Update on Gafni: Not rape
I’ve just spoken with one of my friends who’s closer to this issue than I, and he clarified the following for me:
First of all, there is no accusation of rape whatsoever, and I apologize for repeating that charge thereby inflaming this issue. All three charges are in regards to consensual sexual relationships. The allegation of rape was the result of a misunderstanding on the part of my friend inside Bayit Chadash. While those relationships were inappropriate and result from Gafni’s abuse of his power dynamic with his students, his actions cannot rightly be equated with rape.
Secondly, Jacob Ner David and Avraham Leader relied upon the investigations of Rabbis Saul Berman and Arthur Green who would have benefited in no way from staking his their reputations on exonerating Gafni. I believe they acted appropriately and I retract my statement questioning Ner David’s hiring of Gafni.
Thirdly, while I still believe that the investigation conducted inside the Renewal movement with regards to prior allegations (before Berman and Green’s investigations) may not have been handled appropriately, and I do believe Yosef Blau, I do not believe that there was any intent on the part of the Renewal leadership to ignore legitimate charges for their own benefit, as has been alleged in some comments. I think they screwed up and that they need to own that, but I don’t think there was any mal intent on their part and they have as much forgiveness and support from me as they do my scrutiny and my criticism.
That said, I would like to make the following clear: My stake in this is simply to insure that this type of abuse not happen again in the future. I care about this issue primarily because I care about my friends inside the Renewal movement, and I want to make sure that they are safe and that they not fall victim to this sort of misconduct. I do not have it out for Renewal nor Renewal’s leadership and I would prefer to see a productive and meaningful conversation come from this which leads to a positive resolution than to allow this conversation to spiral into irresponsible and wasteful mudslinging. I believe this conversation should focus A) on the power dynamics between charismatic leaders and their followers, B) on the most appropriate way of handling allegations of clergy abuse. Anything else is unhelpful, and probably does fall under the category of lashon harah.
I regret that as a “citizen journalist” I don’t have the formal journalistic training to always approach these issues most tactfully or appropriately. And I regret that as a benoni, I do not always approach such sensitive matters from the most enlightened perspective. I have no interest in making matters worse for anyone involved and I apologize for any statements I may have made that have done so.
[Update] ynet reports: “According to Attorney Olman, the complainants accused Gafni of rape, sexual harassment and indecent assault.” Now I don’t know what to think…
All that said, while the named parties may not have acted maliciously, they did still act irresponsibly.
They may not have intentionally covered up the facts, but they did not do their due diligence in investigating this man before hiring him. Evidence to Gafni’s abuse has long been available to anyone who cares to do the research. Leader, Ner-David, Berman, Green, and Waskow all still bear responsibility for this latest round of abuse.
I agree that conversations should primarily be proactive from here on out, but for those affected by Gafni, or close to those who were affected by him, these conversations are made all the more difficult when the individuals who protected this man, for whatever reason, are let off the hook.
How should Ner-David, Waskow, Leader, Green, Berman, and Telushkin have responded to these allegations? Calling those who leveled those allegations “rodfim” certainly was not appropriate.
Wow…wow. How one can draw a parallel between consentual sex between adults (albeit inappropriate in this case) and rape is beyond me. We throw around “nazi”, “rape”, “brown shirt”, “aparthied” so often on Jewschool that we’re raping words of their original intent.
i didn’t throw around the word rape, i was misinformed. and i certainly didn’t draw a parallel between rape and consenual sex, though there is a midway there with coerced sex.
Gafni has admitted to acts which constitute (at least in my state, don’t know about NY law) statutory rape.
Dan,
A few days ago I questioned your “breaking story”…specifically the accusation of “rape”. YOU felt pretty confident about the source/info. YOUR actions were the catalyst for a plethora of websites to spread the rumor of rape.
I don’t know you, but I can’t help but wonder if the same narcissim that fuels Gafni, fueled your extremely poor judgement to use the accusation of rape before knowing the facts.
Striemel:
According to Ynet: “According to Attorney Olman, the complainants accused Gafni of rape, sexual harassment and indecent assault and notified police that once the rabbi learns of the complaint against him he is likely to try to flee the country.”
I’ve never heard of someone filing a report with the police for consensual sex, which makes me more inclined to believe that what was going was not so consensual.
