While over the years, based on a range of reports, the Catholic Church has been the major public culprit in the way they have handled sexual abuse allegations, clearly they are not the only ones within the religious sphere. From my own experience and knowledge I can testify that there has been widespread sexual abuse against many children within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Victoria, which was practically common knowledge to both community members and its leaders.

What has also become abundantly clear is that the mishandling of these cases of abuse by the ultra-Orthodox institutions has been negligent if not criminal. There have been numerous examples where victims and their families have been made to suffer, subsequent to the abuse, by these institutions and their leaders, especially when they have sought to seek justice. There are also a number of cases in which these religious institutions and their leaders irresponsibly removed paedophiles from their institution without ensuring justice for the victims and ignoring the safety of other children, who in some cases were later abused by the same perpetrator.

From my personal experience I hold the Yeshivah Centre directly responsible for the widespread sexual abuse that has gone on there over many years. They knew about it yet failed to act. Through their mixed messages, non-cooperation with the authorities and insensitivity I am deeply concerned that the Yeshivah Centre has not understood the gravity of the situation, nor how they should deal with these serious allegations. They are continuing the victimise the former victims and their families. They are being disingenuous when they claim to be doing all they can for the victims and the police—in fact it is an outright lie.

I am convinced that this wide-ranging inquiry—including the ability to compel witnesses to testify—would uncover more evidence of abuse and cover-ups.

For the sake of justice for past victims and for the future safety of our children, this proposed course of action is imperative—it is indeed long overdue. No institution should be above the law and it is about time these religious institutions are held to account. In our case, many of the former victims of the Yeshivah Centre plan to hold that institution and its leaders to full account in due course.

Can we fix it? Yes we can!

Following his previous article outlining what’s wrong with the Melbourne Beit Din, Rabbi Yaron Gottlieb puts forward some solutions.

The Beth Din (Jewish court) is unique. No other communal institution has anything like its power. My previous post was a personal account of the Kafkaesque nature of dealing with the Melbourne Beth Din. This article is about fixing the problem. And it is fixable.

In terms of Jewish continuity, the Beth Din plays a crucial role in issues of intermarriage and mamzerut.

Mamzerut is the status of someone born to a mother who is still officially married (Jewishly) to another man. If you’re a mamzer, you are excluded from many key areas of Jewish life. If people decide that they cannot deal with the Beth Din and don’t divorce Jewishly, then mamzerut has the potential to become widespread. As mentioned in the previous article the Beth Din only processes 40 divorces a year.

Meanwhile, only 10 converts are currently in the system and we have to wonder how many people are choosing to marry out or leave the Orthodox religious system of their families.

Defenders of the Beth Din will excuse their inefficiency by telling you that the halachic (Jewish legal) work is what makes their job so complicated. These defenders claim that simplification of processes will jeopardise universal recognition of conversions and divorces. This is not necessarily true and evidence that we are dealing with political, not halachic, issues.

Quite recently the Israeli Rabbinate annulled tens of thousands of conversions of Russian Jews. Even though these conversions were conducted by the highly respected Religious-Zionist Rabbi Drukman, for political reasons, these conversions were not deemed kosher enough. There are now thousands of Russians who are accepted as Jews only by some of the Orthodox community. The Israeli public – religious and non-religious – were horrified by this power play, but the Rabbinate’s political power meant that little could be done at the time.

But in reality, this sort of ultra-stringency is unsustainable. The growing rift between Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbis and the rest of the Orthodox (and Orthodox affiliated) world creates a high stakes game that could potentially destroy what it means to be an Orthodox Jew. Many religious Jews and their rabbis in Israel are rejecting the authority of the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Chief Rabbinate and are finding ways around it.

The Israeli public – both Orthodox and secular – have begun an intense campaign protesting Haredi excesses in many areas, including matters of personal status.

If we are to avoid becoming part of the problem – if we do not wish to be a party to encouraging mamzerut and if we do not wish to actively encourage marrying out and assimilation – we need to begin putting halacha before politics and look at ways to reform a broken system.

After my previous article, I discussed this issue with many people and three dominant possibilities for change emerged.

