From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Flag Status:

Dear R' Moshe

REDACTED yosef feldman < >

Monday, 25 July 2011 7:30 PM rabbig@ka.org.au Rabbi Chaim Ingram; Rabbi Kluwgant; Rabbi's Mail; Rabbi Avrohom Gutnick; Rabbi Chaim Dovrat; Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn; Rabbi Pinchus Feldman; Rabbi Yoram Ulman; Rabbi Yehudah Brown; Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick; Rabbi Eli Cohen; Rabbi Shalom Coleman Re: Canberra

Flagged

I really don't understand how you arrive at your conclusion unless you didn't read the end and final summary of the Psak. I quote:

"Because the question of reporting has serious implications for all parties, and raises sensitive halachic issues, the individual should not rely exclusively on his own judgment to determine the presence or absence of raglayim la'davar. Rather, he should present the facts of the case to a rabbi who is expert in halacha and who also has experience in the area of abuse and molestation - someone who is fully sensitive both to the gravity of the halachic considerations and the urgent need to protect children. (In addition, as Rabbi Yehuda Silman states in one of his responsa [Yeshurun, Volume 15, page 589], "of course it is assumed that the rabbi will seek the advice of professionals in the field as may be necessary.") It is not necessary to convene a formal bais din (rabbinic tribunal) for this purpose, and the matter should be resolved as expeditiously as possible to minimize any chance of the suspect continuing his abusive conduct while the matter is being considered."

It is crystal clear, from the summary of this psak, that one cannot decide by himself what is raglayim ledovor. It is therefore also crystal clear that the first port of call should be to a Rov. It is quite poignant and most interesting that the Psak, 1) doesn't mention in the summary ending ... unless one hears from his son etc. or if you are a minor and abused yourself etc. 2) In point one they are particular to mention that the matter should be reported but not that one (meaning anyone by himself (without consultation with a Rov)) should report it and the reason is poshut because ultimately one can't necessarily decide oneself (as a noigaya bedovor) what constitutes real (actionable) abuse etc. and yesh loimer that in their summary wording they were very careful not to exclude even a person who was abused kemikchoil bishfoiferes himself as it's not for him to decide whether there's rugluyim ledovor that he'll be a public threat (tikkun oilom) as is mentioned earlier in the psak number 1 (and the second sentence is an explanation of the first) for it could be for example that as a teenager, only he, and in a certain sort of situation incited the perpertrator etc and it wouldn't happen further or to others and with consultation with experts as the psak mentions and in conjunction with them it could also be determined that he's in the process or has done Teshuvo etc etc but they obviously had to be extremely careful with their wording as my father wanted even myself to be from a legal perspective and also a public opinion perspective especially in light of recent events ...

These are just some explanations to their psak but it's clear in their psak in summary that Daas Toiroh is not to decide oneself whether to report and therefore to first give it over to the Rov to make that decision ...

R' Moshe for once and for all accept the Psak without qualifications ...

REDACTED On Mon, Jul 25, 2011at5 :26 PM, Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick < > wrote: Dear Reb Yossi - you must stop this. Their statement does not say your first port of call is a Rov. Their statement says if you are uncertain whether there is raglayim ldovor - reasonable suspicion - you go to a rov to clarify if there is. If you are clear, if your child tells you they were abused, if you are a fifteen year

KAA.0001.001.0061_R

old that has been abused, if the perpetrator admits it to you - not only don't you have to go to a Rov, not only is there not an issue of mesira as you so passionately argued - you are mechuyav to go to the police or the relevant authorities.

Furthermore the Rov who assists you only assists to the extent to determine raglayim ldovor and your suspicions are not the product of your imagination. If there are raglayim ldovor, that is even if there is a reasonable suspicion, not proof ( not three times, no warnings etc etc as you posited) - The Rov steps back completely and you go to the police. No one ever said you go to the police on empty suspicions. However this psak says you do not even need proof - all you need is reasonable suspicion and not dimyonois.

