Tuesday, May 31, 2016


Scarsdale Integrative Medicine

2 Overhill Road, Suite 260
Scarsdale NY 10583
Phone: 914.722.9440
Fax: 914.722.9441 

Spiritual and Psychological Counseling

Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt, Phd

Spiritual and Psychological Counseling

Rabbi Jonathan I Rosenblatt, an ordained rabbi, holds Bachelor and Masters degrees of the Johns Hopkins University and a Phd of Columbia University in modern British literature. He recently returned from a Fellowship at Harvard University. He has studied in the United States, Israel and France. He combines the ancient wisdom of the Jewish tradition with the sophistication of a broad Western liberal arts and social science education.

Recently retired from more than three decades in the community rabbinate, Rabbi Rosenblatt is now sharing his broad experience in counseling and guidance with the community at large. In addition to extensive experience guiding his flock through the gamut of human trials, traumas and relationships, Rabbi Rosenblatt was the founding Director of Spiritual Care at the Zicklin Jewish Hospice Residence. In this role, the rabbi counseled and comforted families and patients of many faith traditions and backgrounds in cooperation with a cross-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Known widely as ‘a Rabbi’s Rabbi’, Dr. Rosenblatt has mentored and trained a generation of young Rabbis, supporting both their personal and professional development. Many Rabbis from around the world call him to consult on their thorniest counseling situations. 

Rabbi Rosenblatt has deep experience across a broad spectrum of challenges: coping with serious illness and bereavement, stressful family relationships, parenting challenges, life transitions, loss of a sense of meaning and direction, workplace conflicts.
  • Service Provided: Spiritual and psychological counseling

Monday, May 30, 2016

"There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before."

A De-Sexed Society is a De-Humanized Society

President Obama’s transgender directive isn’t about civil rights or bathroom use. It’s about state control over personal relationships.

As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”

The latest exhibit of this general rule is President Obama’s directive that seeks to force a transgender bathroom, locker room and dorm policy on the entire nation, starting with schoolchildren. Many of us are taken aback by this news, but we really shouldn’t be. The order is merely the latest incarnation of a long line of social engineering. The goal, as is always the case with such movements, is to remake humanity. What the people behind this latest version won’t tell you is that their project requires each and every one of us to deny our own humanity.

Let me explain.

The transgender movement has never been about “gender.” It’s all about sex. Sex is the real target. “Gender” is merely the politicized linguistic vehicle that facilitates a legal ban on sex distinctions. There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before.

Let’s Review Reality
Physical reality exists independent of “gender identity non-discrimination” law—or any man-made law. Laws have no power to make reality go away, but they can change how people behave in response to reality. They can enforce disregard for reality through speech protocols, social and economic pressures, invasions of privacy, and thought policing. And that is what the effect of Obama’s executive order is all about.

It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought. In New York, you can now be fined if you don’t re-engineer your speech (and thoughts) to align with new and ever-changing pronoun protocols.

We’re being pushed to “evolve” rapidly from laws that seem to allow male-female distinctions to laws that will categorically reject those distinctions in the not-too-distant future. Federal forms are already reflecting these changes by erasing sexed terms such as “mother” and “father.” And at every turn, we’re seeing the specific term “sex” replaced with the meaningless, ambiguous term “gender.”

This puts us on the path to banning recognition of the reality that every single human being exists through the union of one male and one female. There are no exceptions to this reality. You exist as the union of the two opposites through whom you were created.

So the administration’s action is an order for a somewhat suicidal type of behavior modification: it attempts to make us deny the reality of our humanity. In a real sense, this amounts to a denial of our very existence. All such denials of reality require heavy-handed censorship. We have already seen the governors of South Dakota and Georgia fold in the face of threats that federal funding would be withheld and big businesses would withdraw from the states if they attempted to enforce single-sex restrooms.

Without Sex, There Are No Families

What will happen when all of society is sexless in both language and law? If the law does not recognize your body as physically male or female—applying only the word “gender” to your internal, self-reported self-perception—does the law even recognize your body? Every single cell of you has either “male” or “female” written into its DNA, but the law refuses to recognize such categories.

Such laws will only recognize an infinite, immeasurable “gender spectrum,” your place on which is determined only by your mind. So what exactly are you after the law has de-sexed you? In what sense is your body a legal entity?

And what happens to your familial relationships after the law has de-sexed you? Are they legally recognized? I don’t see how they could be. Certainly not by default, certainly not by the recognition that each child comes through the union of two opposite-sex parents.

In a society de-sexed by law, would the state recognize your relationship as a husband or a wife? 

Mother or father? Daughter or son? Those are all sexed terms. A system that does not recognize the existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage of any child. You might be recognized as your child’s “legal guardian,” but only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a guardian to your child if the state decides it’s in the child’s “best interest.” In this vision, there is nothing to prevent the state from severing the mother-child bond at will.

In such a scenario, the state controls all personal relationships right at their source: the biological family. The abolition of family autonomy would be complete, because the biological family would cease to be a default arrangement. The “family” would be whatever the state allows it to be. Again, in the de-sexed world of gender politics, all personal relationships end up controlled and regulated by the state.

Martha Fineman, a gender legal theorist, touched on this in her 2004 book The Autonomy Myth. In it, she argues for the abolition of state-recognized marriage because it allows for family privacy, writing that “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society” (emphasis added).

Gender ideology is an effective statist tool. Cultural Marxists use it to corrupt language and sow confusion, especially among children. It paves the way for the removal of the institutional protections for freedom of association and family privacy that stand in the way of “regulating interactions among all members of society.”

How Could a Society Reject Its Own Freedom?

Getting free people to reject freedom may seem a tall order. How, you might ask, could people ever be convinced to let go of their families and consent to such a dystopian social structure? How do you get public opinion on board with an agenda that leads them to deny the reality of their own humanity?

There are lots of pieces to this puzzle, including the erosion of social trust, the breakdown of family, social polarization, and growing ignorance of history. But the groundwork has been laid over a long period of time.

First, virtually all outlets of communication had to be on board—Hollywood, academia, the media. Check. All medical personnel, particularly mental health personnel, had to be “educated” to comply with the transgender program or risk losing their licenses. Check. The educational establishment had to imbue schoolchildren with the ideology. Check. Large corporations had to get on board as stakeholders and enforcers. Check. And, of course, the push to legally de-sex society had to be embedded—Trojan Horse style—within a slightly less alien idea, with the slick slogan “marriage equality.” Check. Churches had to be brought on board so that even religion became a conduit for anti-truth. Check. Social, emotional, and economic pressures had to be established to censure anyone who dared to question the wisdom of it all. Check. Any such person had to be labeled a bigot, a hater, and a non-person. Checkmate.

At this point, the most primal and universal of human fears comes into play: the fear of being socially rejected. Self-censorship takes off. People start falsifying what they believe, until they eventually don’t even know what they believe anymore. Nobody can talk openly to one another. In the end, it’s as though we are each being marched into a separate solitary confinement cell. That’s what happens when free association takes a hit, when the state severs particular relationships in the name of a collective togetherness. Then, when we can’t verify reality with one another anymore—because we are so afraid of being ostracized—we end up living in an age of mass delusion.

The only way out is to affirm reality. We must reclaim our full humanity. Let’s start by reinjecting our language with one very good word that points to reality: sex. Yes, let’s revive the word “sex,” and use it generously whenever referring to the biological reality of our physical nature. (And spiritual nature too.) At the same time, let’s refuse—always—to use the word “gender” when we mean sex. It’s a poisoned and weaponized word that has been used to legally de-sex and thus dehumanize us all. We must work together to resist its deceptions.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist and blogs about relationships, power, and freedom at stellamorabito.net.


Sunday, May 29, 2016

"Men who rape three-year-olds still get probation instead of prison time. We claim to despise rapists and child molesters, but there’s Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist, still lauded and awarded by Hollywood. There’s Woody Allen, accused of molesting his daughter, on the red carpet to promote his new film while famous power-players circle the wagons."

Corey Feldman’s Claims Show Why Sex Crimes Should Have No Statute of Limitations

Jill Filipovic is a lawyer and writer
Bill Cosby stands accused of sexually assaulting dozens of women. Woody Allen, now married to his adopted step-daughter, faces accusations of molestation from his biological daughter. (Both men have denied the charges.) The Hollywood Reporter recently published an interview with actor Corey Feldman in which Feldman says that he and now-deceased actor Corey Haim were routinely raped (Haim), molested (Feldman) and abused (both, among other children) by Hollywood predators. In his interview with THR, Feldman said that despite knowing “every single person” who targeted Haim—a man who died at 38 after decades of drug abuse—he couldn’t name them.

“I’m not able to name names,” Feldman said. “People are frustrated, people are angry, they want to know how is this happening and they want answers and they turn to me and they say, ‘Why don’t you be a man and stand up and name names and stop hiding and being a coward?’ I have to deal with that, which is not pleasant, especially given the fact that I would love to name names. I’d love to be the first to do it. But unfortunately California conveniently enough has a statute of limitations that prevents that from happening. Because if I were to go and mention anybody’s name I would be the one that would be in legal problems and I’m the one that would be sued.”

I have written that, in light of the Cosby accusations, there should be no statute of limitations for rape. With ever public allegation—every child who was assaulted and never said anything until adulthood, every woman who assumed no one would believe her until she heard so many other women accuse the same man—the case for removing statutes of limitation for rape gets stronger.

It is a shame that celebrity scandals finally get the American public really talking about sexual violence. One in five women, and one in 71 men, will be raped in their lifetime. Many more will experience attempted rape, or other forms of sexual violence. Thousands of rape kits sit untested in crime labs as the cases associated with them go stale and rapists remain free to assault again. The overwhelming majority of assailants never see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a day in jail.

Many victims also never report the crime, or wait days, months, years or even decades to speak about it. Despite its ubiquity, sexual violence remains a deep source of shame for many who survive it. The act itself is one of unique cruelty—turning the sexual parts of the body, which is for many people are sources of great pleasure and joy, into a locus of pain and humiliation – only compounded by a society that seems to willfully misunderstand and misrepresent rape and sexual violence. In the same breath as we say that a woman is never at fault for being raped, we still ask what she could have done to avoid it, as if the problem were her behavior and not a rapist who would likely have assaulted some other woman had the one he found not been there.

 We talk about acquaintance rape as if it’s often some sort of misunderstanding, two drunk people just not communicating their needs instead of one person deciding sex is a thing he simply takes and not a mutually pleasurable shared experience. We look at handsome male celebrities accused of rape—Kobe Bryant, for example—and ask why he would ever rape anyone when he could get sex from any number of willing women, as if rape were about uncontrollable and unfulfilled male desire instead of sadism and a desire to make someone else hurt. (Bryant settled a civil suit with his accuser, to whom he had to apologize, without admitting guilt.)