1) Fix the current Beth Din.

2) Establish a layman’s Beth Din.

3) Establish a visiting international Beth Din

Option 1: Fix the current Beth Din

In order to regain the trust of the public, the current Beth Din requires serious political and bureaucratic reform so that their authority is based on more than just the fear of the alternatives.

These reforms would include -

a) Acknowledging that accusations of insensitivity are far too common and undertake to address this matter.

While I agree that it is impossible that every person will be satisfied with every decision of the the Beth Din – especially considering the highly sensitive nature of its work – such complaints should be far fewer than currently seems to be the case. With the Beth Din adjudicating on only 50 cases per year, we should not be hearing the current number of negative stories.

b) Eliminating its adversarial and threatening atmosphere

During my interview with the Beth Din when I applied to teach converts, they made it quite clear that they expected me to act as a virtual spy for them.

They informed me that if a potential convert was having doubts, my first move should be to inform on the convert. They did not suggest I discuss any such issues with converts themselves or even help them through personal example (for example invite them to stay with me for a full Shabbat and work through the issues involved with that mitzvah).

c) Increasing transparency and fixing its appeals process

The current Beth Din sees no need for its decisions to be fully and clearly explained. If there is a reasonable basis for a decision, they should not fear providing it. The desire to conceal their reasoning only invites suspicion and undermines their credibility.

Whilst it is reasonable for the Dayanim (judges) to preside over halachic decisions (and there is certainly a need for judicial independence),  a means of appealing cultural or political – as opposed to halachic – decisions must exist. It should not be as easily circumvented as it currently is.

d) Addressing the unnecessary concentration of power in the Dayanim

The Dayanim do not only rule on halacha. They also decide on many areas of the administration that have no direct bearing on any halacha.  For example, they decide who will teach converts. This function could be easily be carried out by others and would eliminate an unnecessary concentration – and potential abuse – of power. It would also lighten their workload considerably. This would help their organisation run more efficiently

e) Increasing efficiency

Justice delayed is justice denied. The Beth Din deals with some of the most sensitive aspects of people’s lives. When we talk about inefficiency, we are not talking about the odd lost piece of paper or other minor confusion. Should a test for a convert be delayed a month, that is another month they are stuck in limbo. Often these delays are far longer and this is particularly difficult for women who are of a certain age and want to have children.

f) Reducing costs for converts

A number of converts have told me that the conversion course costs at least $10,000. Are we saying that we only want those with money to consider joining us?

Reducing costs is not complicated. One way is to stop insisting on private tutorials and to allow group lessons. Group lessons are common in other parts of the world as they are a far more cost-effective method of instruction.

g) Making the gett (Jewish divorce) as quick and painless as possible

As it stands at the moment, there are 40 divorces per year being performed by the Beth Din. Estimations by a number of people suggest that at a minimum, considering the Jewish population of Melbourne, that up to 50% of separated couples are choosing not to go to the Beth Din for a Jewish divorce.

Unnecessarily unpleasant and complicated procedures at the Beth Din must not be a reason for people to risk creating situations of mamzerut.

Because the Beth Din places so many politically motivated stringencies in the way of potential converts and divorcees, the current system presents a clear threat to continuity within the Orthodox Melbourne community.

Yet none of what I have suggested above in any way compromises stringent halacha.

In 2002, there was an opportunity to implement these sorts of reforms when the Beth Din was restructured. Those charged with reforming Beth Din failed to do so then, and there is no evidence they would be any more willing now. My experience – and the vast majority of experiences that have come to my attention – is evidence of this.

Option 2: The Layman’s Beth Din

If the current Beth Din cannot be reformed, then the possibility of creating a new one must be examined.

An alternative Beth Din already exists in Melbourne: the Adass Beth Din, so any arguments that a city can not have more than one Beth Din are put to rest by this fact.

Most of us who are looking for a new approach, however, would probably prefer an alternative to the strictly ultra-Orthodox Adass as well.

Within the boundaries of halacha there is no need for rabbis to constitute a Beth Din. For the purposes of conversion and divorce there is only a need for people who are knowledgeable in those areas to preside.