The Rov does not handle it - as you suggested. The Rov does not have to determine chazoko - as you suggested. The Rov doesn't do a diyun on mesira - as you suggested, This is not mesira - as you suggested and you even used the words yaharoig v'al yaavoir. The Rov simply assists to determine if there is reasonable suspicion. Once that is determined you are mechuyav to go to the police. The psak also says the Rov must take expert advice. If a GP - an expert- sees signs of abuse he is mechuyav to report it and doesn't need a Rov - the Rov needs him. Bottom line , the role of the Rav is ONLY to determine if the suspicions are an illusion or real. Nothing more.And if they are real - one is mechuyav to go straight to the police.

This is all clearly a repudiation of everything you wrote. Please stop arguing and accept Daas Torah.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011at4:25 PM, yoseffeldman < Dear R' Moshe

REDACTED >wrote:

The psak clearly says that it's not for an individual to decide raglayim ledovor and the first port of call must be to a Rov and the Rov should get expert advice etc and then give the reshus etc. You write "you just need to be satisfied the suspicion is reasonable and not an illusion" this is wrong according to the psak. It's a Rov that has to be satisfied. Once again IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR IN THE PSAK THAT THE ROV MUST BE THE FIRST PORT OF CALL AND TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PROCEED TO AUTHORITIES ...

With regard to what happens in jail if in fact there is a difference in general between here and in the US it could be that the psak may need to be amended accordingly as mentioned ...

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick < , wrote: Reb Chaim , I beg to differ. Again the issue is so serious that it needs absolute clarity. It is actually all one way. Abuse must be reported to the police. Even if the suspicion is only bgeder raglayim ldovor .Abuse can not be handled by rabbonim.There is no geon yaakov issue. The only time you may employ a Rabbi is to assist in ascertaining whether your suspicion is "dimyonois" or real - not in handling the abuse. If it is real - raglayim ldovor - it must be reported to police.You do not even have to be certain that abuse has taken place. There only has to be a reasonable suspicion. I can not think of any more powerful total repudiation ofReb Yossi's arguments.There is no consideration ofmuchzek. No consideration of what will happen to the perpetrator in gaol etc .no consideration of mesira - you just need to be satisfied the suspicion is reasonable and not an illusion. Abuse must be reported to the police.

As to Canberra, I believe that is best left till the conference when the executive can plan accordingly for a subsequent visit..

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011at3 :46 PM, Rabbi Chaim Ingram < 2

REDACTED >wrote:

KAA.0001.001.0062_R

"A few issues of political correctness" is all I mentioned??????!!!!!!!

I mentioned the fact that if something is not done Australia will become another latterday Sdom and Amora.

And maybe also a haven of legalised murder.

Are these small things in your eyes?

Re. abuse I believe that the Agudas Yisroel statement that R' Gutnick has disseminated has made the Torah position abundantly clear - it is neither all one way nor all the other - and there should be an end to this discussion.

Rabbi Chaim Ingram 41 , Llandaff Street, Bondi Junction, 2022 MOB: REDACTED

----- Original Message ----­From: yosef feldman To: Rabbi Chaim Ingram Cc: Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick ; Rabbi Kluwgant ; Rabbi's Mail ; Rabbi Avrohom Gutnick ; Rabbi Chaim Dovrat ; Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn ; Rabbi Pinchus Feldman ; Rabbi Yoram Ulman ; Rabbi Yehudah Brown ; Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick ; Rabbi Eli Cohen ; Rabbi Shalom Coleman Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 3:30 PM Subject: Re: Canberra

Dear R' Chaim

You mentioned a few issues of political correctness but you didn't mention the very serious issue of late which could fall under the category of yaharoig veul yaavoir and that is to be moiser and even roidef someone by first going to the police, without going to discuss it with a Rov on alleged or even real abuse ...

With regard to Canberra, once again I'd like to reiterate that as there's so many issues that are oimed ul hapeirek we should urgently hold a full conference now (in a few weeks) and there discuss how, when and who to deal with Canberra which could also take place by a few executive members immediately after the conference as previously discussed.