I want to thank Mobius for letting me post again. I will now post what I sent to him privately with some minor changes. I am also attaching a letter signed by the Jewish Renewal leadership and provided to Gafni for distribution. Further, I call on Jewish Renewal members to hold their leadership accountable and not allow a re-writing of history. Everyone who signed this letter and the others like it must address their culpability. The letter says “If you have further questions, please feel free to contact any one of us directly.”. I am told that many have not even lived up to their word in this respect over the past days.
I am not going to address the nature of the newest allegations at
this time. That will be done shortly and at that time, I will address the minimization of the charges by community leaders.
As to the clear mal intent of Jewish Renewal leaders, I would note at this time Jewish Renewal leaders have not even made apologies to the past survivors whose truths were attacked or their supporters who were publicly attacked. I’ve been advised of their treatment by Jewish Renewal leaders and will be addressing that shortly. At this time, I suggest that Jewish Renewal members ask their leadership what they have done and what they will do to make amends to thse brave women who’s only mistake was believing that by coming forward, rabbonim, lay leaders and medical and mental health practitioners would listen and stand with them to protect others from suffering as they did. They refused to even hear their cries.
You state:
“Secondly, Jacob Ner David and Avraham Leader relied upon the
investigations of Rabbis Saul Berman and Arthur Green who would have benefited in no way from staking their reputations on exonerating Gafni. I believe they acted appropriately and I retract my statement questioning Ner David’s hiring of Gafni.”
Firstly, Rabbi Green never investigated Gafni’s history and simply relied on others. In a 2004 letter to The Jewish Week defending Gafni, Green said that he had not investigated the allegations and had “no interest in doing so.”
Secondly, how could Berman have properly investigated the allegations when he refused to speak to several of Gafni’s survivors?
Thirdly as to Jacob Ner David and Avraham Leader now claiming not to have investigated Gafni please read this letter that was circulated by Gafni AND Jewish Renewal Leaders. It indicates clearly the opposite. To emphasize “… all the undersigned do, have individually and collectively examined the accusations about him that this group has been spreading.” When and how? And if not, how dare they write this letter. They must answer for it.
To The Jewish Community worldwide:
In this letter we the undersigned ask the Jewish community worldwide to reaffirm its commitment to the Torah, and to the ethical principles of Judaism.
Although the specific focus of our discussion is Rabbi Mordechai Gafni, whom have known collectively for many years, the issues we address are universal and timeless.
A group of several people – none of whom know Rabbi Gafni personally in any real way, and none who has had any contact in the past twenty years – have undertaken a systematic campaign to besmirch his name. Their primary method has been to keep alive and distort two very old and long discredited stories. Their attacks have recently increased in volume and intensity. He has consistently and generously offered to meet with them, but they have refused. Many people who know Rabbi Gafni well, as all the undersigned do, have individually and collectively examined the accusations about him that this group has been spreading. We have found their rumors and accusations to be either wholly without substance or radically distorted to the point of falsification. We conclude that the false and malicious rumors against Gafni constitute lashon hara – and that the dissemination of such lies is prohibited by the Torah and Jewish ethical principles. Thus we must address and to make right the wrong that has been attempted in regard to Rabbi Gafni, and affirm our support of him as an important teacher and leader in the Jewish community.
We have worked with Rabbi Gafni in many contexts, ranging from colleague to employer. We have published his works in our collections, co-taught with him, and known him in a host of other close relationships. Over the years, we have also extensively discussed with him the different stages of his life and the decisions he has made in relationships, professional choices and more.
We affirm without reservation that in addition to being a person of enormous gifts, depth, and vision, Rabbi Gafni is also a person of real integrity. He possesses a unique combination of courage and audacity coupled with a genuine humility that comes only from having lived life fully – with all of its complexity, beauty and sometimes pain.
Leaders of his caliber and depth who are committed to ongoing personal development are few and far between. From our dual commitment to him as an individual, as well as to the most profound ethical teachings of the Torah, we urge you as the reader of this letter to reject the false reports about Rabbi Gafni, and to give him your full support, as we all have done and continue to do. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact any one of us directly.