Americans have a disordered relationship with sexual violence, and the victims of it make us especially uncomfortable. Can you blame them for not speaking up?

The least we could do is not put arbitrary roadblocks in the way of those same victims getting justice.

Opponents of doing away with statutes of limitations for sexual assault cases, including the Catholic Church in the aftermath of its own sex abuse scandal, cite legitimate concerns. “Statutes of limitations exist to ensure a just verdict can be reached,” Amy Hill, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, told Business Insider. “Over time witnesses’ memories fade, evidence is lost or never found, and in many instances perpetrators or witnesses may be deceased.”

Those concerns, though, don’t require a limit on how long after a crime is committed prosecutors can bring a case. If a perpetrator or a witness is dead, they’re dead —which may impact a prosecutor’s decision to try a case, and may mean it never gets brought, but there’s no need to impose an artificial constraint. Ditto concerns about lost evidence and fading memories—it’s not clear why capping a case at 12 or 20 years would solve those problems.

The longer a case sits, the weaker it gets. For that reason, it’s unlikely that doing away with statutes of limitations will result in a wave of decades-old prosecutions. Most old cases are simply too weak to win.

But some aren’t. And those victims deserve justice—not an arbitrary legal limitation. Statutes of limitations differ by state, so a rape victim in California has a different window in which to report her assault than one in Pennsylvania or New York or Mississippi. There are already sixteen states that don’t have statutes of limitations on rape or sexual assault; no great chaos has broken out, and the justice system has not broken down.

Criminal defendants have a right to fair trials, and certainly judges should take into account the fallibility of human memory. Even eyewitness accounts soon after an event are notoriously unreliable. And perhaps if sex crimes were treated socially, legally and culturally just like any other violent crime, it would make sense to more or less tell victims, “you have a narrow window of time in which to report this, and after that, it’s too late.”

But we don’t treat sex crimes like we treat other crimes. Even legally they’re often treated differently—until fairly recently, testimony about a woman’s sexual history or what she was wearing at the time of the assault was all admissible in court. Men who rape three-year-olds still get probation instead of prison time. We claim to despise rapists and child molesters, but there’s Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist, still lauded and awarded by Hollywood. There’s Woody Allen, accused of molesting his daughter, on the red carpet to promote his new film while famous power-players circle the wagons.

Sexual assault survivors, even those victimized by men more average than famous, face an uphill legal battle. The vast majority of them will never see their assailant tried for his crime. Doing away with statutes of limitations doesn’t solve the entrenched and vast problems facing sexual assault survivors, but it does open a tiny window for a few of them—and would allow survivors like Corey Feldman to shine a light on those who harmed him. Why stand in the way?


Friday, May 27, 2016

Rabbi Wanted for Sex Crimes to Be Extradited to Israel

Shuvu Banim leader Eliezer Berland spent three years on the run from Israeli police, but will now be sent back after arrest in South Africa.

Rabbi Eliezer Berland, who is wanted for sex crimes in Israel, appears before the Randburg magistrate's court, South Africa, April 20, 2016

Rabbi Eliezer Berland, leader of the Shuvu Banim community, signed an extradition agreement Wednesday which will see him returned from South Africa to Israel, according to a source involved with the case.

Berland, 78, is suspected in a number of sexual crimes, namely against women who were part of the Suvu Banim community, one of the main groups affiliated with Breslov, which functions as an independent Hasidic branch.

Since Berland's arrest in April, extradition proceedings have been handled by the international department of the State Attorney's Office.

Berland was arrested in Johannesburg after three years on the run in the U.S., Morocco, Zimbabwe (from where he was expelled in April, 2014), the Netherlands and other countries on three continents. Berland originally fled Israel in April 2013 when he was called in for questioning.

He was arrested in Holland in 2014 and extradition talks began with Israel, but Berland managed to flee once more in July, 2015. Holland had already decided that Berland would be extradited and he appealed the decision, but then took the opportunity to flee upon being released to house arrest.

Berland's lawyer in Israel said that he was resigning from representing his client, but the Justice Ministry declined to confirm or deny the recent developments.

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.721704

Thursday, May 26, 2016

“The judge called that homicide the worst physical bludgeoning he’d ever seen. How do you get a 5- to 10-year sentence for that?”

Rafael Robb’s Parole Is Denied, Case Raises Abuse Awareness

Rafael Robb came from Israel to the U.S. with a bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University. He got his Ph.D. in economics at UCLA, and joined the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania in 1984.
In 1987, he met 30-year-old Ellen Gregory through a dating service; the two married in 1990. As his career as an academic powerhouse thrived, the couple bought a house in Upper Merion and had a daughter, Olivia, in 1994. 
From the outside, everything seemed perfect for this scholarly Jewish son of Holocaust survivors. But inside the house, a battle raged.
The marriage was not a happy one.
Gregory told relatives her husband was controlling. They fought over money. She suffered from depression.
But in 2006, Gregory finally consulted a divorce lawyer, detailing years of physical and emotional abuse on her husband’s part. She told Robb that she wanted a divorce.
Then, on the day when she was scheduled to leave, he bludgeoned her to death in the kitchen of their home. 
At first, Robb denied it, saying an intruder had tried to rob the house. But police arrested him and charged him with first- and third-degree murder, and he eventually pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter.
He said he and Gregory had been arguing that day, and she pushed him; he snapped, took a chin-up bar and beat her to death with it. As the result of a lenient plea agreement, he was sentenced to five to 10 years in prison.
The crime — and all the developments since — made headlines internationally.
It seemed shocking that such a well-respected scholar at an Ivy League university would commit this heinous crime. And there were those who said it was doubly shocking because Robb was Jewish.
This is an attitude that Robin Axelrod Sabag, clinical supervisor and coordinator of the Domestic Violence Program at Jewish Family and Children’s Service, is familiar with.
“People will say to me, ‘You probably don’t have too many cases to work on, in the Jewish community.’ But domestic violence does happen in our community,” she said, noting that it happens at about the same rate as in the community at large. “The one thing that’s different is that it takes longer [for a Jewish domestic violence victim] to leave. It can take five to 15 years longer — three times as long as in other communities.” 
This is, in part, because of the notion that domestic violence doesn’t happen among Jews, so victims are especially chagrined. But there are other reasons, too.
“There’s a shame of leaving — in the Jewish community we’re supposed to stay together,” Sabag said. “And what does that say about you as a woman if that’s happening? There’s the notion of shalom bayit; we’re supposed to have peace in the home.
“There’s the issue of getting a get for more traditional women. There are the financial stressors of leaving. And then, it’s a smaller community, so more people will know about it, and it’s embarrassing and shameful that this could be going on.”
Sabag said if the perpetrator is an upstanding member of the community, the victim may be afraid that they won’t have enough credibility.
“There’s a fear of not being believed.”
Though JFCS’ services are non-denominational, Sabag works with many Jewish clients who come to the organization specifically because it is culturally sensitive. Clients derive comfort from the fact that there are people who understand the cultural and religious dynamics at work in a given situation.
Sabag and her colleagues will mediate with a client’s rabbi, if need be. They also address issues around child abuse in the home, which can complicate a situation enormously.
“There’s a fear of reporting because their child may be placed in a non-Jewish home,” Sabag said.
JFCS even employs someone to work specifically with Orthodox victims of domestic abuse.
“It might pose more issues in leaving if you’re more traditional,” Sabag said. “There’s some spiritual abuse that can occur, especially if you weren’t raised in the traditional sense and then became traditional later in life, the religion might be used as a way to manipulate. Like, you have to do this for me because it’s written in the Torah.
“Someone who’s not as aware of what’s written in the Torah and isn’t as knowledgeable about it might not know what to do. That’s why it’s important to get support, to get a rabbi who says, ‘It’s not okay to do that, and you do have rights.’”
A few weeks ago, the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office announced that the state parole board declined Robb’s recent bid to get out of prison early, which means he’ll serve his entire sentence and be released in January 2017. It also means he’ll stay in the headlines a while longer. 
“When you hear about a high-profile case, you think, that would never happen to me or to my neighbors,” Sabag said. “I don’t know if the cases do a lot to provide awareness. When a casualty happens, people think about it, but I don’t know for how long.”
High-profile cases tend to perpetuate stereotypes, too.
“It’s not just men doing it to women,” Sabag said. “Abuse happens in every community, and there’s some abuse of women towards men.”
But Sabag agrees that the Robb case merits attention, especially because of its sentencing.
“The judge called that homicide the worst physical bludgeoning he’d ever seen. How do you get a 5- to 10-year sentence for that?” 

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

"Rabbis are only able to release themselves from culpability if they took all the means necessary to protect and warn the people of any potential danger."

by Ron Yitzchok Eisenman, Rabbi, Congregation Ahavas Israel, Passaic, New Jersey

“Is Silence Always Golden?”

I am very hesitant to write what I am about to say.

There is no doubt that some will feel that ‘sweeping the dirt under the rug’ is the best policy.

And there are those who will question my decision to write by claiming, “Why discuss uncomfortable issues? Those who are in positions of ‘authority’ are dealing with the issue; so why bring up an issue which others are already dealing with?”

Perhaps the two above mentioned responses have validity; indeed, there is no obligation to publicize that which is no longer a danger to my readership.

However, perhaps that above sentence is not true?

Perhaps there is still a danger?

Perhaps the scourge of abuse has not been eradicated just yet from our midst?

Unfortunately, based on private information which reliable individuals have confided with me, I realize that the below mentioned ‘incident’ is neither a singular aberrant nor is it an anomalistic oddity.

I am also not claiming nor insinuating that ‘the incident’ is endemic nor rampant in our community, and most certainly it is not of pandemic levels.

Yet, it also cannot be truthfully classified as completely aberrant behavior and therefore I feel compelled, indeed, even obligated in my position as a rabbinic leader to speak out.

This past week a man who occupied a position of respect, power, authority and influence (“Mashgiach Ruchani” -spiritual counselor) in a Yeshiva for post high school boys was arrested in Israel on charges of violating the female members of his extended family.

The accused, according to documents released has already confessed to the illicit actions to the internationally respected Beis Din of Rav Karelitz in Bnei Brak. The Beis Din upon learning of the hideous and serious nature of the actions, correctly and promptly turned the case over to law enforcement agencies who in turn arrested and incarcerated the accused perpetrator of these unspeakable atrocities.
What then is there to write?