This option is inexpensive and logistically uncomplicated and could be virtually run as a volunteer organisation. It would be open to more of the Orthodox community, and be far more representative  than is currently the case.

It could be set up with structures that would avoid many of the pitfalls of the current Beth Din. The administrative processes could be set up to be more affordable and less cumbersome.

The flaw in this setup will always be a lack of acceptance by the global Orthodox community. While this is a legitimate concern, in Israel and around the world, there is a growing number of Orthodox rabbis and congregations that are more interested in halacha than in politics.

And the current Beth Din’s “good standing” in Israel – this is one of their excuses for their political stringency and other shortcomings – simplifies one bureaucratic area while it complicates and vexes so many others as I have explained above, particularly with regard to continuity.

While the rabbis in Israel control marriage and divorce, they do not have absolute control over people’s rights to make Aliya (immigration to Israel). Today Reform and Conservative conversions are also accepted for the purposes of Aliya.

It is important not to overstate the Israeli Rabbinate’s power.

Option 3: The visiting international Beth Din

Three rabbis with international standing and the requisite qualifications could be brought to Australia to give halachic rulings several times a year.

Funding this initiative would be an issue and it would be logistically more complex than the other options. However, such rabbis would provide significant international recognition of conversions and divorces.

Many of the logistical and cost factors can be dealt with by intelligent use of information technology. There are many instances in which the phone, the internet and Skype are quite acceptable in managing day to day business.

Any administration outside of the halachic rulings can also be done by laymen in Australia, leaving the rabbis to preside only on the final, halachic rulings. This includes administrative issues such as appointing teachers and setting a curriculum.

Considering the current cost pressures on the clients of the Melbourne Beth Din, a visiting international Beth Din may not cost any more than is presently the case.

There may also be people within the community willing to fund this effort, thus taking the financial pressure off the people coming before the Beth Din altogether. This would lead to an increase in the numbers using the Beth Din, with halachicly acceptable outcomes, especially in divorce cases, where it seems many have been avoiding the Beth Din altogether.

Once again, there will be issues with recognition by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, but these issues are not as severe as they might first seem for the reasons stated in Option 2.

Anyone claiming that a rift will be caused by a new Beth Din ignores the current rift that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the Melbourne Beth Din have already created within the Orthodox world.

They ignore the mamzerim, they ignore the people who desperately wish to convert Orthodox but whose partners feel forced to leave Orthodoxy or marry out, by a system which is clearly broken.

These are only some ideas that I have discussed with a number of people since my last article, but I welcome other comments and further discussion.

May this ‘argument for the sake of heaven’ find a solution that puts compassion above unnecessary stringency and may we finally find a way to put halacha above politics.

I did not have an answer and I don’t believe anyone has an answer to that question, because the cost difference was enormous. And they had tried a number of Kosher caterers. I saw the quotations.

However, my main point is that many people resist making a commitment to Kosher or even a partial commitment (I know that sounds weird but that is the fact, people will eat various things but never THAT stuff.) for a related reason. Their main objection is – they feel violated by a system that appears to extort and abuse them. In short they feel they are being treated like idiots. When there is no transparency regarding prices and processes and no real competition, they feel abused. These are people who are prepared to pay for quality and for service and they want to pay for Kosher, provided that it appears to be reasonable and justified.

Now for some of us, an extremely small proportion of Australia’s Jewish population, this is not a question. However, the vast majority of Australia’s Jews, our brothers and sisters, are not that way inclined. Are they opposed in principle to keeping Kosher? Sure, some of them are. But let’s consider the overwhelming proportion who wish to have burial according to our ancient traditions, who have their children circumcised, educated at Jewish institutions, their homes actively reflecting some Jewish content and connection to their heritage. Are these Jews in principle opposed to keeping Kosher? Certainly not.

Kosher has been made unnecessarily difficult, and unjustifiably expensive. We do not, and many believe that we cannot, explain and justify that the costs are fair and not extortive.

Kosher has been made to look silly and political. That’s the consequence of insisting that a kitchen must be Koshered after being used by a Kosher caterer supervised by a different Kosher organisation.

