The Evil Of Rabbi Avi Shafran

"Is child abuse more common in the Orthodox Jewish community than it is elsewhere? There are no reliable statistics … but there’s reason to believe the answer to that question might be yes.' Those words, sandwiching an important admission between a sinister question and an unfounded speculation, were written back in 2006 by Robert Kolker in New York magazine. Mr. Kolker’s 'reason to believe' was based on speculation by the New York Jewish Week’s Hella Winston, who has since established herself as someone who views the Orthodox community through heavily jaundiced eyes."

Rabbi Avi Shafran

Rabbi Avi Shafran has, again, spewed his hate, this time with the help of CrossCurrents Rabbi Yaakov Kenneth Menken.

Note that comments were, as always, closed on Shafran's CrossCurrents post because, even with moderated comments that are skewed to support him, Shafran lacks the ability to answer the many challenges he gets from his Modern Orthodox and even haredi readers. Shafran tries to cover for this by claiming that he lacks the time to adequately do justice to the comments. But you could give Shafran all the time in the world and he couldn't adequately respond – because there is no honest adequate response in many cases. Shafran can't defend what he writes so he cuts off all debate:

The Evil Eleventh
By Avi Shafran • CrossCurrents

Is child abuse “more common in the Orthodox Jewish community than it is elsewhere? There are no reliable statistics … but there’s reason to believe the answer to that question might be yes.”

Those words, sandwiching an important admission between a sinister question and an unfounded speculation, were written back in 2006 by Robert Kolker in New York magazine.

Mr. Kolker’s “reason to believe” was based on speculation by the New York Jewish Week’s Hella Winston, who has since established herself as someone who views the Orthodox community through heavily jaundiced eyes.

Our hearts must ache with the anguish of victims of abuse, especially children. And it’s natural for people who have met survivors of terrible things to feel deeply for them, and angry at their abusers. But extrapolating from the harrowing accounts of carefully sought-out victims that abuse, which sadly exists in the Orthodox community as it does in all communities, is somehow emblematic of Orthodox life is like visiting Sloan Kettering and concluding that there is a national cancer epidemic raging.

The New York writer went on to offer an even more offensive, even less grounded, conjecture, protectively qualified by the preface “There are some who believe…” What the safely unnamed “some” believe is that “repression in the ultra-Orthodox community”—namely, dedication to Jewish law and custom—“can foster abuse” [emphasis mine].

That is, put bluntly, an unmitigated insult to Judaism. Jewish life holds high the ideals of family, community, compassion for others, control of anger and passions, and ethical behavior. There will always be seemingly observant individuals who are hypocritical, or who may sadly fail the test of self-control, even with horrendous impacts on the lives of others. But does the existence of corrupt police and unethical doctors indict the professions of law enforcement or medicine?

If any belief system enables immoral and unethical behavior, it is not Judaism but its polar opposite, the conviction that no higher authority exists. While atheists may live upstanding lives, it should be self-evident that denial of a Higher Power and divine laws for mankind leaves a human being with no authority but himself, and no compelling reason—other than getting caught—to shun bad behavior.

These thoughts come to mind in the wake of a recent highly-publicized abuse scandal in England. One Jimmy Savile, a famous entertainment figure who died last year, was posthumously exposed as a serial abuser of children, including patients in hospitals he visited in the course of charitable fundraising work.

The British National Health Service, police, and the BBC all stand accused of turning a blind eye to the man’s crimes—which were the subject of a BBC broadcast that the network canceled.

Astoundingly, in Mr. Savile’s 1976 autobiography, he did not shy from describing some of his abusive behavior, which clearly crossed the moral and legal line, bragging that had “not been found out.”

“Which, after all,” he added, in an attempt at humor, “is the 11th commandment, is it not?”

It was a poignant choice of words. Because those who recognize the import of the Ten Commandments respect them as G-d-given, immutable, and binding. The entertainer’s imaginary Eleventh is the antithesis of those adjectives. It is the credo of someone who feels he is not ultimately answerable to any being, or Being. And it provides him license to do whatever he finds pleasurable or amusing, no matter the toll on others, or on his own soul.

No, Mr. Kolker and your “some who believe,” a religious Jew is imbued with consciousness that, as Rabi Yehudah Hanasi expressed in Massechta Avos (2:1): “An eye sees and an ear hears, and all of your actions are in the record written.”

That truth, though, can be occasionally forgotten even by us non-atheists. That is the message of the initially puzzling blessing Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai offered his students as he lay dying, that “the fear of Heaven be to you like the fear of flesh and blood” (Brachos 28b).

“Is that all?” they exclaimed. The sage’s response: “If only!”

“Think.” he continued. “When a person commits a sin in private, he says ‘May no person see me!’.”