Why the need to publicize that which others have spoken about and why the need to inform others if they don’t know about it? Is not the accused criminal already behind bars? Will not the justice system of the State of Israel deal with the issue? Why the need to speak more?

This is a good question which I grappled and wrestled with for a long time before writing the following words.

The reason I write is the following:

According to the clear and highly specific indictment, which includes explicit and exact details supplied by the victims-some of whom are now married women with children- the accused was able to achieve his hideous and repugnant goals by convincing the unsuspecting and innocent victims that his actions constituted neither Aveira nor Issur; quite the opposite. By misquoting various ‘clips’ from our Sages in the Talmud and by even utilizing an edited and cryptic recording from Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlita, the accused was able to dupe his less educated and highly vulnerable female relatives into submission and turn them into confused religiously conflicted and highly traumatized victims by “convincing” them that his actions were Mitzvohs and actually permitted according to Halacha.

Specifically because of the accused’s position of rabbinic authority he was able to confound and confuse the women with assurances of rabbinic dispensation in order to manipulate and control his gullible and naïve female minions into submitting to these horrific, heinous, hideous and vicious acts of soul-scarring abuse. These acts were perpetrated from the time his relatives were as young as six and continued until they were married women and mothers.

Such was the wicked power of this nefarious, vile, manipulative and destructive “Mashgiach”.

Why do I write these things?

Who is benefiting from my dissemination and publication of these acts?

Is not the accused already in jail?

Am I hanging out ‘our dirty laundry in the street’?

Many of my readers have no idea what incident I am even referring to as the case occurred in Israel.

Why then do I write?

Do I have a need to be sensational and a muckraker?

I am sure many will critique me for this column; why do I need the pain and aggravation?

The reason is simple.

The Torah tells us "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see [this crime]." (Devarim 21:7)
We learn from here that the rabbinic leaders have an obligation not to ‘close their eyes’ to the deviancies’ of the people.

Rabbis are only able to release themselves from culpability if they took all the means necessary to protect and warn the people of any potential danger.

And therefore I write.

I don’t write for personal honor as I know I will be criticized.

I don’t write to smear anyone as I don’t know anyone involved in this incident.

However, I do write for I feel I have one thing to add; one point to contribute which may, just may help one person avoid the pain, humiliation and scarring of being victimized.

And therefore I write.

If there is one contribution I can add, one small morsel of advice which I feel we learn from the above mentioned tragedy it is the following:

Friends, teach your children from an early age that:

  “No one, absolutely no one…. Whatever the circumstances (unless of course a doctor with a parent or nurse present) has the right to touch you in any way shape or form.”

 “If anyone does touch you, no matter how innocuous the touch may be, tell your parents immediately.”

We must inculcate in our children (perhaps especially our daughters) the Torah true FACT that no one, absolutely NO ONE has the right or the permission to touch them in ANY WAY.

Even if that person is a respected Torah figure and even if that figure is a relative and even if that figure quotes Torah sources, we must tell our children with the same passion and zeal that we tell them “Shema Yisroel” that, “NO ONE has a right to touch you or even discuss with you things you are uncomfortable discussing.”

This incident, as horrific as it is, must be viewed as an opportunity from Hashem Yisborach which we must utilize to the fullest to prevent such an episode from ever repeating itself.

We must not sweep this incident under the rug; quite the opposite, we must shout if from the roof tops and we must view it for what it is: a G-d given clarion call for all of us to insure through the proper education of our children that this never happen again!

I am not saying anything novel or creative; everything I say was said already stated by Chazal generations ago.

The Gemara in Chulin (91a) informs us that the “man” who came to fight and wrestle with Yakov appeared to him dressed as a Talmid Chochom!

The Gemara is clearly teaching that no one is above reproach.

Of course we must teach our children to be respectful of their elders and teachers and we do not want to foment a mentality in which ‘everyone is secretly a vile individual’.

However, we also can no longer have the luxury of not informing our children that there are dangers out there and although we hope they are few and far between, nevertheless, precautions are always needed.

“Honor people and suspect people”; this is the advice given by our sages (based on the Medrash in Kallah Rabbasi 9).

We must follow the ways of sages and on one hand we must respect and honor all; simultaneously, we have an obligation to provide our children with the tools and the knowledge they need to protect themselves in an ever evolving and complicated world.

Please forgive me if I offended anyone with my candidness and please note: I myself would have wished I never would have had to pen these lines…. However, I also feel not to have written them would be shirking my responsibility as a Rav.

I pray my words have the desired impact.
“If Not Now, Then When?”-

Ron Yitzchok Eisenman, Rabbi, Congregation Ahavas Israel, Passaic, NJ

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

SICK PIG had a New York Volunteer Ambulance Service license plate, police said.

Spring Valley Peeping Tom Took Pics Of Naked Couples, Police Say

Nachman Breier

Nachman Breier Photo Credit: MUGSHOT: Courtesy FORT LEE PD
FORT LEE, N.J. -- A Spring Valley beverage driver opened Fort Lee hotel room windows and took cellphone photos of naked couples having sex, said authorities -- who believe he's done it elsewhere in Bergen and Rockland counties.

Fort Lee police responding to complaints from the Skyview Motel on Bergen Boulevard identified the getaway SUV as belonging to 54-year-old Nachman Breier, Detective Capt. Patrick Kissane said.

Breier, 54, lives in Monsey and is part of the Skverer Hasidic sect, which is based in New Square and led by Twersky.

Multiple sources, including two New Square residents and one former resident , told The Journal News that Breier served as Twersky's cook for more than 20 years and is still among a small group of followers chosen to drive the grand rabbi to special events. Breier's brother, Herschel, also worked for years in Twersky's home as a house manager and aide.

 The vehicle had a New York Volunteer Ambulance Service license plate, he said.

One guest told police that Breier "opened the window of his room and took pictures with a cell phone while he and his wife were naked in the room" around 5:30 a.m. last Wednesday, Kissane said.

Two other guests said they "were engaged in sexual activity when [someone] opened the window to their room and moved the curtain to the side," the captain added.

The intruder then reached in and tried to snap some shots but took off when discovered, Kissane said.
Breier was charged with invasion of privacy and released on a court summons.

Anyone with information about similar incidents possibly involving Brieir was asked to contact the Fort Lee Police Detective Bureau: (201) 592-3510.


Monday, May 23, 2016

Why sex abuse charges against a Toronto Jewish teacher took 20 years to reach court...

Stephen Joseph Schacter (Toronto Police photo)


The Service Ontario office on Lawrence Avenue West is the most public of places: public in its stream of passersby and public in the sense that it’s a conduit, bland and efficient, to the government.
That is where Joe Schacter sat down at a computer terminal in December and began looking at child pornography, police say.

Mr. Schacter reportedly appeared surprised when people were alarmed enough by the photos, allegedly of little boys in bathing suits, that they called police. The 55-year-old, a retired teacher at two private Orthodox Jewish schools, was arrested and charged.

That news, reported in local media, ended a 20-year internal battle for Adam, a North York man. He picked up his phone and asked to speak to a police detective. Joe Schacter, he said, had coached him into performing sex acts for three years of his childhood.

Adam was in his 40s and he says in every year of his adult life he had talked himself out of making that call. “‘I should go to the cops,’” he would say to himself. “‘I should go to the cops. I should go to the cops.’”

Then, always, came a second thought: “You could destroy your life. You could destroy your kids.”

Adam’s allegation that Mr. Schacter was a sexual predator was not new to police and certainly not to many in Toronto’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail and interviews with community members, Mr. Schacter has been accused multiple times over a 23-year period of sexually assaulting little boys. In the early nineties, criminal charges were laid, then withdrawn. A decade later, after more allegations, the Ontario College of Teachers ordered a disciplinary hearing. It was cancelled and Mr. Schacter continued to teach until he retired in 2013.

There’s no documentation about why the cases were dropped, but in the close-knit community, it was understood that the children had recanted, their families unwilling to proceed.

Adam – not his real name – watched from afar as the community and authorities proved willing to forget the formal allegations.

“It came up, everybody spoke about it, then it went away,” he said. “And then years just passed and went on and went on.”

Years before the Catholic Church was forced to publicly confront sexual abuse by its priests, Orthodox communities around the world were doing the same in their own way. Old religious principles encourage Jews to settle conflicts amongst themselves rather than handing one another to the secular justice system, some believe.

But child abuse, others argue, should be an exception – or rather, they say, it has always been a misinterpretation of God’s word to think He wouldn’t want children protected at any cost.

Settling that question has been especially agonizing in Toronto. Unlike most places with large Orthodox populations, particularly Brooklyn, Canada has no statute of limitations on sexual assault.

So a very real debate over whether to call 911, even on a single man, has loomed for an entire generation.

After Adam went to police earlier this year, three other men went on record. Mr. Schacter faces charges of gross indecency and sexual assault going back to 1982. The allegations have not been proven in court and his lawyer declined to comment. Mr. Schacter is living at his mother’s North York home on bail.

Mr. Schacter hadn’t been raised Orthodox, according to a dozen people from Toronto’s Orthodox Jewish community who spoke to The Globe and Mail.

At around age 20, he said he wanted to become more religious and joined an Orthodox synagogue. Eitz Chaim was one of two private schools that hired him, and dozens of families invited him home for Sabbath dinners.

They didn’t know that Mr. Schacter didn’t follow a traditional Orthodox lifestyle in his own home, said Adam.

The young, animated teacher was well-known for inviting boys to visit his house after class. At Adam’s house, his parents didn’t allow TV, movies, comics or junk food. He and his friends had spent their free time riding bikes or resting at home, whose quiet could sometimes be “oppressive,” he remembered.

Mr. Schacter had all the novelties of the early eighties: not just junk food, but Pringles chips; not just movie rentals, but his own VHS tapes.

“I’d walk over and he’d have my Batman comics, which I loved,” said Adam. “You know, kids have milk and cookies and watch their favourite television show at home? I was doing it there.”

The teacher also began showing Adam porn, he said. Eventually, he alleges, Mr. Schacter taught him how to perform oral and manual sex, and would take Polaroids of him.

“I had no idea what was going on,” he said. “It was all new to me, at 10, 11.”

After the first incident, he says he went home and ran past his mother to his room, “altered,” saying he didn’t feel well. The visits continued until Adam started high school, and he never spoke of them, he said. He long believed he had willingly traded sex for the potato chips and comics he loved. “For years it was my failure to have been lured for treats,” he said.