Kosher has been made to look trivial. That’s the consequence of knowing that the products on the Kosher list are not Kosher enough for the rabbi who endorses the list.

Kosher has been made to look petty. That’s the consequence of accepting as Kosher the same food in one state of Australia but not in another state.

Kosher has been made to look divisive and infantile. Like kinder kids playing in the sandbox. That’s the consequence of some of us, who suffer a narrow perspective, dismissing those outside our own little arena. This was recently expressed on this site by a poster who declared that those who keep Kosher to standards approved by some great Poskim but not to the poster’s standards, “You’ll consider yourself kosher, and even some of your friends will consider you kosher. But by the standards enshrined in our Holy Torah, you’re simply not there yet in terms of full kashrus adherence.”

Melbourne KA (KAM) and Sydney KA (KAS) both operate facebook pages. Recently there was a veritable explosion on these usually docile and pedestrian pages, the detonator being the high costs of the Melbourne Kosher book on the Melbourne FB page [whereas the Sydney list of Kosher foods is freely available on the web] and the price of Kosher chicken/meat on the Sydney FB page. These discussions have been removed, which is probably appropriate since those FB pages are not designated for such discussion [and is one of the reasons I have aired the topic here].

But I draw your attention to 3 points: A) the energy that was apparent in these exchanges, which was remarkably in tense; and B) the people expending that energy, who were exclusively committed Kosher consumers. The third point is that there were some who defended the costs of Kosher but their expressions of confidence in the Kosher system voiced in shrill pronouncements and their reflections upon the personalities of those posing the questions, failed to disguise the fact that there were no answers to the questions asked.

KAS, to the best of my knowledge, did not respond at all other than by removing the discussion from their fb page.

KAM responded after removing the discussions with the following (I have trimmed its length) “There has been a burning question raised on our Facebook page – why do we charge for the Kosher Australia Food Guide – The small charge (I think this refers to certified companies) defrays some of our costs, not all of them. The typical family can get the Kosher guide for $40 p.a. which also includes a Pesach guide that takes hundreds of hours to prepare. (The regular Kosher Food Guide involves a review of the ENTIRE LIST – not a 2 hour job.)
To properly check a company requires time & expertise – the charge being disproportionately small in comparison to the time & materials involved. Staff need to be paid to maintain the service. As users of the Kosher guide, it is fair and proper that some charge is sought. The equivalent of less than a dollar a week is not unreasonable.”

This response suggests that the book sales are profitable but that profit is required to finance the investigations of companies paying for their Kosher certification since the charges to the companies are not sufficient to cover the costs. The question though remains, why does KAS not charge for their list but KAM does charge? How does KAS make ends meet?

Mr Romy Leibler, President of COSV Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Victoria, 1995 – 2005 and inaugural President of COSA Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Australia, says that, “Mizrachi profits from the Kosher service it provides which must raise concerns. Further, it purports to be a broad communal organisation by its new name of Kosher Australia yet it is raising as much money as possible for itself, a single community group.”

Mr John Kraus [past president of Mizrachi Kosher] assures us that there is transparency in all of Mizrachi’s financials. As he writes [on Isaac Balbin’s Pitputim blog] to Mr. Romy Leibler, “you have access to the financial accounts, these are audited. Mizrachi is transparent and is accountable to its members of which you are one.”

We should note that for every EXTRA dollar paid for Kosher chickens, $10,000 EXTRA dollars are collected EVERY WEEK from the Kosher consumers since we produce 10,000 Kosher chickens per week. But Kosher chickens cost $15 more than non-Kosher chickens. So we are not talking about $10,000 but about $150,000 per week! What do we pay for a Kosher chicken? Close to $30. A non Kosher chicken retails in Coles and Woolies for less than $7.

I invite any businessperson to clarify these projections.

Furthermore, given that Rabbis Groner and Telsner are the principals responsible for Kashrus of our chickens [their names appear on both the Biada chicken processing plant and also the Solomons Kosher butcher shop] it is disappointing that neither they nor their representatives have ever provided any input into this discussion. The entire Jewish community will be delighted to have their and the other community Rabbonim as well as the communal leaders, help us unravel this mystery.