And yet, of course, he is seen all the same. Jimmy Savile was seen, and so are we all.

© 2012 Rabbi Avi Shafran

The above essay may be reproduced or republished, unedited.

Comments are closed.

Bob Kolker, who wrote the New York Magazine piece, On The Rabbi's Knee, that Shafran refers to reportedly sent the following letter to CrossCurrents. Rabbi Yaakov Menken, and accused clergy sexual abuser himself, has so far chosen not to publish it:

November 16, 2012
From: Robert Kolker
To: Editor, Cross-Currents

Dear Editor:

It is depressing to see Rabbi Shafran recycling, in his essay in Cross-Currents, the same arguments he's been using for years to silence the vulnerable people in his community who might otherwise expose abusers. 

I am the author of the piece in New York magazine that Rabbi Shafran has apparently found so objectionable.  For my part, I can only respond by saying what I said the last time he tried to villify me in print: Any society that shies away from open discussion of certain issues is a society that allows problems to fester longer - and abusers to stay in business longer. As one abuse victim told me, "Whether it's Jewish or Amish or Mennonite or Catholic or Muslim, it doesn't make a difference. I feel like this is kind of like a fungus. It grows in the dark."

His greatest mistake is to argue that the fervently Orthodox community is somehow being singled out as inherently worse than others.  In fact, it is the argument of this community's exceptionalism that is what has made matters worse for victims. Rabbi Shafran continues to completely (and, one can only assume by now, deliberately) ignore the cultural forces of shame and denial in his community that have kept alleged victims from going public for decades. Many people been waiting for years for him to take on the so-called shonda factor, lashon hara, shalom bayit, mesira, and chillul Hashem, all of which are invoked to keep victims from bringing their community unwelcome attention by the authorities.

This is the repression that silences victims.  This is the repression that enables abusers. But those issues apparently don't warrant his attention. Instead of encouraging abuse victims to go to the police, and instead of opening his community's school's to the same mandatory reporting policies as the public schools, he would rather go after New York magazine again. As I said in 2006, the last time he made this argument in a public forum, Rabbi Shafran is obviously more concerned with defending Judaism from paper tigers - illusory enemies - than he is with actually dealing with the problems of his community.

I hope that someday Rabbi Shafran will understand that every time he stands up to make the case that the fervently Orthodox aren't vulnerable to abusers, he is contributing to a tragic chilling effect.  How many people in his community are afraid to speak up, knowing that those in power won't even acknowledge that their community is the slightest bit vulnerable?

And finally, I hope that someday he realizes that if he spent half the effort giving comfort to the abused than he does defending the powerful, his community would have a real reason to be proud of him.

Yours truly,

Robert Kolker
New York Magazine

Kolker didn't send his letter to me, perhaps because New York Magazine helped the Forward falsely claim credit for much of the haredi child sexual abuse story the New York Times stole from The Jewish Week and from FailedMessiah.com (and to a lesser extent from Pix 11, The Guardian, The Jewish Star, Tablet Magazine, the New York Post and, yes, New York Magazine itself).

I publicly stood up for New York Magazine when the Times ripped all of us off.

Kolker saw what I wrote and sent me a note thanking me.

Several hours later, New York Magazine posted the first of what became a short series of posts crediting the Forward for the work Hella Winston did for The Jewish Week and I did for FailedMessiah.com.

I sent Kolker an angry email asking why he should expect me or anyone else to stand up for New York Magazine when it won't stand up for us.

He never answered.

And his letter to CrossCurrents ended up being circulated to the email list of Survivors for Justice.

And that very small audience is where it would have and should have stayed if I treated New York Magazine and Kolker the way they treated Winston, The Jewish Week, FailedMessiah.com and the other mentioned above.

And the fact is that New York Magazine stole the story Kolker eventually wrote from a freelance journalist who pitched it to the NY Mag's editors– something Kolker knows to be true. His editors gave him the leads and the basic facts they'd stolen from the freelancer and sent him out to confirm them and report the story.

So don't think Kolker's letter is posted above to somehow defend New York Magazine or Kolker – it isn't.

Kolker's letter is posted because it saves me the time and energy I would otherwise have to spend refuting Shafran.

And Avi Shafran – the vile little man who called me a Nazi and who made similar remarks about anti-child sexual abuse advocates – isn't worth that time or that energy and he hasn't been for many years.

Every vile word that drips out of this revolting man's mouth and off his grubby little fingers proves that.

