt to confuse the
issues and create new irrelevant issues.”
He also observes that because The Jewish Press has conceded
that a Seruv was never issued against him, the listing was
therefore false, and thus the only issue that requires
resolution in relation to his claim for damages is whether “such
inclusion was defamatory.” Such factual determination, he
argues, does not require the court to consult or become
entangled in religious doctrine because his claims “are not
predicated on a religious institution’s procedures and
decisions.”

Posted in Divorce, The Jewish Press | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Jewish Press Sued

Israel, Capitalism, And Human Excellence: An Interview with Author George Gilder

From The Jewish Press:

George Gilder’s latest book, The Israel Test (Vigilante Books), is so unabashedly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel that it would make many Jews blush.

In the book (an excerpt of which was featured as the front-page essay in The Jewish Press’s November 6 issue), Gilder argues that “Jews have forged much of the science and wealth of [our] era” and Israeli “microchip designs are fueling the growth of nations everywhere.”

Editor in chief of the Gilder Technology Report and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute think tank, which he cofounded, Gilder was educated at Harvard University; served as a speechwriter for Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon, among others; and has written over a dozen books, including the influential Wealth and Poverty (1981).

Posted in George Gilder, The Jewish Press | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel, Capitalism, And Human Excellence: An Interview with Author George Gilder

Ayn Rand?

Charles emails: Orit Arfa seems very nice, but Ayn Rand? Those books made there way around the dorm in yeshiva in Brooklyn and you could always tell who was reading them because they got better posture and wouldn’t talk to anyone-for about a week. If you see someone reading Fountainhead on the subway you can bet dollars to doughnuts that they are in high school or first year college (or a yeshiva bachur from my old dorm). I am surprised someone as enlightened as Orit would mention someone as troubled as Ayn Rand as her major influence. On another front, do you think that NLP pua stuff really works? A friend asked me.

Posted in Orit Arfa | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Ayn Rand?

Lukeford.net – The First Decade

Time for a reader survey:

Which ground breaking piece of journalism was the definitive story of Lukeford.net’s first decade?

1) Luke’s probe of the married rabbi who gave golden showers to his female counseling patients.

2) Luke’s narcissistic essay on how he wanted to date NASCAR racer Danica Patrick.

3) Luke’s lengthy expose of Dennis Prager’s pulled back muscle.

Readers, we want your opinions. Vote now.

Bob emails: Why did the mainstream media ignore Mr. Prager’s back problem? Cover up? Anti-Semitism? Irrelevances?

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Lukeford.net – The First Decade

Dennis Prager’s Week Off Rudely Interrupted By Attempted Plane Bombing Christmas Day

Dennis Prager planned to take the week off his radio show to concentrate on his new book on American values.

Instead, he came in for two hours of his show Monday. The rest of his week has been the best of the Dennis Prager Show.

Dennis: “The House is considering legislation to ban the machine [full body screening] that would have prevented the man from bringing down a plane filled with innocent people.”

An Amsterdam official says they were prohibited from using these machines on passengers on planes bound for the United States.

“Machines that might save your life. If we took a vote in this country on this issue, it would be so lopsided on behalf of these machines, it would scare the Left into realizing how numerically marginalized they are in thinking. If you throw the phrase ‘civil liberties’ out and about 25% of Americans stop thinking.”

“Every passenger now is a taut rubber band waiting to snap.”

Ben calls: “They should have conservative planes and liberal planes. If you go on a liberal plane, they won’t check you. No full-body screening. No air marshals.”

Dennis: But you can pee until the last minute.

From DennisPrager.com: Dennis changes his vacation plans to come into the studio to talk about the Christmas Day terror attack on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. The attack was narrowly averted, no thanks to the security bureaucracy, but to aggressive passengers who grabbed the terrorist in his seat.

Technology is available that would have stopped this Nigerian-born, Muslim terrorist, but wasn

Posted in Dennis Prager | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dennis Prager’s Week Off Rudely Interrupted By Attempted Plane Bombing Christmas Day