Then, in his early 20s, Adam’s mind “popped,” he said. He heard that a young Eitz Chaim student had complained that Mr. Schacter had touched him. “I thought ‘Oh my goodness. It’s not just me. It could be hundreds.’”

The child’s parents were incensed. They went to the police and Mr. Schacter was arrested and thrown in jail for a night. The community exploded with talk.

It’s unclear exactly what two charges were laid in 1993 or why they were dropped. The court records have been destroyed, though documents from the Ontario College of Teachers refer to them, saying Mr. Schacter was accused of using his hand to touch the boy “for a sexual purpose.” The boy’s parents and Eitz Chaim declined to comment. Toronto Police did not provide an interview with an officer in charge of that case, who still works in the local division.

But the Globe spoke to several people who remember the sequence of events. They said the boy withdrew the charges after the family spoke to others in the community. The family worried the father’s livelihood, which depended on an Orthodox clientele, would suffer.

“I believe the family was pressured to drop it,” said Adam.

He pictured disbelief aired behind closed doors – but also a kind of persuasion he practised steeling himself against: “‘Don’t do this to him. Don’t air our dirty laundry out in the non-Jewish world. They think terribly of us as it is. They’ll think even worse. Keep it among ourselves, we’ll deal with him, we’ll reprimand him, we’ll change things.’”

A handful of Talmudic laws guide how to respond to others’ bad behaviour. First, don’t gossip or speak ill of anyone. But second, when wrongdoing is clear, handle it internally when possible.

One religious edict asks Jews to avoid public shame: being seen in a bad light desecrates God’s name. But the idea of doling out justice with no outside help also dates back to political realities in the Old World, said Benny Forer, a California district attorney and ordained Orthodox rabbi.

“It’s not taught to you in school,” he said. “All through your childhood, you hear stories of abuses of power by law enforcement … stories of the rebbe in Russia or the rebbe in Poland who got arrested for being Jewish. So that’s ingrained in your consciousness.”

For some matters, especially divorces, Orthodox tribunals rule. No one interviewed could remember Toronto’s Orthodox courts handling a sexual assault case. Still, sometimes unusual solutions have been found in Toronto.

Rabbi Heshi Nussbaum was another Eitz Chaim teacher who pleaded guilty in the 1980s to child-abuse charges. He wasn’t jailed, and a job was arranged for him on a dairy farm outside Toronto, away from children, community members said.

But Rabbi Nussbaum, who was convicted again in 2014 of historical sexual assault, still prays in Toronto’s Orthodox synagogues. A fourth religious rule says that wrongdoers can repent and be accepted back into the community, a process of restitution that can’t often be found in Ontario courts.
It’s a concept that Mr. Forer believes is misapplied to child sexual assault, which is so grave that it’s hard to make meaningful amends, and which poses a worryingly high risk of recidivism.

The district attorney, who grew up mostly in Toronto’s Orthodox community, began to speak out about child sexual abuse after a friend in North York died by suicide in 1993, with no one knowing at the time he was a victim of abuse.

He has heard people say abusers should stay within their social circles so others can “keep an eye” on them.

“You see a sex offender,” Mr. Forer said. “You know what your children see? They see a man that you walk up and say ‘Good Shabbos’ to. … Your children see a trusted man.”

After his 1993 brush with police, Adam says Mr. Schacter called him out of the blue shortly after the charges were dropped.

Detective Constable Joel Manherz is seen speaking to the media about the arrest of former school teacher Stephen Joseph Schacter. (Toronto Police photo)
“He told me this terrible story, that somebody’s saying terrible things about him,” Adam recalled. “And his message was, you can’t ever say anything like that, because look what happened. I was arrested! I was in jail.”

After the boy recanted, Adam watched a circular argument take hold. Mr. Schacter “was vindicated, right? Because it was dropped,” he said. “Everybody then said ‘Yeah, the kid’s full of crap. You know these kids, the psychiatrist tells them that something happened to them that never even happened.’”

A teacher at Eitz Chaim said fellow teachers widely believed kids were making false accusations, perhaps coached by psychiatrists.

But slowly, the allegations mounted, and the community started to take them seriously – while still refusing help from outside.

In 2006, when the Ontario College of Teachers planned a disciplinary hearing, it documented all the known allegations against Mr. Schacter and a few rebukes.

After the charges were withdrawn in 1993, the school’s principal had “cautioned” the teacher against putting students in his lap or hugging them, the College found.

Ten years later, however, the College alleged Mr. Schacter had been putting a number of second- and third-grade boys on his lap. He tickled and kissed one boy in the 2003-2004 school year, asking him to stay alone in the classroom at recess. In May of 2004, while marking another boy’s work, Mr. Schacter “rubbed [the boy’s] back then lowered his hand and squeezed [the boy’s] buttocks over [his] clothing.” He entered the washroom when a third little boy was using it and pulled his pants up or down, the College alleged.

For any complaints to reach College of Teachers investigators, they are likely to have first been explored by police, said people familiar with the College’s process.

But no criminal charges were laid in 2004. In 2006, as the College prepared to hear his case, Mr. Schacter retained a lawyer. But then the College’s lawyers requested to drop the hearing, and the College did so, with a notation that the allegations were “not substantiated.”

Such a conclusion is rare, said a spokeswoman for the College, Gabrielle Barkany. In 2014, for example, only six out of 106 planned hearings were withdrawn. Still, the College won’t explain what happened, citing confidentiality rules. The lawyer who represented Mr. Schacter at the time also declined to comment.

An official source familiar with the 2004 complaints, and their abandonment by police and the College, said that parents and teachers from Eitz Chaim simply hadn’t been prepared for the allegations to spiral out beyond the school, and they didn’t co-operate. It’s unclear how the details reached secular authorities.

Eitz Chaim fired Mr. Schacter in 2004, 18 years after he began teaching there, and two years after a new principal arrived at the school. His wife, who had married him in middle age, left him around the same time.

A solution had been found, at least at Eitz Chaim. But families, even with young children, continued to invite the teacher over for dinner, said Adam.

“We’re going to leave him on the street? Just leave him? We have to take care of him,” he recalls them saying.

Mr. Schacter was quickly hired at another Hebrew school, where he stayed for five years before retiring from teaching. He still coaches hockey, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Adam had been in therapy for years when he says he asked Mr. Schacter to meet him on a hot July day in 2012 at the park across from the teacher’s house, a place that made him feel “ripped up.” He had put the phone call off for weeks, worried he wouldn’t be able to stop himself from physically attacking the older man.

According to Adam, the teacher excitedly agreed, thinking he was hearing from an old friend.
As the two sat on a park bench, Adam blurted out his years of rage, “how upset I was.” Then he stood up to walk away.

But the teacher had a response. “My life’s been ruined already, and I lost my wife, and don’t do this to me,” Adam recalls him saying.

The next day Adam received a letter from a lawyer, which he provided to the Globe; it said that Mr. Schacter would deny his accusations in a court of law.

Detective Constable Joel Manherz, who is handling the current case, said that many families tell him they’d like to help or join the four men preparing to testify in court, but they can’t because it could destroy their businesses or their children’s marriage prospects.

Police are the only officials with the “teeth” to handle dangerous people, said the detective.
“Forgiveness is a powerful thing, and that community is very good at making sure that that happens, that people are forgiven,” he said.

“But at the same time there has to be some accountability, there has to be protection of others from this going on, right?”

In March, Det. Constable Manherz sat in a North York synagogue with about 300 people. It was the first-ever Canadian visit by a group called the Jewish Community Watch, based in New York.
The group is its own type of tribunal, specifically for sexual abuse: it investigates accusations and posts alleged perpetrators’ names and photos online, under the heading “Wall of Shame.” Its leaders say it has never been sued.

The group also encourages victims to go to the police – but in New York, where people only have until age 23 to do so, that’s usually a moot effort.

In Canada, the group asked Det. Constable Manherz to explain to the crowd how he handles a case. Before he spoke, however, they asked a senior rabbi from Yeshiva University in New York to take the microphone.

Rabbi Yosef Blau recently saw the movie Spotlight, about the Boston Globe’s exposé of Catholic priests’ abuse, he told the crowd.

“We can look at it and say ‘Oh!’” he said. “‘It’s not our problem! We’re not like the Catholics.’ And the truth is, there are obvious differences, but in a certain sense we have a greater responsibility,” said Rabbi Blau. “Because the Catholic Church has a hierarchy. If a teacher in a yeshiva abuses and is allowed to teach in another community … we can’t blame the Jewish hierarchy.”

If even one person knows about an abuser and doesn’t warn others, that person bears responsibility, he said.

One of the tenets of Judaism is the obligation to interpret the Torah for oneself.

“Don’t let people use [religious] terms to cover their unwillingness to face up to the issue, to think that they are protecting the image of the community,” Rabbi Blau said, “when in reality they are allowing the community’s weakness and rot to become much worse.”

For Adam, breaking from convention came after decades of haunting guilt. He worries that, in the years he didn’t go to police, more children could have been abused. “You know, I feel terrible that I didn’t do anything,” he said.

But independent thinkers will always risk being punished unless the community as a whole shifts its thinking, he said. That will only happen if leaders clearly advise people to take all abuse allegations straight to police – a move they haven’t made yet in Toronto, at least not publicly.

“They have to encourage it,” Adam said. “They have to.”

One of the most respected of Toronto’s Orthodox rabbis, Rabbi Yaakov Hirschman, told the Globe he feels torn over what to tell those alleging sexual abuse.

“In principle,” he said, they should go to police. “In real life, we’ve gone through situations where allegations were false. There’s always this feeling that you’re caught in between.”

Rabbi Shlomo Mandel leads the synagogue that first welcomed Joe Schacter into the Orthodox world. He said he has been “painfully” following the allegations against him.

In his reading, Jewish law dictates that if someone could be hurt, “one has to take whatever measures are necessary to stop it, full stop, period.” That means “obviously, co-operating with the authorities,” he said.

After all, the spirit that rallied people around a young Joe Schacter should rally them also around any alleged abuse victims, said the rabbi. “We definitely welcomed him … that’s part of our obligation,” he said. “But it’s the same obligation that tells us to care for other people.”