Sincerely,
Metuka Benjamin, Director of Education, Stephen S. Wise Temple
Rabbi Phyllis Berman, Former Director Elat Chayyim summer program
Rabbi Saul Berman, Director, Edah
Zivit Davidovich, Executive Producer, Israel Channel 2 Television
Rabbi Tirzah Firestone, Congregation Nevei Kodesh
Rabbi Shefa Gold. Director C-Deep, composer and teacher
Rabbi Arthur Green, Dean, Hebrew College Rabbinical School
Rabbi Eli Herscher, Stephen S. Wise Synagogue
Arthur Kurzweil, former Director, Elat Chayyim, Jewish Book Club,
Avraham Leader, Leader Minyan, Bayit Chadash
Stephen Marmer, M.D., Psychiatrist, UCLA Medical School
Jacob Ner-David, Board Chair, Bayit Chadash
Peter Pitzele, Ph.D., Bibliodrama Institute
Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, Rabbinic Chair, Aleph
Don Seeman, Ph.D. Emory University
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author, Jewish Literacy and Jewish Wisdom
Rabbi David Zaslow, Havurah Shir Hadash
Noam Zion, Hartman Institute
“I’ve never heard of someone filing a report with the police for consensual sex”
As an ex-Child Protection Worker I have seen horrible damage done to folks who are accused of rape, child molestation, etc. And while I don’t doubt the sincereity of Dan’s yearning for justice, I do question the sensational motives behind using “rape” before the facts rolled in. Very, very dangerous.
If Gafni is so innocent, as many seem to be saying. Why, first did he flee. And secondly, why did he write that extremely incriminating letter? Abuse of power for sexual purposes is a bad thing — especially in a religious leader.
These allegations have been following him for years and most people stood by him. I do think something is very wrong here, and it’s good to see people listening to the woman he is accused of harming.
No one is saying Gafni is innocent. The letter above by the rabbis is from last year.
JWB writes: In a 2004 letter to The Jewish Week defending Gafni, Green said that he had not investigated the allegations and had “no interest in doing so.â€
Where does he say that? Neither that quote nor that sentiment appears in Rabbi Green’s letter (text below).
I ask this not in any way to support Gafni, but to ensure that the critiques of those who did support him are at least accurate. Whatever mistakes Rabbi Green may have made regarding Gafni, I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that he also spoke about Gafni’s “genuinely bad deeds,” suggesting that “perhaps this rabbi should be made to confront his past more fully” in front of a beit din.
*****************
Green’s letter:
Although I am not a regular reader of The Jewish Week, a New York colleague sent me your column regarding Rabbi Mordechai Gafni (â€The Re-Invented Rabbi,†Sept. 24). It makes me wonder whether journalistic honors and awards are as rescindable as rabbinic smicha seems to be.
I have known Rabbi Gafni for several years and think highly of his abilities as a creative teacher of Torah. As a trusted friend, I also know how he struggles with a personal history that includes some genuinely bad deeds done when he was quite young, some 20 years ago. He has been relentlessly persecuted for those deeds by a small band of fanatically committed rodfim, in whom proper disapproval of those misdeeds combines with jealously, anger at his swerving from Orthodoxy, and a range of other emotions.
Perhaps this rabbi should be made to confront his past more fully. A bet din before a mutually accepted rabbi would be the right setting for that. But the public press? Who set you up as ruler and judge over us? Is this responsible journalism?
Rabbi Gafni has more or less been assassinated in the Jewish community. None of his explanations will mean much against the whispering that will accompany him forever, thanks to your article, within the confines of our extended gossipy shtetl. You have taken it upon yourself, on erev Yom Kippur, to drive a man away from Jewish life. In the absence of anything like a “smoking gun†evidenced in present or recent conduct, I find this journalistically and Jewishly abhorrent.
Rabbi Arthur Green
Newton, Mass.
this is completely anonymous, but as far as i heard from a seond hand account, the are more women who have started to accuse gafni. Also, i think the confusion about rape comes from the fact that some are hesitant to take it that far. however, it is clear that he was violent, abusive, and what he was doing to this women was clearly pathological. He said as much himself.
>No one is saying Gafni is innocent. The letter above by the
>rabbis is from last year.
Correct, no one is saying so now but this letter clearly states “… all the undersigned do, have individually and collectively examined the accusations about him that this group has been spreading.†That includes Jacob Ner David and Avraham Leader who Mobius now states “relied upon the investigations of Rabbis Saul Berman”. My point is that all that were part of writing such letters must be now held accountable.
>Where does he say that? Neither that quote nor that
>sentiment appears in Rabbi Green’s letter (text below).