President R' Dovid can you please make a decision re this asap

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011at11 :19 PM, Rabbi Chaim Ingram <: REDACTED , wrote: Dear Rabbi Gutnick,

You write that you "tend to agree" with RMSK. Yet you are not saying the same thing at all. RMSK was very explicit in his last email. I quote: "I am not saying we should not go. We are the Jewish religious leadership of this country after all. I am just saying let's think about this first".

T couldn't agree more - which is why T don't believe it should be the tail end of a conference but should be planned out as I elaborated on in my last email.

Correct me ifl am wrong but I think you are saying let's leave it to Danny Lamm and ECAJ to represent us at government level..

This might be all very well with regard to issues that affect the autonomy of Australian Jewry, e.g shechita. However it is not going to work where we have to present a global Torah stance on moral issues affecting the wider Australian society.

3

KAA.0001.001.0063_R

Unfortunately the scourge of political correctness has affected the thinking of even ostensibly Torah­orientated baalei batim.(and perhaps even some rabbis too). One of the key areas where this has happened is the toleration of mishkav zochor in society. Mishkav zochor is a yehoreg ve'al ya'avor for Goyim as well as Yieden. I do not believe that even frum baalei batim grasp the seriousness of this vis-a-vis our struggle to prevent gay-union legislation being enacted in Australia.

Another key area is the push towards "dying with dignity" - to use the politically-correct eupemism for legalised murder. Shefichas domim is also a yehoreg ve-al ya'avor for Goyim as well as Yieden. I likewise am sceptical as to what priority, if any, even our frum lay leaders would place on campaigning against pro-euthenasia legislation.

With regard to the Mishna in Sotah, yes I was referring to pnei ha-dor kifnei ha-kelev. R' Yisroel Salanter ztl explained it that the dog habitually looks back to see if his master is following him. We do not have to check with our constituents, even with the lay leadership, before embarking upon a course of action in the name of Torah. We are the Jewish religious leadership of this country as RMSK says.

Also with regard to the lay leadership: the Danny Lamms and Peter Wertheims will not be forever. Look at the names of some recent NSWBoD Presidents. They are likely to be future lay leaders on a federal level. Oy-ve-voy!

With regard to the abuse issue all I want to say is that - le-da'avoneinu - I agree with your comments about even a sincere friendly touch between rebbe and talmid being unacceptable in today's day and age. It is a sad and indeed tragic commentary on the dysfunctional state of society today.

rchi

Rabbi Chaim Ingram 41 , Llandaff Street, Bondi Junction, 2022 MOB: REDACTED

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick" <rabbig@ka.org.au>

To: "Rabbi Chaim Ingram" < REDACTED REDACTED Cc: "Rabbi Kluwgant" <rabbi@jewishcare.org.au>; "yosef feldman" <

"Rabbi's Mail" <rabbi@theperthshule.asn.au>; "Rabbi Avrohom Gutnick"

> · '

< >; "Rabbi Chaim Dovrat" < ·; "Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn" < • 1 • 1 >; "Rabbi Pinchus Feldman" <rpf@yeshiva.org.au>; "Rabbi Y oram Ulman" < • 1 • 1 ,; "Rabbi Y ehudah Brown" < >; REDACTED "Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick" < • 1 • 1 >; "Rabbi bl1 Cohen" <rabbi@kensingtonshul.com>; "Rabbi Shalom Coleman" <. Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Canberra

4

REDACTED >

KAA.0001.001.0064_R

I tend to agree with RMSK ... We have a good friend to Yiddishkeit in Danny Lamm as President of ECAJ( and indeed also Peter Wertheim )we should use his presidency to cultivate the relationship and perhaps springboard from there. Unbeknownst to many there was a lot of behind the scenes cooperation on the shechita matter which augurs very well for the future. In fact the ECAJ did a sterling job. I think we need to ensure that we build on that , rather than damage it.

As to the Mishnah in Sotah - it is a very long Mishnah - if you are referring to pnei dor - why are you so sure the Mishnah is referring (just) to lay leadership?