Timeline of Schacter case


Around 1980: Joe Schacter joins an Orthodox synagogue in North York.
1982 to 1993: In court documents filed in 2016, three men allege that Mr. Schacter abused them at different points during these years. They did not contact police at the time.
1986: Mr. Schacter starts teaching at Eitz Chaim private school.
1993: Police are first called about Mr. Schacter when an Eitz Chaim student reports being abused by the teacher four years earlier. The charges are quickly dropped.
2003 to 2004: Mr. Schacter is accused of inappropriately touching several students at Eitz Chaim. No charges are laid.
2004: Mr. Schacter leaves Eitz Chaim and begins teaching at a Hebrew school.
2006: The Ontario Teachers College announces there will be a disciplinary hearing for Mr. Schacter, releasing a list of allegations going back to 1993.
2007: The College withdraws the allegations, saying they are “not substantiated.”
2009: Mr. Schacter changes schools again.
2013: He retires from teaching, but continues to work with children as a hockey coach.
2015: Mr. Schacter is arrested on child pornography charges at the Lawrence Avenue West Service Ontario office.
2016: Police lay historical sex assault charges involving four complainants.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The accused began his horrific campaign of abuse when his first victim was just six years old, and continued abusing her and other female relatives by various means of coercion and manipulation.

Rape case shocks Jerusalem haredi community

Respected rabbi indicted in Jerusalem court, accused of abusing position of power to rape numerous young girls.
By Michal Levy

Rabbi accused of rape arrives at Jerusalem court
Rabbi  Naftali Maklev, accused of rape arrives at Jerusalem court

Jerusalem prosecutors filed an indictment against a rabbi who served as a mashgiach at a yeshiva in the city, for a series of rapes carried against a number of female relatives over the course of several years.

The accused began his horrific campaign of abuse when his first victim was just six years old, and continued abusing her and other female relatives by various means of coercion and manipulation.

According to the indictment, the regarded his young victims as mere playthings to satisfy his perverted lusts, and took advantage of their naivete and vulnerability to gain total emotional control over them.

The indictment describes how he abused his position of respect within the community, and the fact that he had supported the immediate family of his primary victim (known as "A.") financially in the past.

He had attempted to justify his actions by perversely claiming they were not only permitted under Jewish law, but mandated. In some cases he even went as far as to claim his acts of abuse served to "purify" his victims spiritually and atone for sins their souls committed in "past lives", or to cure them of physical ailments.

In one particularly extreme incident relayed in the indictment, the accused secretly recorded leading haredi Rabbi Chaim Kaniyevsky issuing a halakhic ruling on a totally unrelated subject, then played it back to the accused and claimed the rabbi was in fact endorsing the abuser's actions, in order to persuade her against speaking out.

"A.", however, saw through the ruse.

The prosecution has requested the suspect be remanded in custody until the end of legal proceedings.



in closed doorsJerusalem District Court CrimCBefore a three referees

Prohibited from advertising on every detail that might reveal the details of the complainants, including letters of their place of residence, year of birth and their proximity to the accusedState of IsraelBy the Jerusalem District Attorney (Criminal)
Uzi Hasson Street 4, Jerusalem
Tel: 6208178 Fax: 6246113

- Against -certainFather's Name:Social SecurityBorn: 1966Jerusalem(Now in custody)
DefendantIndictmentThe defendant is accused herein as follows:Some rules:

The defendant is a long and respected figure in his community recognized. The defendant played an overseer sitting over many years and married children matchmaking with family of distinguished rabbis.2. The defendant is close to the families of A, born in 1989, B, born in 1987, and C, born in 1993, from their father. A, B, and C are sisters whose family is part of the haredi community ...Charge 1Complainant A. (born in 1989)A. The facts:

For years, starting from the fact that A 6-year-old to an adult in her twenties, was accused committed "a continuous and sequential, hundreds of sex crimes of rape, sodomy and indecent assault. The defendant took advantage of a tender age, and marital status, and the Torah is considered respectable in the community and in the eyes of a family. The defendant took advantage of the fact that he supports the family financially exacerbating the sense of dependence and obligation of Sunday for him. As she walked, and she grew up Sunday, adding the accused and used for A, in addition to all these, a number of representations of fraud, lies and manipulations including: Reference halachic allegedly under which sexual acts are not only prohibited but also constitute a mitzvah, claims of sexual acts with a 'are cure its diseases and health and life depended on it, as well as representations that the sexual acts necessary correction "corruption of the soul a previous incarnation.
Sexual acts against a 'young age and over the years, the defendant became a' tool for satisfying sexual urges and desires. The defendant has obtained control of A. In denying her the ability to give free consent, to oppose his actions and to understand the true nature and meaning, as well as several ma 'ability to distinguish the many falsehoods and making false representations which the righteous and wrapped her sexual actions. All this as follows:
Since Sunday about 6 years old, her family used to visit the accused .. Jerusalem every few weeks. During the visits, called the defendant was not 'come into a side room. Being in the room, the accused picked up, hugged and kissed A. The defendant raised the skirt of A and put his hand into her panties and touched her vagina. The defendant touched the clitoris and vaginal area and vaginal room with his fingertips. These actions have occurred on every visit and the visit, a number of times until filled not 10 years or so. On one occasion, being a '7 or 8 years old or so, called the defendant was not' enclosed porch at his home and ordered her to strip naked and lie naked on the bed and pull the covers and she did.
Since Sunday about 10 to 12 years, the defendant used an invitation to visit him in his office (hereinafter - "the meeting"). Being in the office, the accused picked up the shirt of A and touching her breasts. The defendant took no 'skirt and told her to pull her panties, stockings, and inserted his fingers into the genitals. These acts occurred several times. On one occasion, the defendant, wearing clothes, put the A groin facing him, so that her genitals on the penis when erect penis, accused of touching a corpse and kissed her mouth. On one occasion, grade and accused hugged her and lifted her up, but that did not stop him from other times acts.
Since Sunday was 12, came to the defendant's home Sunday and told her to drop the warehouse at the bottom of the building. Warehouses, the defendant raised no 'shirt, touching her breasts, put his panties touched her vagina, inserted his fingers into her vagina and kissed her mouth when he put his tongue in her mouth. All this while the accused said no, that he loved her and - "When a husband and wife love are kissing."
In the aforementioned, in order to achieve the full cooperation of A, and to enhance the sense of duty and the dependency of a 'him, the defendant used, after performing the same, the sexual acts described above, to hand her money a few hundred ₪ at a time, which will be transferred secretly to her parents who have suffered from economic difficulties. The defendant gave no 'to understand that providing vital financial assistance related to the cooperation parents and the sexual deeds Lhianoth body. A would take the money by the defendant and put him in secret on a table with her parents. Defendant to empower came, the feeling gratitude, obligation and dependence on him, said no 'on many occasions on financial obligations it covers father and how he helps him. Intentionally reinforce the impression, stated, at an unknown date Accuser During these years, the defendant stated to A sum of money to will transfer a person whose father owed him money ..biroslim.

Since A 12-year-old when the commandment came, tried to bring the defendant to cease using the argument went actions that it is committed to the commandments, and therefore untouchable people. In response, and in order to appease the opposition, presented the accused before A series of misrepresentations about the existence of the others went to her sexual actions. The defendant presented Sunday on a laptop supporting documents authorizing the Halachic alleged acts. The defendant showed no reference as it were from the book "pharmacist". The defendant explained that no, she is "mistress" and therefore his sexual acts are allowed. In the face of the references and arguments halachic false presenting her defendant, and on the basis of trust assessment and sense of duty she felt for the accused shared a 'cooperation with deeds sexual in it after age 12. The actions included meetings from time to time in which the defendant touched the chest and inserted a finger into her vagina A., hugged and kissed on the mouth.

In those years, in the face of attempts at evasion of A defendant, in order to make not 'cooperate with acts of sexual, claimed the defendant to A that is a cancer patient and that he had a tumor, and that his medical condition depends on the extent to which A is with him and share his action, and when a is not in him, the results of his medical tests are not good. To create additional pressure on Sunday, the defendant explained that not, whose wife he can not tell his illness as it not panic and therefore a 'must replace and be with him. As a result of the defendant's words, she felt a 'committed to cooperate with the sexual actions as the defendant believed that the shrine is responsible for his health and his life.

Since A 13 years old, the defendant took the A garden of a vineyard, and persuaded to swear not to reveal anything about their relationship and sexual acts. The defendant said no, she had to hold his penis while she swears, based on "reference" from the Bible about Jacob. A refused to swear in the above, but promised that the defendant will not disclose anything to anyone about what was happening between them.

Since Sunday aged between 13-16, held a family event Saturday at the meeting. During the Sabbath, the accused called no 'office and touched her chest under his shirt. Then the defendant touched his genitals of a 'clitoris. The defendant's actions came "lasted about fifteen minutes.

Since Sunday about 15, at noon on the eve of Pentecost, said the defendant was not 'reach central Gemach of the meeting .. Jerusalem. The defendant sat A table without a shirt and sucked on her nipples. The defendant repeated these actions several occasions.

Being a "15-16 years old, in the evening, called the defendant was not 'reach central Gemach of the meeting .. Jerusalem. The defendant laid the A table, skirt and panties undressed and licked the genitals for long seconds. Body of a' shrinking and she felt paralyzed.