You have missed the second letter:
Letters to the Editor
By Rabbi Arthur Green
The Jewish Week – October 15, 2004
Apparently some have misread my earlier letter regarding the charges against Rabbi Mordechai Gafni to imply that I know the allegations against him to be valid (“Abhorrent Column,” Oct. 1). Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no independent knowledge concerning the allegations, have not investigated them and have no interest in doing so. I do have full confidence in the investigation undertaken by Rabbis Saul Berman and Joseph Telushkin, and I support their findings.
Rabbi Arthur Green
Boston, Mass.
>Whatever mistakes Rabbi Green may have
>made regarding Gafni, I think it’s only fair to
>acknowledge that he also spoke about
>Gafni’s “genuinely bad deeds,†suggesting
>that “perhaps this rabbi should be made to
>confront his past more fully†in front of a beit din.
Again, Rabbi Green stated ” He has been relentlessly persecuted for those deeds by a small band of fanatically committed rodfim, in whom proper disapproval of those misdeeds combines with jealously, anger at his swerving from Orthodoxy, and a range of other emotions.” and also put his name on the earlier letter “… all the undersigned do, have individually and collectively examined the accusations about him that this group has been spreading.â€. Rabbi Green must be held accountable for this.
Further, his use of the term “rodfim” is despicable. It has been suggested that rodef literally means pursuers in some benign, innocent way. That is incorrect. In Hebrew, many words have a three letter “shoresh” or root. There can be numerous words with differing yet similar root meanings that have the same derivation from the same shoresh. There are numerous words with the same shoresh as rodef but they are mainly adjectives, verbs and adverbs. There are a few nouns with the same shoresh.
They include:
Redifah = pursuit
Meradeh = one who pursues vanities
Mordaf = persecuted/pursued.
Rabbi Arthur Green used rodfim as a noun. As a noun, there is no modern Hebrew usage of the term rodef/rodfim. It is a biblical term and a Halachic designation. It does not mean a mere benign pursuer. It means “a pursuer(s) with murderous intention”. A person who meets the definition of a rodef/rodfim is subject to din rodef / law of the pursuer and is subject to death on sight. It is forbidden to transgress the sabbath to save the life of a rodef/rodfim.
The average person in any hebrew speaking community in the entire world who saw a person shake his fist at a group of people and shout “RODFIM” would instantly recognize, understand and appreciate the “blood libel” being stated. That is exactly what Rabbi Arthur Green has done here.
It is not right that Jewish Renewal leaders attacked those who came forward and sought both justice and to prevent future horrors. It is not right that Jewish Renewal leaders can make claim that were clearly false with impunity such as “… all the undersigned do, have individually and collectively examined the accusations about him that this group has been spreading.†when clearly NO examinations of the accusations were made. Not by Berman, not by Telushkin and not by Jewish Renewal leaders. They refused to even talk to a number of Gafn’s survivors who tried to contact them AND still to this day have not. How is that an investigation? It is a white-wash, a distortion and has been a cover-up that assisted Gafni’s predatory behavior.
Why are all of the above leaders STILL continuing to distort their role over the past years in:
1) declaring Gafni had been exconerated when he had not.
2) declaring that investigations occured when they did not.
3) publically attacking those who came forward.
These leaders all protected and enabled Gafni through public statements that were false and meant to mislead. Where is the accountability? And if there is none, how does that protect the next person who has the courage to come forward? What prevents them from being treated the same way?
How is this not rape? Using one’s position of authority to coerce someone into a sexual relationship/encounter is non-consensual sex. That’s rape. Otherwise what are these women complaining about? That he left the toilet seat up afterwards? That he didn’t call? that the quality of his foreplay seemed insincere?? Just so you know, most rape is not committed by some thug hiding in the bushes, it usually involves two people who know each other.
CK,
You studied law no? If the sex was consentual (and some of the facts support this) then it’s not rape. Finished.
Dan – Thanks for clarifying your earlier comments. I think they simultaneously help defuse the situation, and focus our attention on the reality – which, let’s remember, is bad enough. For other posters: I think it’s helpful, when quoting, to be sure to attach dates to the statements made. For example, the Forward’s story mentions a dismissive remark made by R. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, comparing Gafni’s misdeeds to specks of pepper in the salt. This remark, which I think is regrettable in any case, was made in 2004, but since the Forward didn’t specify that, one might think that he made it just now — which would be not just regrettable but appalling.