All the best

Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick Rabbinic Administrator - The Kashrut Authority Dayan - Sydney Beth Din

Sent from my iPad

On 21/07/2011 , at 10:36 PM, "Rabbi Chaim Ingram" < REDACTED

Thank you, Rabbi Meir Shlomo for your cogent comments.

> wrote:

This illustrates precisely why attending Canberra at the tail end of (or for that matter prior to) Annual Conference just would not work.

What would that mean? As Conference will no doubt be held (following precedent) on a Tues and a Wedn we would have to fit in Canberra either (a) on the preceding Mon or (b) the following Thurs -in each case for just one day.

This would give absolutely no time for planning. At Conference we will be busy from start to finish with other matters. The Execuitve would have no time or opportunity to bury their heads in isolation ..

I envisage that we devote two full days to the Canberra trip. The first day would be the planning of our presentations and our strategies as RMSK outlines. The second day would consist of meetings with MPs.

I don't believe we have to look over our shoulder at what ECAJ, JCCV and the AJN will say - the Mishna in Sotah (9: 15) addresses this.

KIT

Rabbi Chaim Ingram 41 , Llandaff Street, Bondi Junction, 2022 MOB: REDACTED

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rabbi Kluwgant" <rabbi@jewishcare.org.au> To: "Rabbi Chaim Ingram" < REDACTED Cc: "yosef feldman" < • • • • ,; "Rabbi's Mail" <rabbi@theperthshule.asn.au>; "Rabbi A vrohom Gutnick" < >; "Rabbi Moshe Gutnick" <rabbig@ka.org.au>; "Rabbi Chaim Uovrat" < • 1 • 1 >; "Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn" < >; "Rabbi Pinchus Feldman" <rpf@yeshiva.org.au>; "Rabbi Y oram Ulman" < >; "Rabbi Y ehudah Brown" < >; REDACTED "Rabbi Mordechai Gutmck" < ,; "Rabbi hll Cohen" <rabbi@kensingtonshul.com>; "Kabb1 Shalom Coleman" < > REDACTED

5

KAA.0001.001.0065_R

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 11:25 PM Subject: Re: Canberra

Regarding the suggestions of a trip to Canberra - my 2 cents

Do we have something to sell the Canbemians or are we just going for the show of it.

Personally I believe we need to seriously consider the trip so that people are not scratching their heads wondering what we came/went for.

What do we hope to achieve with the trip? Who do we plan to see? Will they see us? What do we want to talk about? What follow up will there be?

As a rule the lay leadership sees itself as the community representative when it comes to talking to government- they call themsleves the voice of jewery .. (this is true of the JCCV and ECAJ anyway)

If we want to take a leadership role in presenting to Govt we need to seriously consider the strategy. Our presence in Canberra will be seen as a slight to some. The AJN may very well publicly question or challenge our presence there.

I don't think we should be going until we have developed a strategy and carefully considered all of these matters. I am not sure that email is the way to do it.

I am not saying that we should not go -we are the jewish religious leadership of the country after all - I am just saying- let's think about this first.

MS

Sent from R' Meir's iPhone

On 20/07/2011 , at 9:42 PM, "Rabbi Chaim Ingram" < :::mailto REDACTED REDACTED >> wrote:

Who will choose mi vo-mi ha-holkhim? And why should ability to give up a whole week at a stretch be the sole criterion for adjudging who shall go?

Rabbi Chaim Ingram 41 , Llandaff Street, Bondi Junction, 2022 MOB: REDACTED ----- Original Message ----­From: yosef feldman<mailto: REDACTED To: Rabbi Chaim Ingram<mailto • 1 • 1

Cc: Rabbi's Mail<mailto:rabbi@tnepertnsnu1e.asn.au>; Kabbi Kluwgant<mailto:rabbi@jewishcare.org.au>; Rabbi Avrohom

REDACTED Gutnick<mailto: > ; Rabbi Moshe Gutnick<mailto:rabbig@ka.org.au> ; > ; Rabbi Philip