Since A was 17 or so, the accused called no 'to come to his office at the meeting where he taught. The defendant asked Sunday if she knows how to get married and told her that a woman has a hole and the man has an organ protrudes. The defendant showed no 'his penis, and he said no, do her fingers form a ring around his penis and move them up and down on his penis. A did so, until the defendant came to a climax. The defendant then inserted his fingers into her vagina A. massaging the clitoris until she reached orgasm. Since this meeting, during many meetings with A, the accused acted according to the actions described above pattern, that A. rubbed his genitals were exposed to and then discharge the accused inserted his fingers into her vagina A. massaging the clitoris. The defendant held meetings Sunday and kissed her, and asked her some sessions to walk naked before him, and it did so. The meetings were held over a number of years until her marriage A. In 2009, the frequency and rose, initially every two weeks, and at the end of period two or three times a week, the office of the defendant at home .., sitting and car in different places and once the apartment of a yeshiva student who went abroad . ten meetings were held at the Crowne Plaza hotel in Jerusalem wage defendant room.
A cooperated with the defendant's actions described above and below, though she did not want to, but feels compelled to do so because of the Full accused her pattern of response to the absolute demands of sexuality which is fused by which the accused very young age, absolute trust and blind given by the accused and due to the continuing pressure exerted her manipulations and various representations, convincing her to the defendant's words about her role in Falconer, "the defendant, a sense of duty and gratitude towards the light of economic support with her family, and his sense of responsibility as described above. From time to time managed to Sunday to express to the defendant the reluctance sexual acts, both by telling the accused that she did not want it because it is forbidden, cried, curled her body, she incited her defendant approached her to kiss her, covered her nipples with her hands to the accused not to touch them. Things did not prevent the defendant from continuing to make the same "sexual acts specified above and below.
During these years, many travel abroad defendant. The defendant would call a 'foreign and hold talks with her own sexuality in order to bring sexual stimulation and satisfaction. The defendant asked Ma, touching her own nipples and clitoris and groan over the phone. A made only the votes. The defendant asked Ma, tell him in conversations that she loves him and can not without it and wanted to feel it, and E. done so.
Since A was 19 or so, the defendant took a 'car to Petah Tikva. The defendant parked his car behind an old house and asked Ma 'suck his penis. The defendant said no, that she had to swallow the semen as does his wife. A sucking the penis of the accused until he reached the climax, but found it difficult to do his bidding and swallow the semen and almost vomited. A spat the defendant's semen without noticing that it does so. Later, on several occasions asked the defendant from A to suck his penis and swallow the semen and she did as she spits out the seed without noticing.
Being a 'layer 19, the accused took her to his car Valley of the Cross. The defendant's car had tinted windows. The defendant said no 'to spread and spread itself. The defendant sat A up when we sat facing him. The defendant took a pen and inserted into the rectum of a 'depth of 2-3 cm. The defendant said no, they would do the Arabs and that makes her a pleasure.
Ahead of a marriage in August 2009 and immediately afterwards, she saw a 'marriage a chance to stop the actions of the defendant. A halachic justification saw that she "married woman" an opportunity to stop the sexual acts they did not want. A defendant explained that after her marriage to disconnect all contact with him. In response, the defendant took a series of actions intended to enable it to continue to use the same as a tool to satisfy sexual desires. To do so, the defendant presented a "misrepresentation, designed to persuade it to maintain sexual relations with him even after her marriage as follows:
First, the defendant falsely said no, that he found out about the prospective groom and that he suffers from mental problems. The defendant said no, that he does not want to break off the engagement, but warned that it should take precautions, take pills in order not to get pregnant for her husband lest you find that he suffers from serious problems. The defendant said no, he is available to support it. The defendant gave no 'money and gifts and told her that since it is a person that normally retain the sums of money. The defendant took the Sunday worship her husband David's Tomb will be mad and led her to seek psychiatric balls of her husband.
Secondly, a few months after the wedding, the defendant said no, that he consulted a rabbi who told him that he had a very important role in this world, in a previous incarnation was accused his wife and the husband would treat him unkindly. Because it had four children and they all became secular, and therefore the accused should never come back and fix it. The defendant explained that no, it was the husband of his previous incarnation, hit him, and that's why Sunday should be with him. The defendant said no, he asked the rabbi how long it should be with a "for" amendment "and the rabbi replied that he would feel for how long. A reliable According to the defendant, but hesitated at first. Shortly thereafter, the defendant came near the house of A and left her house when the accused told her that he did his own when it comes to correcting "his being placed on a" do "patch" her. A trusted the defendant believed, and was persuaded to cooperate and respond to sexual acts with him.
On the basis of the aforementioned misrepresentations, and control comes as a tool to satisfy sexual instincts over the years from an early age, the defendant obtained the cooperation of E. having sexual relations with him even after her wedding. The meetings of the defendant with a 'were held at the home of a' while her husband was at the meeting, the defendant's car, which was her collection from her job and takes her to various places in and around Jerusalem. During these meetings, the defendant was undressing the A completely inserting his fingers into her vagina and asked her to bring it to satisfy a hand or sucking his penis and she did. The defendant was touching my chest and rubbing his nipples a Sunday. When the accused was coming to the home of A. was asking her showered and get ready for it. Meetings were held throughout the four years, twice or three times a week.
In one session, the defendant came to the house of A with a condom and to remove any opposition from Sunday explained that religious law on the grounds that the condom is not considered defilement of that buffer. The defendant sat A 'on his penis and tried to shove it into her vagina of Sunday. A defendant did not want that to enter her, put her strong legs and put her hands to create a feeling among the accused that he penetrated her, so that the defendant reached a climax. During the meeting, the defendant inserted a finger into her vagina Sunday.
During the meetings, the defendant took a 'when naked through his cell phone.
During the aforementioned period, a few weeks after giving birth to a baby girl, was a 'maternity leave and slept with her parents when she wore a chiffon body. The defendant came to town A. touched the chest and inserted his fingers into her vagina. During maternity leave came several times accused's house Sunday infused organ and appointed his fingers and asked rub his penis until it was satisfying and E. done so.
During one of the meetings in her home Sunday. Said the defendant was not 'the basic need of a woman is to be governed and to fulfill this need him to beat her with a belt. The defendant did so, and hit A belt canvas twice in the buttocks. No blows were painful and she screamed and cried and accused stopped his actions. Other meetings and over a period of about a year, the defendant used to beat the A bare buttocks through his hand until her bottom became red. The defendant demanded Ma, tell him, "Lord, I want more."
During the summer of 2013 or thereabouts, not learned, from her younger sister that, because it has also been accused of sexual numerous occasions. This led to a "process eventually realized that the defendant deceiving her story" patch ", and that it was implemented by manipulation towards the accused. Consequently announced Sunday that the defendant does not agree to any further contact with him. The defendant intentionally add levels, ask a 'what about the "patch"? But Sunday refused to be convinced and told the defendant that she takes the risk on itself. Realizing that the defendant's misrepresentation "patch" ceased to operate its action on Sunday, the defendant initiated further misrepresentation. The defendant said no, she would bring Rav Chaim Kanevsky proof that the relationship is permitted by religious law. The defendant, with fraudulent intent, took a recording of Rabbi Chaim Kanevsky said the words went, things that have no connection to the defendant, and the hearing before Sunday, claiming that the comments were made in the training of their association, in order to persuade it to agree to continue the sexual relationship with him. A discovered the fraud and rejected the defendant.
Actions described above - has accused his relatives who consent to when she was a minor under the age of fourteen years, and his relatives made indecent acts not willingly consent when she was not yet 14 years for arousal, gratification or sexual humiliation.
Actions described above - has accused his relatives, when she did not consent to a minor and committed indecent acts for arousal, gratification or sexual humiliation did not consent to.
Actions described above - has accused his relatives who consent to and sodomized her without her consent free and committed indecent acts for arousal, gratification or sexual humiliation did not consent to.
Actions described above - has accused the relative consent was obtained by deception about the nature of the act and tried to take her consent was obtained by deception about the nature of the act and sodomized and indecent acts fraudulently obtained agreement about the nature of the act.
Actions described above - the defendant attacked the relative and made her real injury.B. The legislative provisions according to which the accused is charged with:1. rape of a minor family at under 14 without her consent Hhofsit- offense under section 351 (a) the circumstances of Article 345 (a) (1) + (3) of the Penal Law - 1977 (hereinafter - the "Law").2. rape of a family at a minor without her consent Hhofsit- offense under section 351 (a) the circumstances of Article 345 (a) (1) of the Act.3. The free non-consensual rape - a crime under Section 345 (a) (1) of the Act.

בדלתיים סגורות
בבית המשפט המחוזי בירושלים                                                                  תפ"ח                            
בפני הרכב שלושה שופטים


חל איסור פרסום על כל פרט העלול לגלות את פרטי המתלוננות, לרבות אותיות מקום מגוריהן, שנת לידתן וקרבתן לנאשם

מדינת ישראל
ע"י פרקליטות מחוז ירושלים (פלילי)
                                                רח' עוזי חסון 4, ירושלים
                                                טל: 6208178, פקס: 6246113                             

                                                - נגד -

שם האב:
יליד: 1966
(כעת במעצר)

כתב אישום
הנאשם מואשם בזאת כדלקמן:

חלק כללי:
  1. הנאשם הוא רב, דמות מוכרת ומכובדת בקהילתו. הנאשם מילא תפקיד משגיח בישיבה לאורך שנים רבות ואף חיתן ילדיו בשידוכים עם בני משפחה של רבנים נכבדים.
2.       הנאשם הינו קרוב משפחתן של א', ילידת 1989,ב', ילידת 1987 וג', ילידת 1993, מצד אביהם. א', ב', ו-ג' הינן אחיות שמשפחתם הינה חלק מהקהילה החרדית...