As for why Agudath Israel of America and its criminal Council of Torah Sages employes Shafran, it's a question that has long since been answered and long since been proven true – they don't care about truth or about the lives of children or about much else besides their often illegally managed and run 'nonprofit' but really for profit yeshivas. In other words, what they care about is their money. And as long as they see Shafran's lies, his smears and his misbehavior as beneficial in protecting the money they have and in ensuring that donations and government grants continue to flow to them, Shafran will remain, no matter how many innocent people he hurts.

Comments

[Bob Kolker]

Hello, Shmarya. I appreciated your post today. But I am very sorry to see how upset you have been. I can honestly say I do not remember ever having received an email from you complaining about NY mag's web coverage of the Times coverage. I didn't have anything to do with what our website posted about this matter. But if I did receive such a message from you afterwards and never responded, I am truly sorry.

In any case, I'm glad to affirm now that I do believe the Failed Messiah blog was a very important player in raising consciousness about this issue.

Cheers,
Bob Kolker

[dh]

Agudath Israel of America and Avi Shafran. These are the kinds of things that attract certain kinds of people, the way that certain kinds of things attract flies.

[candid]

If there is one thing that Shafran said about this blog that is true it is "I won't comment on the mental state of the author."

[Ha Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do]

What is it about what AS wrote do you find so offensive? He simply states that Judaism as a system of values and beliefs does not resonate at all with abusive behavior and that while such behavior is found within the Jewish community, and the shame of it does result in whitewashing and suppression, this in no way results in a higher concentration of abuse per capita than other groups, communities, or geopolitical entities. Shmarya - what about this statement is incorrect?

[Shmarya]

what about this statement is incorrect?

Posted by: Ha Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do | November 17, 2012 at 05:54 PM

Why don't you ask the hundreds of kids who were raped in Brooklyn, Rockland and Orange Counties, and Lakewood during the years Shafran attacked Winston, me and the activists while at the same time the rabbis he works for covered for the rapists?

Or is this concept too difficult for your stellar Judaism-addled mind to grasp?

[Garnel Ironheart]

Sad that the food that he puts in his mouth probably has the highest hasgachah while the stuff that comes out of it is so utterly trief.

[Ha Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do]

Look, I get what happened and still dies, but is the frequency HIGHER than 'normal'? The answer is no. Now if you want to argue that it is inherently wrong for a community that claims a higher moral and ethical benchmark than most to be complacent with the normal rates of animalistic behavior, what could the counter argument possibly be? You ruin your clout and your ability to be taken realistically by your opponents when you step beyond the facts. Stick to the grave reality without exageration and you'll make some progress.

[dh]

Question: "Now if you want to argue that it is inherently wrong for a community that claims a higher moral and ethical benchmark than most to be complacent with the normal rates of animalistic behavior, what could the counter argument possibly be?" Ha Ray @8:49

Answer: Al Queda

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Ha Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do | November 17, 2012 at 08:49 PM

Please.

Haredi rabbis knowingly and intentionally covered up child sexual abuse. They intimidated witnesses and obstructed justice.

And all the while they did that – and as they're still doing it – Shafran attacked the reporters, bloggers and activists who exposed those crimes.

If this is really too difficult for you to grasp, try speaking with a mental health professional.

Past that, your assertion that there is proof that child sexual abuse rates are the same in haredi communities as elsewhere is wrong.

The US doesn't gather stats like this based on religion.

The US Centers for Disease Control bases its figures on reports by zip code.

To reach the conclusion you reach, you have to assume the unreported crimes in haredi-dominated zip codes are at the same rate as the unreported crimes in non-haredi sip codes.

But all available evidence shows that the intimidation of victims and cultural taboos against reporting – and the extortion and threats against those who want to report – is much worse in haredi communities than elsewhere.

So the likelihood is that that there are more victims of pedophilia in haredi communities than elsewhere.

Of course, you'd have to have a functioning brain and knowledge of the history of the issue to grasp this, and you clearly lack both.

As for Shafran, he's a vile, petty, vindictive ass with a background that is far from pristine.

And like his "rebbe" Matis Weinberg, one day those facts will come to light.

[Jef]

Is child abuse “more common in the Orthodox Jewish community than it is elsewhere?

No.

[Ha Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do]

Shmarya - would you please post the highest pedophelia rate ever posted by the US CDC for a highly jewish zip code. Then triple or quadruple that number and compare it to the median CDC rate for a zip code of otherwise comparable demographics other than the Jewish attribute. I look forward to seeing the numbers, and will absolutely concede the point if the numbers show me to be wrong. Thanks.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Ha Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do | November 18, 2012 at 01:16 AM

You're either mentally ill or monstrously stupid.

You could try reading what I wrote again, perhaps several times, perhaps slowly.

But I doubt your tiny little mind, diseased or not, can process it.

[Barry]

Many people involved in child welfare are of the view that they may well be a link between sexual abuse of children with physical abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, and neglect.