Heilbrunn<mailto: > ; Rabbi Pinchus Feldman<mailto:rpf@yeshiva.org.au> ; Rabbi Yoram Ulman<mailto: > ; Rabbi REDACTED Y ehudah Brown<mailto: > ; Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick<mailto: • 1 • 1 · ; Kabbi Eli Cohen<mailto:rabb1CCVkensmgtonshul.com> ; Rabbi Shalom Coleman<mailto: REDACTED

6

KAA.0001.001.0066_R

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Canberra

That's why I wrote that only some of the executive should go to Canberra ... and I think that anyway only some should go to meet. ..

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011at9:19 PM, Rabbi Chaim Ingram <<mailto: :::mailto: REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED >> wrote: As has already been agreed by at least two colleagues without demur,most chaverim cannot give up an entire week at one stretch which is what it would amount to. It is too much for one week - the same reason that the idea of a four-day conference was not accepted.

I apologise for the aberrant comma in my last email.

Rabbi Chaim Ingram 41 , Llandaff Street, Bondi Junction, 2022 MOB: REDACTED ----- Original Message -----

REDACTED From: yosef feldman<mailto: >

To: Rabbi Chaim Ingram<mailto • 1 • 1 >

Cc: Rabbi's Mail<mailto:rabbi@theperthshule.asn.au> ; Rabbi Kluwgant<mailto:rabbi@jewishcare.org.au>; Rabbi Avrohom Gutnick<mailto: ; Rabbi Moshe Gutnick<mailto:rabbig@ka.org.au> ; Rabbi Chaim Dovrat<mailto: >; Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn<mailto. • 1 • 1 > ; Rabbi Pinchus

REDACTED Feldman<mailto:rpf@yeshiva.org.au> ; Rabbi Yoram Ulman<mailto: > ; Rabbi Y ehudah Brown<mailto: · ; Rabbi Mordecliai Gutnick<mailto: ; Rabbi Eli Cohen<mailto:rabbi@kensingtonshul.com> ; Rabbi Shalom Coleman<mailto: REDACTED Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Canberra

Why not have a conference in approx 6 weeks in Sydney and around then some of the executive can go to Canberra as has already been suggested? We're not building Rome!

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Rabbi Chaim Ingram <<mailto > <mailto: REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED >> wrote: Thank you R' Freilich for this comprehensive reply. However the one issue you have not dealt with is the Canberra parley with the politicians. If, as appears, likely, we shall not now hold the Conference in August, would this not be a good time for the Executive to visit Canberra?

KIT Rabbi Chaim Ingram 41 , Llandaff Street, Bondi Junction, 2022 MOB: REDACTED ----- Original Message -----From: Rabbi's Mail<mailto:rabbi@theperthshule.asn.au>

7

KAA.0001.001.0067_R

To: Rabbi Kluwgant<mailto:rabbi@jewishcare.org.au>; Rabbi Avrohom Gutnick<mailto: - , ; Rabbi Moshe Gutnick<mailto:rabbig@ka.org.au> ; Rabbi Chaim Dovrat<mailto: ·; Rabbi Chaim Ingram<mailto: • 1 • 1 · ; Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn<mailto: >; Rabbi Pinchus Feldman<mailto:rpf@yeshiva.org.au> ; Rabbi Yoram Ulman<mailto: REDACTED >; Rabbi Y ehudah Brown<mailto > ; Rabbi Y ossi Feldman<mailto • 1 • 1 >; Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick<mailto , ; Rabbi Eli Cohen<mailto:rabbi@kensingtonshul.com> ; Rabbi Shalom Coleman<mailto: > ; <mailto:rabbi@theperthshule.asn.au> rabbi@theperthshule.asn.au<mailto:rabbi@theperthshule.asn.au> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:48 PM Subject: Re: Abuse Issue

Dear Chaverim of the ORA Executive

I must respond to our esteemed colleague R' Meir Shlomo's email entitled "Abuse Issue" :