אישום 1
המתלוננת א' (ילידת .1989)
א. העובדות:
  1. במשך שנים ארוכות, החל מהיות א' בת 6 ועד לבגרותה בשנות העשרים לחייה, ביצע הנאשם בא' באופן מתמשך וסדרתי, מאות עבירות מין של אינוס, מעשה סדום ומעשים מגונים. הנאשם ניצל את גילה הרך של א' וכן את מעמדו המשפחתי והתורני הנחשב והמכובד בקהילה ובעיני משפחתה של א'. הנאשם ניצל את עובדת היותו תומך כלכלי במשפחתה תוך העצמת תחושת התלות והחובה של א' כלפיו. ככל שהלכה ובגרה א', הוסיף הנאשם והשתמש כלפי א', בנוסף לכל אלה, בשורה של מצגי מרמה, כזבים ומניפולציות לרבות: אסמכתאות הלכתיות לכאורה לפיהם המעשים המיניים לא רק שאינם אסורים אלא אף מהווים קיום מצווה, טענות כי המעשים המיניים עם א' הם מרפא למחלותיו וכי בריאותו ואף חייו תלויים בכך, וכן מצגים כי המעשים המיניים הכרחיים ל"תיקון" הקלקול בנשמתה של א' מגלגולה הקודם. 
  2. במעשיו המיניים כלפי א' מגיל רך ולאורך השנים, הפך הנאשם את א' לכלי לסיפוק יצריו ותאוותיו המיניות. הנאשם השיג שליטה על א' באופן ששלל ממנה יכולת ליתן הסכמה חופשית, להתנגד למעשיו ולהבין את טיבם ומשמעותם האמיתיים, וכן שלל מא' כל יכולת להבחין בכזבים הרבים ובמצגי השווא אשר בהם הצדיק ועטף את מעשיו המיניים כלפיה. כל זאת כמפורט להלן:   
  3. בהיות א' כבת 6 שנים, נהגה משפחתה לבקר בבית הנאשם.. בירושלים אחת למספר שבועות. במהלך הביקורים, קרא הנאשם לא' לבוא לחדר צדדי. בהיותם בחדר, הנאשם הרים, חיבק ונישק את א'. הנאשם הרים את חצאיתה של א' והכניס ידו אל תוך תחתוניה ונגע באיבר מינה. הנאשם נגע בדגדגן ובאזור פתח הנרתיק ובקצות אצבעותיו חדר לנרתיק. המעשים האמורים אירעו בכל ביקור וביקור, מספר רב של פעמים עד אשר מלאו לא' 10 שנים לערך. באחת ההזדמנויות בהיות א' בת 7 או 8 לערך, קרא הנאשם לא' למרפסת סגורה בביתו והורה לה להתפשט לגמרי ולשכב ערומה על מיטה ולהתכסות בשמיכה והיא עשתה כן.
  4. בהיות א' כבת 10 ועד 12 שנים, נהג הנאשם לזמנה לבוא לבקרו במשרדו  (להלן – "הישיבה"). בהיותם במשרדו, הרים הנאשם את חולצתה של א' ונגע לה בחזה. הנאשם הוריד לא' את חצאיתה ואמר לה להפשיל תחתוניה וגרביה, והחדיר אצבעותיו לתוך איבר מינה. המעשים האמורים אירעו מספר פעמים. באחת הפעמים, הנאשם, כשהוא לבוש בגדים, הושיב את א' על מפשעתו כשפניה כלפיו, כך שאיבר מינה על איבר מינו כשאיבר מינו זקוף, הנאשם נגע בגופה של א' ונשקה בפיה. באחת הפעמים בכתה א' והנאשם חיבק אותה והרים אותה, אך הדבר לא ממנו לחדול ממעשיו בפעמים נוספות.
  5. בהיות א' כבת 12, הגיע הנאשם לביתה של א' ואמר לה לרדת למחסנים בתחתית הבניין. במחסנים, הנאשם הרים לא' את החולצה, נגע לה בחזה, הכניס ידו לתחתוניה, נגע באיבר מינה, החדיר אצבעותיו לאיבר מינה ונישק אותה בפיה כשהוא מכניס את לשונו לפיה. כל זאת תוך שהנאשם אומר לא' שהוא אוהב אותה ו – "כשבעל ואישה אוהבים הם מתנשקים".
  6. בשנים האמורות לעיל, על מנת להשיג את שיתוף הפעולה המלא של א', וכדי להעצים את תחושת החובה והתלות של א' כלפיו, נהג הנאשם, לאחר שביצע בא' את המעשים המיניים שתוארו לעיל, לתת בידה סכום כסף של כמה מאות ₪ בכל פעם, שתעבירם בסתר לידי הוריה אשר סבלו מקשיים כלכליים. הנאשם נתן לא' להבין כי מתן הסיוע הכספי החיוני להוריה קשור לשיתוף הפעולה ולהיענותה למעשיו המיניים בגופה. א' היתה נוטלת את הכסף מידי הנאשם ומניחה אותו בסתר על שולחן בבית הוריה. הנאשם על מנת להעצים בא' את רגשות אסירות התודה, החובה והתלות כלפיו, סיפר לא' בהזדמנויות רבות על חובות כספיים שהוא מכסה לאביה וכמה הוא עוזר לו. בכוונה להעצים את הרושם האמור, במועד שאינו ידוע למאשימה במהלך השנים הללו, מסר הנאשם לידי א' סכום כסף כדי שתעבירו לידי אדם שאביה חב לו כסף ..בירושלים.

להמשך הכנסו כאן:

  1. בהיות א' בת 12 עת הגיעה למצוות, ניסתה להביא את הנאשם לחדול ממעשיו באמצעות טיעון הלכתי כי היא מחויבת במצוות, ועל כן אסורה במגע עמו. בתגובה ובמטרה לשכך את התנגדותה, הציג הנאשם בפני א' שורה של מצגי שווא בדבר קיומו של היתר הלכתי למעשיו המיניים בה.  הנאשם הציג בפני א' על גבי מחשב נייד אסמכתאות הלכתיות כביכול המתירות את המעשים. הנאשם הראה לא' אסמכתא כביכול מתוך ספר "הרוקח". הנאשם הסביר לא' שהיא "פילגש" שלו ולכן המעשים המיניים מותרים. אל נוכח האסמכתאות והטיעונים ההלכתיים הכוזבים שהציג בפניה הנאשם, ועל יסוד האמון ההערכה ותחושת החובה שחשה כלפי הנאשם, שיתפה א' פעולה עם מעשיו המיניים בה לאחר גיל 12. המעשים כללו מפגשים מעת לעת בהם הנאשם נגע בחזה והחדיר אצבעות לאיבר מינה של א', חיבקה ונישקה על פיה.  

  1. באותן שנים, אל נוכח ניסיונות התחמקות של  א' מהנאשם, במטרה לגרום לא' לשתף פעולה עם מעשיו המיניים, טען הנאשם בפני א' כי הוא חולה סרטן וכי יש לו גידול, וכי מצבו הרפואי תלוי במידה שבה א' נמצאת איתו ומשתפת עמו פעולה, וכאשר א' אינה נמצאת איתו, תוצאות הבדיקות הרפואיות שלו, אינן טובות. על מנת ליצור לחץ נוסף על א', הנאשם הסביר לא' שלאשתו הוא אינו יכול לספר על מחלתו שכן היא תילחץ ולכן א' צריכה למלא את מקומה ולהיות עמו. כתוצאה דברי הנאשם, חשה א' מחויבת לשתף פעולה עם מעשיו המיניים שכן האמינה לדביר הנאשם  כי היא אחראית לבריאותו ולחייו.

  1. בהיות א' כבת 13, לקח הנאשם את א' לגינת בית הכרם וניסה לשכנעה להישבע שלא תגלה דבר על הקשר ביניהם ועל מעשיו המיניים. הנאשם אמר לא' שעליה לאחוז באיבר מינו בעת שהיא נשבעת וזאת על סמך "אסמכתא" מהתנ"ך על יעקב אבינו. א' סירבה להישבע באופן האמור אך הבטיחה לנאשם כי לא תגלה דבר לאיש על המתרחש ביניהם.  

  1. בהיות א' בגיל שבין 13-16, ערכה משפחתה אירוע שבת בישיבה. במהלך השבת, הנאשם קרא לא' למשרדו ונגע בחזה מתחת לחולצה. לאחר מכן הנאשם נגע בידו באיבר מינה של א' בדגדגן. מעשיו של הנאשם בא' נמשכו כרבע שעה.

  1. בהיות א' כבת 15, בצהרי היום ערב חג השבועות, אמר הנאשם לא' להגיע לגמ"ח המרכזי של הישיבה.. בירושלים. הנאשם הושיב את א' על שולחן ללא חולצה ומצץ לה את הפטמות. הנאשם חזר על המעשים האמורים במספר הזדמנויות שונות.

  1. בהיות א' בת 15-16, בשעת ערב, קרא הנאשם לא' להגיע לגמ"ח המרכזי של הישיבה .. בירושלים. הנאשם השכיב את א' על שולחן, הפשיטה מחצאיתה ותחתוניה וליקק את איבר מינה במשך שניות ארוכות. גופה של א' התכווץ והיא חשה משותקת.