If it is true that R. Berman did not really interview Gafni’s accusers — and I have no idea he did or didn’t, I just know some people say he didn’t — then that really is one of the major problems. We can debate whether Jacob Ner-David and Avraham Leader should have augmented Berman’s investigation with their own separate one – maybe yes, maybe no. But it is indisputable that R. Berman, who said he did a “thorough investigation,” should certainly have done so. Given that he is not a Renewalnik, I can’t think of any ulterior motive he might have had. This suggests that maybe it was a horrible misjudgment on his part — which again, to me, suggests the need for independent standards of inquiry for rabbis like Gafni, Kolko, Lanner, and others.
Mobius said to me last night that some people are now wondering whether even the Chofetz Chaim is wrong, and that sometimes it’s worth risking some lashon hara when lives are threatened. That to me is a very dangerous point of view, akin to those espoused by President Bush and his ilk, which hold that a little collateral damage is justified by the greater good. Objective standards, perhaps external boards of inquiry, rules of procedure – these are more Jewish and more just. Had they been applied to the Gafni investigation, I doubt that as many people would have signed on to R. Berman’s investigation. However, what they were presented with was an unbiased, unimpeachable rabbi who said he did his due diligence – very Christian, really, and not very Jewish: trust my heart, not a formal, written law; my soul, not standards.
At the same time, objective standards are also important in legal terms like “rape.” It’s difficult because as a man, I do not want to undermine or challenge a woman’s subjective experience of victimhood. That, to me, perpetuates a lot of the problem. However, as deplorable as psychological manipulation and abusing one’s position of authority is, it is not (in my opinion as a lawyer, but not one familiar with Israeli law) legally rape.
Finally, as per Mobius’s mea culpa, blogs are blogs. Personally, when I read blog-breaking news, I know that it does not conform to reliable journalistic principles (there are the objective standards again). Hopefully all of us take everything that a blogger, or commenter, says, with a grain of salt. Not because Mobius is negligent or malicious – but because blogging as a medium is good for speed – not accuracy.
Whistleblower- You’re picking and choosing what to focus on. Green also writes that the “rodfim” expressed “proper disapproval of those [Gafni’s] misdeeds”. Then he takes them to task for other things.
This “rodfim” business is ridiculous (and old, since I’ve seen this exact rant about Green and the rodfim verbatim elsewhere on the web). It was an unfortunate choice of words on Green’s part, that’s for sure. But no one who knows Art Green, whether you like him personally or not, would even begin to think that he was using the technical, halachic definition of rodef. He doesn’t think in those terms or operate in a Jewish community where anyone would understand his words that way.
>This remark, which I think is regrettable in any case,
>was made in 2004, but since the Forward didn’t specify
>that, one might think that he made it just now — which
>would be not just regrettable but appalling.
It’s appalling period. It was appalling then in reference to the sexual assault of a 13 year-old, it’s appaling now. Again, no retraction, no apology.
>It was an unfortunate choice of words on Green’s part,
It’s more than that, rodfim only has one meaning. It’s outrageous. I would note he has never retracted OR apologized for his comments.
>If it is true that R. Berman did not really interview Gafni’s
>accusers — and I have no idea he did or didn’t,
Contact Rabbi Blau or one of the victims, they will confirm as they did to Gary Rosenblatt in the 2004 article and in the Maariv article.
>then that really is one of the major problems. We can
>debate whether Jacob Ner-David and Avraham Leader
>should have augmented Berman’s investigation with
>their own separate one – maybe yes, maybe no.
NONE of these people EVER DID a proper investigation. Waskow ALSO sent out letters claiming there were several investigations by Jewish Renewal.
At the end of the day what does it matter?
1) Does this mean that as long as a sexual predator has some rabbinical support, the allegations of survivors can be ignored? That it is open season on the survivors. That rabbinical leaders, lay leaders and medica/mental health professionals are entitled to declare a predator’s innocence and smear the names and motives of the survivors and their supporters.
2) All Jewish Renewal leaders relied on an investigation that was neither professional nor complete AND then sent out letters with their names attached (Jacob Ner-David and Avraham Leader as well) falsely claiming to have examined the allegations when they did not. These letters were clearly FALSE and intended to mislead.