The existence of Hareidi chinuch system is dependent on emotional and psychological abuse. Although they may disapprove of sexual abuse and neglect, they will accept these consequences if the steps necessary to tackle sexual abuse and neglect, would end up challenging the physical, emotional and psychological abuse which 'successful' chinuch relies on. If the accepted remedy for tackling sex abuse of children in the Jewish community would lead to psychological abuse being challenged, then it is better to deny the existence of the former so as not to draw attention to the latter.

Sometime similar applies to antisemitism. The Hareidim fought against enlightenment values, not because they like being persecuted, but because they saw that as a price worth paying to avoid losing their theocratic powers.

Same goes for the status of women. The Haredim disapprove of domestic violence, but they will fight any attempt to improve women's status or to empower them by law which is the best defense against domestic violence.

The ethos behind those State and local government officials and courts involved in child protection is that of Kant's Categorical imperative:-

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means."

(In Germany, the categorical imperative has been used to argue against circumcision and in England against the existence of religious schools refusing to teach science and it provides an unanswerable challenge to theocratic reasoning).

Shafran recognizes that if such officials and courts become involved in challenging child sexual abuse, you cannot expect them to stop when it comes to other forms of child abuse. They will not differentiate between a rabbi who is fondling a child for sexual satisfaction, and a rabbi beating or screaming at a slow learning or mischievous child to instill Yiras Rabbonim in him. If a child is covered in scars from being whipped by his father to discipline him, do not expect that father to call in a doctor when that child catches chickenpox.

[No_Light]

Jef aka Mike aka Jill aka Nathan etc. - Why are you even here? You contribute less than nothing, you sorry troll.

Oh, and calling yourself 'Jef' or 'Jefl' and deluding yourself that you're fooling people into thinking you're Jeff, just proves how fucking brain-dead you are.

As for the addled Sound of Music fan, who's probably Archie, intent as ever on protecting men who rape children - You're missing the point. Whole communities of repressed, ignorant, undereducated drones, are the best possible breeding grounds for abuse.

Add in men who are completely emotionally incapable of healthy emotional attachment, women exhausted from permapregnancy, and children told that all frum Jews are good, and everyone else is evil? A perfect storm.

Even if abuse rates are no higher than those of any other community, silencing, threats, cover-ups and coercion are endemic. There's only one other group I know of, who constantly favour the rapists over their victims, and destroy the lives of anyone who dares to speak out.

Catholics. Like Jimmy Savile. Who believe, along with frumbags, that if someone in a position of power (which is indicative of God's favour) is accused of raping children, they must be shielded. After all, attacking someone in God's favour is like an attack on the Sky-Tatte himself.

Tevyeism and Catholicism alike thrive on ignorance, deprivation, conformity and fear. While those are the primary driving forces of entire communities, children will continue to be hurt.

[Ha Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do]

Shmarya, based on your response it woul seem that there are no numbers (ie facts) to support your assertions. So perhaps all you can conclude is that individuals who are drawn to positions of power, control, or even public service may have other predispositions that a higher calling or even the threat of divine punishment don't seem to control. Probably applies to irritable bloggers too.

[Sarek]

Time to call in the shrinks.
I think there are multiple issues here.

- What is the percentage of pedophiles compared to the general community?
- What is the percentage of pedophiles who act on their drives compared to the general community?

If there are more pedophiles than there are globally, then we have to ask what causes it. Nature? Nurture?

If it's the higher rate of this crime, but there are the same amount of pedophiles, then what causes that? Less fear of being caught? Teachings that don't discourage it?

[jancsibacsi]

No Light--- hahahahah Sky-Tatte thats a good one:)what about SKY-MAME:)

[jancsibacsi]

a Ray Dee Fa So La Tee Do--And youre one of those irritable bloggers arent you?

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

I was looking at the Agudah 990 form for 2011 to see how much Safran is making but he is no longer on the form.

However, it is interesting to know that David Zviebel is making 224,829, Shlomo Gertzulin is making 197,660 and Joseph Freidenson is making 104,714, Shmuel Lefkovitz is making 186,033 ETC. I remember he was making few years back 147,000

They maybe pay him under the table…..

Agudah 990 - 2011

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/135/604/2011-135604164-086aba1a-9.pdf

[pj@hotmail.com]

do not discuss or argue child abuse or sex child abuse with the orthodox or haredi jewish commumities . it's a waste of time .
you are not gonna go anywhere .

the orthodox and haredi communities think child abuse is normal .

[dh]

pj@hotmail.com, are you in Montreal?

[Nickidewbear]

"But you could give Shafran all the time in the world and he couldn't adequately respond – because there is no honest adequate response in many cases."

That is the impression that I get in regards to many of his writings.