  1. בהיות א' בת 17 לערך, הנאשם קרא לא' לבוא למשרדו בישיבה שבה לימד. הנאשם שאל את א' אם היא יודעת איך מתחתנים והסביר לה שלאישה יש חור ולגבר יש איבר שבולט. הנאשם הראה לא' את איבר מינו, ואמר לא' לעשות באצבעותיה צורה של טבעת סביב איבר מינו ולהניען מעלה מטה על גבי איבר מינו. א' עשתה כן, עד שהנאשם הגיע לפורקן. לאחר מכן החדיר הנאשם את אצבעותיו לאיבר מינה של א' ועיסה את הדגדגן עד שהגיעה לאורגזמה. מאז מפגש זה, במהלך מפגשים רבים עם א', פעל הנאשם על פי דפוס המעשים המתואר לעיל, כך שא' שפשפה את איבר מינו החשוף עד הגיעו לפורקן ולאחר מכן הנאשם החדיר את אצבעותיו לאיבר מינה של א' ועיסה את הדגדגן. במפגשים חיבק הנאשם את א' ונישק אותה, ובחלק מהמפגשים ביקש ממנה להלך עירומה בפניו והיא עשתה כן.  המפגשים נערכו לאורך מספר שנים עד לנישואיה של א' בשנת 2009 , בתדירות שהלכה ועלתה, תחילה פעם בשבועיים, ובסוף התקופה פעמיים או שלוש בשבוע, במשרדו של הנאשם בביתו.., בישיבה וברכבו במקומות שונים ופעם אחת בדירה של תלמיד הישיבה אשר נסע לחו"ל. כעשרה מפגשים נערכו בבית מלון קראון פלאזה בירושלים בחדר שהנאשם שכר. 
  2. א' שיתפה פעולה עם מעשיו של הנאשם המתוארים לעיל ולהלן, אף שלא רצתה בכך, אולם חשה אנוסה לעשות כן בשל שליטת הנאשם בה, דפוס ההיענות המוחלטת לדרישותיו המיניות אשר קיבע בה הנאשם מגיל צעיר מאוד, האמון המוחלט והעיוור שנתנה בנאשם וכן בשל הלחץ המתמשך שהפעיל כלפיה במניפולציות ומצגים שונים, שכנועה בדברי הנאשם בדבר תפקידה בעולם כ"פילגש" של הנאשם, תחושת החובה והתודה כלפיו לאור תמיכתו הכלכלית במשפחתה ובה, ותחושת האחריות לחייו כמתואר לעיל.  מעת לעת הצליחה א' לבטא בפני הנאשם את חוסר רצונה במעשים המיניים, הן בכך שאמרה לנאשם שהיא לא רוצה בו כי זה אסור, בכתה, כיווצה את גופה, הסיתה את פניה מהנאשם שהתקרב אליה לנשקה, כיסתה את פטמותיה בידיה כדי שהנאשם לא יגע בהן. הדברים לא מנעו מהנאשם להמשיך ולבצע בא' מעשים מיניים כמפורט לעיל ולהלן.
  3. במהלך השנים האמורות, הרבה הנאשם לנסוע לחו"ל. הנאשם נהג להתקשר אל א' מחו"ל ולקיים עימה שיחות מיניות במטרה להביא עצמו לגירוי וסיפוק מיני. הנאשם ביקש מא' שתיגע בעצמה בפטמות ובדגדגן ותגנח בטלפון. א' עשתה רק את הקולות. הנאשם ביקש מא' לומר לו בשיחות כי היא אוהבת אותו ולא יכולה בלעדיו ורצה להרגיש אותו, וא' עשתה כן.
  4. בהיות א' בת 19 לערך, לקח הנאשם את א' ברכבו לפתח-תקוה. הנאשם חנה את רכבו מאחורי בית ישן וביקש מא' למצוץ את איבר מינו. הנאשם אמר לא' כי עליה לבלוע את זרעו כפי שעושה אשתו. א' מצצה את איבר מינו של הנאשם עד שהגיע לפורקן אך התקשתה לעשות כמצוותו ולבלוע את זרעו וכמעט הקיאה. א' ירקה את זרעו של הנאשם בלא שיבחין כי היא עושה כן. בהמשך, במספר הזדמנויות ביקש הנאשם מא' למצוץ את איבר מינו ולבלוע את זרעו  והיא עשתה כן כשהיא יורקת את זרעו בלא ששם לב.
  5. בהיות א' כבת 19, לקח אותה הנאשם ברכבו לעמק המצלבה. רכבו של הנאשם היה בעל חלונות כהים. הנאשם אמר לא' להתפשט והתפשט בעצמו. הנאשם הושיב את א' על רגליו כשישבנה מופנה כלפיו. הנאשם לקח עט והחדירו לפי הטבעת של א' לעומק 2-3 ס"מ. הנאשם אמר לא' שככה עושים הערבים ושזה עושה לה הנאה.
  6. לקראת נישואיה של א' באוגוסט 2009 וסמוך לאחריהם, ראתה א' בנישואיה הזדמנות להביא להפסקת מעשיו של הנאשם. א' ראתה בצידוק ההלכתי כי היא "אשת איש" הזדמנות להפסיק את המעשים המיניים בהם לא רצתה. א' הבהירה לנאשם כי לאחר נישואיה תנתק כל קשר עמו. בתגובה, נקט הנאשם בשורה של פעולות שמטרתן לאפשר לו להמשיך ולהשתמש בא' ככלי לסיפוק יצריו המיניים. לשם כך, הנאשם הציג בפני א' מצגי שווא, שתכליתם לשכנעה לקיים עימו קשר מיני אף לאחר נישואיה כדלקמן:
    1. ראשית, אמר הנאשם בכזב לא' כי הוא בירר על החתן המיועד וכי הוא סובל מבעיות נפשיות. הנאשם אמר לא' כי אינו רוצה שתשבור את השידוך, אך הזהיר אותה שעליה לנקוט באמצעי זהירות, ליטול גלולות על מנת שלא תיכנס מבעלה המיועד להריון פן תגלה שהוא סובל מבעיות קשות . הנאשם אמר לא' שהוא עומד לרשותה לתמוך בה. הנאשם נתן לא' סכומי כסף ומתנות ואמר לה שמאחר והיא עם אדם לא כל כך נורמאלי שתשמור לעצמה את סכומי הכסף. הנאשם לקח את א' להתפלל בקבר דוד שבעלה לא יהיה משוגע ואף הנחה אותה לחפש אחר הכדורים הפסיכיאטריים של בעלה.
    2. שנית, מספר חודשים לאחר החתונה, אמר הנאשם לא' כי הוא נועץ ברב שאמר לו שיש לו תפקיד מאוד חשוב בעולם הזה, שבגלגול קודם הנאשם היה אישה והבעל שלו היה מתייחס אליו לא יפה. בגלל זה נולדו להם ארבעה ילדים וכולם נהיו חילונים, ולכן הנאשם צריך לחזור לעולם ולתקן את זה. הנאשם הסביר לא' שהיא היתה הבעל שלו בגלגול הקודם, שפגעה בו, ובגלל זה א' צריכה להיות איתו. הנאשם אמר לא' כי הוא שאל את הרב עד מתי הוא צריך להיות עם א' בשביל "התיקון" והרב השיב לו שהוא ירגיש עד מתי. א' האמינה לדברי הנאשם אך היססה בתחילה. זמן קצר לאחר מכן, הנאשם הגיע בסמוך לביתה של א' וכאשר יצאה מביתה אמר לה הנאשם כי הוא עשה את שלו בכל הקשור ל"תיקון" שלו ועתה מוטל על א' לעשות את "התיקון" שלה. א' סמכה על הנאשם והאמינה לדבריו ושוכנעה לשתף פעולה ולהענות למעשים מיניים עמו. 
  7. על יסוד מצגי השווא האמורים לעיל,  ושליטתו בא' ככלי לסיפוק יצריו המיניים לאורך שנים מגיל צעיר, השיג הנאשם את שיתוף הפעולה של א' בקיום יחסים מיניים עמו אף לאחר חתונתה. המפגשים של הנאשם עם א' נערכו בביתה של א' בעת שבעלה בישיבה, ברכבו של הנאשם אשר היה אוסף אותה ממקום עבודתה ולוקח אותה למקומות שונים בירושלים ובסביבותיה. במפגשים אלה היה הנאשם מפשיט את א' לגמרי, מחדיר את אצבעותיו לאיבר מינה ומבקש ממנה להביאו לידי סיפוק מיני בידה או במציצת איבר מינו והיא עשתה כן. הנאשם היה נוגע בחזה ומשפשף את פטמותיה של א'. כשהנאשם היה מגיע לביתה של א' היה מבקש שתתקלח ותתכונן לקראתו. המפגשים נערכו לאורך כארבע שנים כפעמיים שלוש בשבוע.
  8. באחת הפגישות, הגיע הנאשם לביתה של א'  עם קונדום וכדי להסיר כל התנגדות מצד א' הסביר לה כי מבחינה הלכתית בעילה עם קונדום אינה נחשבת לבעילה כי יש חיץ. הנאשם הושיב את א' על איבר מינו וניסה להחדירו לאיבר מינה של א'. א' לא רצתה כי הנאשם יחדור אליה, הצמידה חזק את רגליה והניחה את ידיה כדי ליצור תחושה אצל הנאשם כי הוא חדר אליה, כך עד שהנאשם הגיע לפורקן. במהלך המפגש החדיר הנאשם אצבעות לאיבר מינה של א'.
  9. במהלך הפגישות צילם הנאשם את א' כשהיא עירומה באמצעות מכשיר הטלפון הנייד שברשותו.
  10. במהלך התקופה האמורה לעיל, כמה שבועות לאחר שילדה תינוקת, היתה א' בחופשת לידה וישנה בבית הוריה כשהיא לבושה כותנת לגופה. הנאשם הגיע, העיר את א' נגע בחזה והחדיר אצבעותיו לאיבר מינה. במהלך חופשת הלידה הגיע הנאשם עוד מספר פעמים לביתה של א' החדיר אצבעותיו לאיבר ומינה וביקש שתשפשף את איבר מינו עד שהגיע לסיפוק וא' עשתה כן.
  11. במהלך אחת הפגישות בביתה של א'. אמר הנאשם לא' כי הצורך הבסיסי של אישה זה להיות נשלטת וכדי לממש את הצורך הזה עליו להכותה בחגורה. הנאשם עשה כן והכה את א' באמצעות חגורת בד פעמיים בישבנה. המכות הכאיבו לא' והיא צעקה ובכתה והנאשם חדל ממעשיו. במפגשים נוספים ולאורך תקופה של כשנה, נהג הנאשם להכות את א' בישבנה החשוף באמצעות ידו עד שישבנה נהיה אדום. הנאשם דרש מא' לומר לו "אדוני, אני רוצה עוד".
  12. במהלך קיץ 2013 או בסמוך לכך, נודע לא' מפי אחותה הצעירה ממנה ש', כי הנאשם פגע גם בה מינית במספר הזדמנויות. הדבר הביא את א' לתהליך שבסופו הבינה כי הנאשם מרמה אותה בסיפור "התיקון", וכי מדובר במניפולציה בה נוקט כלפיה הנאשם. בעקבות כך הודיעה א' לנאשם כי אינה מסכימה עוד לכל קשר עמו. הנאשם בכוונה להוסיף ולרמותה, שאל את א' מה לגבי "התיקון"?  אך א' מיאנה להשתכנע ואמרה לנאשם כי היא נוטלת את הסיכון על עצמה. משנוכח הנאשם כי מצג השווא של "התיקון" חדל מלפעול את פעולתו על א', יזם הנאשם מצג שווא נוסף.  הנאשם אמר לא' שיביא לה הוכחה מהרב חיים קנייבסקי כי הקשר ביניהם מותר מבחינה הלכתית. הנאשם, בכוונת מרמה, נטל הקלטה של הרב חיים קנייבסקי אומר דברי הלכה, דברים שאין להם כל קשר אל הנאשם, והשמיעה בפני  א' בטענה כי הדברים נאמרו כהכשר לקשר ביניהם, זאת במטרה לשכנעה להסכים להמשך הקשר המיני עמו. א' גילתה את דבר המרמה ודחתה את הנאשם.
  13. במעשיו המתוארים לעיל – בעל הנאשם את קרובת משפחתו שלא בהסכמתה החופשית כשהיא קטינה שטרם מלאו לה ארבע עשרה שנים, וכן עשה בקרובת משפחתו מעשים מגונים שלא בהסכמתה החופשית כשטרם מלאו לה 14 שנים לשם גירוי, סיפוק או ביזוי מיני.
  14. במעשיו המתוארים לעיל - בעל הנאשם את קרובת משפחתו, כשהיא קטינה שלא בהסכמתה החופשית וכן ביצע בה מעשים מגונים לשם גירוי, סיפוק או ביזוי מיני שלא בהסכמתה החופשית.
  15. במעשיו המתוארים לעיל – בעל הנאשם את קרובת משפחתו שלא בהסכמתה החופשית וכן ביצע בה מעשה סדום שלא בהסכמתה החופשית וכן ביצע בה מעשים מגונים לשם גירוי, סיפוק או ביזוי מיני שלא בהסכמתה החופשית.
  16. במעשיו המתוארים לעיל – בעל הנאשם את קרובת משפחתו בהסכמתה שהושגה במרמה לגבי מהות המעשה וכן ניסה לבעול אותה בהסכמתה שהושגה במרמה לגבי מהות המעשה וכן עשה בה מעשה סדום ומעשים מגונים בהסכמה שהושגה במרמה לגבי מהות המעשה.
  17. במעשיו המתוארים לעיל – תקף הנאשם את קרובת משפחתו וגרם לה לחבלה של ממש.

ב. הוראות החיקוק לפיהן מואשם הנאשם:
1.       אינוס בבת משפחה קטינה מתחת לגיל 14 שלא בהסכמתה החופשית– עבירה לפי סעיף 351(א) בנסיבות סעיף 345(א)(1)+(3) לחוק העונשין, התשל"ז - 1977 (להלן – "החוק").
2.       אינוס בבת משפחה קטינה שלא בהסכמתה החופשית– עבירה לפי סעיף 351(א) בנסיבות סעיף 345(א)(1) לחו3
.       אינוס שלא בהסכמה חופשית – עבירה לפי סעיף 345(א)(1) לחו