How can you possibly put all the blame on Berman? Yes, he did wrong and must be held accountable but so must everyone in Jewish Renewal who signed letters and made public statements.
If their claim now is that they smeared the names of good people based on Berman’s opinion alone, I even MORE disturbed.
Who are these people Berman and Gafni’s goons?
Why have all of you dismissed the brave women who came forward, Rabbi Blau’s public statements and Gary Rosenblatt’s article from 2004? Did none of the Jewish Renewal leadership read the Maariv article? Why did they continue to shut their ears and eyes? Why no inquiries?
What is wrong with the Jewish Renewal leadership?
Are they simply unaccountable and unreprentant for their treatment of Gafni’s survivors?
Why have all of you dismissed the brave women who came forward
Who’s dismissed these women?!?!
Um… I’m Israeli, I use modern Hebrew, and the word ‘rodfim’ is used in every day Hebrew. Primarily as a verb tense: ‘hem rodfim oto’ means ‘they are chasing him.’
Rodfim means, the ones who pursue or chase. It’s technical sense within Jewish halacha is secondary, and easy to forget if one does not think in those terms.
There was a ‘revival’ of the term rodfim in the wake of the Rabin assassination, but that was ten years ago, and mostly in the Hebrew press. So…. enough already on that particular charge. I think someone is a little too invested in making words means what they want them to mean….
a minor issue, but then this is a blog comment….
> Who’s dismissed these women?!?!
All these people (plus more, there are numerous similar letters with the same assertions that the women who came forward are liars).
From their letter:
“Their primary method has been to keep alive and distort two very old and long discredited stories.” and “as all the undersigned do, have individually and collectively examined the accusations about him that this group has been spreading. We have found their rumors and accusations to be either wholly without substance or radically distorted to the point of falsification. We conclude that the false and malicious rumors against Gafni constitute lashon hara – and that the dissemination of such lies is prohibited by the Torah and Jewish ethical principles.”
Signed:
Metuka Benjamin, Director of Education, Stephen S. Wise Temple
Rabbi Phyllis Berman, Former Director Elat Chayyim summer program
Rabbi Saul Berman, Director, Edah
Zivit Davidovich, Executive Producer, Israel Channel 2 Television
Rabbi Tirzah Firestone, Congregation Nevei Kodesh
Rabbi Shefa Gold. Director C-Deep, composer and teacher
Rabbi Arthur Green, Dean, Hebrew College Rabbinical School
Rabbi Eli Herscher, Stephen S. Wise Synagogue
Arthur Kurzweil, former Director, Elat Chayyim, Jewish Book Club,
Avraham Leader, Leader Minyan, Bayit Chadash
Stephen Marmer, M.D., Psychiatrist, UCLA Medical School
Jacob Ner-David, Board Chair, Bayit Chadash
Peter Pitzele, Ph.D., Bibliodrama Institute
Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, Rabbinic Chair, Aleph
Don Seeman, Ph.D. Emory University
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author, Jewish Literacy and Jewish Wisdom
Rabbi David Zaslow, Havurah Shir Hadash
Noam Zion, Hartman Institute
>Um… I’m Israeli, I use modern Hebrew, and the word
>‘rodfim’ is used in every day Hebrew. Primarily as a verb
>tense: ‘hem rodfim oto’ means ‘they are chasing him.’
He used it as a noun “by a small band of fanatically committed rodfim”, NOT as a verb.
>Rodfim means, the ones who pursue or chase.
>It’s technical sense within Jewish halacha is
>secondary, and easy to forget if one does not
>think in those terms.
To repeat, yet again:
It has been suggested that rodef literally means pursuers in some benign, innocent way. That is incorrect. In Hebrew, many words have a three letter “shoresh” or root. There can be numerous words with differing yet similar root meanings that have the same derivation from the same shoresh. There are numerous words with the same shoresh as rodef but they are mainly adjectives, verbs and adverbs. There are a few nouns with the same shoresh.
They include:
Redifah = pursuit
Meradeh = one who pursues vanities
Mordaf = persecuted/pursued.
Rabbi Arthur Green used rodfim as a noun. As a noun, there is no modern Hebrew usage of the term rodef/rodfim. It is a biblical term and a Halachic designation. It does not mean a mere benign pursuer. It means “a pursuer(s) with murderous intention”. A person who meets the definition of a rodef/rodfim is subject to din rodef / law of the pursuer and is subject to death on sight. It is forbidden to transgress the sabbath to save the life of a rodef/rodfim.