1. I did act immediately and without the executive ratification in using my presidential authority to both submit a letter to The Australian, as well as add our name to the ECAJ statement re the abuse issue. I say proudly that I would do the same again, even if any member of the executive disapproves of my actions in this respect. 2. The Chillul Hashem that was reported in The Australian Newspaper on Shabbos Parshas Pinchas needed immediate action as exemplified by Pinchas himself. Sometimes, as we learn from the sidra, we must cut through the red tape to create a Kiddush Hashem. 3. I felt that no further edition of The Australian should be published without our response to the article that appeared on the Shabbos. It was far more important that we came out immediately and expressed our disgust at the behaviour, rather than the paper and media having to come to us to ask for a comment, which would only have reinforced in their mind that we had some code of silence. In order to get the article in The Australian I had to get it in by 4:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoon. I would have had very little time to consult with anyone anyway. 4. As the article on abuse was aimed at rabbinic leadership, I felt that ORA must make a statement independent of that of the ECAJ, as well as of course supporting the ECAJ statement which I was asked to approve on the Sunday (the day after the article in The Australian). 5. It would have been a busha for me, as President of ORA to hesitate for one second in agreeing to sign the ECAJ statement and saying to them, "Before I do so, I must get executive approval." 6. If any of the executive members feel that I have acted improperly in regards to this stance, please let me know and I will consider my options.

In regards to R' Meir Shlomo's request for him to head a portfolio to deal with the issues of family violence and child abuse under ORA, I would suggest that having such a portfolio may imply that such behaviour in the Jewish community is epidemic, but I would be interested in hearing the views of other executive members in regards to R' Meir Shlomo's suggestion.

On another note, in regards to our next federal conference, I suggested some dates and am willing to work in order to arrange them. I will need particular help from executive members in Sydney to find venues and make arrangements for catering etc. Once this is done, we can work out the programme together. I mentioned in my last communication that I wanted to step down from the presidency and hand it over for a couple of years to R' Moshe Gutnick, until the new ORA constitution comes into force.

Members of the executive quite rightly pointed out to me in return emails that it was not up to me to appoint a presidential successor (continuing on the theme of last week's Torah reading, it was

8

KAA.0001.001.0068_R

9

Hashem, not Moshe who chose the successor!). Some members of the executive also pointed out that according to our present constitution, R' Moshe does not now have a kehillah and apparently when R' Selwyn Franklin no longer was rabbi at Central Shule, he stepped down as ORA president. I could recommend to R' Moshe to simply start a new Chabad House to get around this! ... but on a more serious note, I don't know what the future ORA constitution rules are on this, but does R' Meir Shlomo lead a kehillah? Some executive members asked me to stay on as President until next year when we are due under our present constitution to have another conference and elections, as they claim by becoming president, I agreed to a four year term. It was stated by some that if I did step down during this time, an Acting President could take over, but this Acting President would either have to be elected or approved by either the executive of members of ORA at a conference. All this has sent me into a bit of a quandary. Some executive members misunderstood my suggestion of leaving the conference until Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks visits Australia at the end of January. Some thought that I was advocating two conferences – one in a few weeks in August (23/24 August 2011) and another in January to coincide with Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’s visit. I was not advocating two conferences, but suggesting if the executive so desired we could leave the conference until then, but in such a case it could not be held in Perth because he will be here for approximately 2 days for the 120th anniversary of the Perth Shule. It could not be held in Sydney, as I believe he will be there for approximately 1 1/2days although we could still have the conference in Sydney at that time and utilise him for whatever time he has to address us, or better at that time in Melbourne, where I believe he will be staying for a longer period of time. Whenever the next conference is, or wherever it is, I am stepping down from the presidency and hopefully enjoy “brisi shalom”. I look forward to some fiery, zealous communications on the above, but of course all l’shem shamayim! With sincere greetings of friendship and collegiality to all rabbinic colleagues. DOVID FREILICH __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6308 (20110719) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. <http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.com

-- All the best Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick

KAA.0001.001.0069_R

10

-- All the best Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick

KAA.0001.001.0070_R