The average person in any hebrew speaking community in the entire world who saw a person shake his fist at a group of people and shout “RODFIM” would instantly recognize, understand and appreciate the “blood libel” being stated. That is exactly what Rabbi Arthur Green has done here.
And if now he claims “I have no independent knowledge concerning the allegations, have not investigated them and have no interest in doing so. ” how dare he make comments like “by a small band of fanatically committed rodfim”. How dare he put his name to letters that attack and denigrate Gafni’s accusers and preceived enemies. How dare he declare Gafni’s innocence.
It is outrageous and unacceptable.
Not only do I believe that the Jewish Renewal leadership (and a few others) who signed the letter above should be held morally and ethically responsible for their statements and removed from public life BUT I believe that the letter makes both the signers AND their organizations potentially liable to Gafni’s current survivors.
It has been a week without public OR private apology to Gafni’s past survivors, and frankly I have given up any hope that they will do so. They seem more interested in speaking to the press and potraying themselves as either heroes or victims. They are neither. As such I am now content to simply call on Gafni’s latest survivors and any others who’ve been similarily abused to not only sue Gafni but also all those who personally who vouched for Gafni and the organizations in whom’s name they signed. We will provide your counsel with copies of the letters. As we obviously will not see any public accountability from the Jewish Renewal leadership, we must now settle for financial accountability.
I suggest contacting the following lawyer:
Jeffrey Herman
Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 2218
Miami, Florida 33160
Call Toll Free
1-800-686-9921
Tel / 305-931-2200
Perhaps at $10 million a survivor, we will finally get accountability from the Jewish Renewal leadership. Certainly the cries of brave women, the public support of Rabbi Blau and articles in the Jewish Week and Maariv have gotten us no accountability, not even an apology.
striemel wrote: CK, You studied law no? If the sex was consentual (sic.) (and some of the facts support this) then it’s not rape. Finished.
Yes streimel. If the sex was consensual then no sexual assault took place. But consent is more than one person asking for sex and the other person saying yes. For instance, Gafni had a”relaationship” with a 13 year old when he was 24. The 13 year old may have agreed to a sexual relationship but due to her age, the law states that she was incapable of consenting. The same applies if a woman is drunk – she is incapable of consent. Similar rules apply to persons in authority or employers. Think about it – if they consented fully, what are they complaining about?
Cut JWB some slack. He was a very important part of Gafni’s shtick, which I had the (dubious) pleasure of hearing from Gafni himself.
The first part was about some alleged long-lasting feud with Rabbi and Rebbetzin Blau — didn’t ring true with me, but then, I’ve long maintained that with Rabbi Blau at REITS, the rabbincal school chould boast at least a tenth-of-a-minyan of honest men. And then as for the other accusers — there was Luke Ford, whose journalistic endeavors on the other side of the mechitza lead to easy discrediting; and then there was the madcap duo of Vicki Polin and JWB; a group so devoted to fighting sex-offenses that they don’t resist any opportunity to drag into their net…. blog combatants, such as me and my pal Yori. (Yep: For the sin of calling JWB on his demonstrable lies, I have a mug shot up at http://theawarenesscenter.org/yudelson_larry.jpeg)
The question remains: Can there be any sort of body which spreads the word on sleazy rabbis, while remaining neutral on their actual belief and practice?
To mobius:
This post clears up my concerns with the original. Kol hakavod, and thank you.
To ck:
I think we all want the answer to that same question. The most commonly-reported complaints in this case so far are not with sex, per se, and whether it were consensual or not, but rather with psychological manipulation, swearing to silence, and/or other abuses of power within the sexual relationships. It really is not clear yet what was actually alleged, because everything is still third-hand and speculative.
To everyone:
I understand that at least two of the women’s depositions have been made public in Israel. Can anyone make them available to us Stateside?
As one of Gafni’s victims I can speak from experience. He manipulated me, used my youth, naiveté and insecurity. He sexually molested me when I was a minor. I tried to speak out, I told people who I thought would listen, I was young and did not know where else to turn. The people who saw him for who he is believed me while others tried to silence me. He left the community and moved on – just to abuse again. I feel for his current victims and those who may emerge from the woodwork. I understand that times were different then – maybe had you all listened then we may not be where we are today.