This is not the first time such a discussion has been aired. In his blog Pitputim Isaac Balbin suggests that:

• Melbourne Kashrut, now Kosher Australia is moving towards the standards employed by the OU, which is good.
• Some are critical of this move.
• Sydney appears to have embraced the lower LBD rather than OU standards
• Rabbi Moishe D Gutnick of the Sydney KA responded,

“Kosher Australia (Melbourne based) has announced that it is phasing out its “approved” listings. The Kashrut Authority however maintains that “approved” products are 100% kosher l’chatchila and should be listed. Furthermore, it is wrong to restrict the general community to certified products.”

The Kashrut Authority (Sydney based) maintains that “approved” products are 100% kosher l’chatchila, and it is wrong to disqualify such products. If the consumer wishes to eat only ‘mehadrin’ products that is the consumer’s choice but not a Halachic necessity.

Approved products are no ‘less kosher’ than certified products, they just fall under a different halachic paradigm.

See here.

Some more comment on the Pitputim blog:

• It would be good if there was one communal Kosher organisation, standard and symbol for Australia. Financials should be transparent and accountable. (David Werdiger)
• Kosher VeYosher is self serving and does not provide any real benefit to the community.(Isaac Balbi)
• At a Council of Orthodox Synagogues Victoria meeting, Mr. J Kraus representing Mizrachi, proposed that COSV take over the Kashrus work then being run, at a significant financial loss to Mizrachi. COSV was willing but Mizrachi withdrew their offer. (Isaac Balbi)
• Dr. Kloot has stated that that Mizrachi will only cede its control of Kashrus if it will be compensated with over $1,000,000. Dr. Kloot also fears that those who offer to take over this responsibility may lower the Kosher standards. He also bemoans that the community is not the slightest bit interested in helping to pay for the Kashrus services provided by Mizrachi.
• Isaac thinks Dr. Kloot’s comment is sad and negative.

Mr J Kraus

• disputes Isaac’s recollection, insists that the offer demanded compensation
• Isaac insists that no mention at the time was made re financial compensation. Suggests that the minutes be perused.

Mr J Kraus

• as Chairman of Mizrachi Kashrus, invited all Melbourne Synagogues to become part of Kosher Australia, to contribute to operations and to have representatives on the board, but was unsuccessful.
• maintains that the Kosher booklet is extremely difficult to use.
• Agrees with Dr Kloot that fair compensation must be paid to Mizrachi if it relinquishes or shares its control of Kashrus as occurred when COSV became joint managers with Mizrachi for the Eruv
• Assures us, as past Chairman of KA and Treasurer of Mizrachi, that Kashrus is not a profitable enterprise and is lucky to even now, be breaking even.

Rommy Leibler suggests that:

• it is absurd that the same product is Kosher in NSW but not Kosher in Melbourne
• Kashrus ought to be a communal enterprise however monetary and parochial interests prevent this. Mizrachi profits from the Kosher service it provides which must raise concerns. Further, it purports to be a broad communal organisation by its new name of Kosher Australia yet it is raising as much money as possible for itself, a single community group.
• A simple important change would see KA reporting to COSV.
• Kosher VeYosher panders to those desiring lower Kosher standards; it is controversial and confrontational.
• The proposal of ECAJ and ORA that one authority determine who may and who may not provide Kosher certification, is dangerous.

David Werdiger

• agrees with Isaac that Kashrus ought to be a communal asset, although he does not necessarily agree with the OU being the standard that we should embrace.

Finally, ANONYMOUS posters have mentioned that:

• A single Kashrus authority leads to increased costs for Kosher products and services, proof for this is demonstrated by the costs for Kosher in Sydney.
• KVY does some strange things but are servicing a section of the community that neither the Mizrachi nor the Adass are willing or capable of doing.

Rabbi Meir Rabi is the principal of KVY (It’s Kosher) Kashrut Agency.

So you only buy kosher meat, stay away from crustaceans, never mix meat and milk, and always check the food labels. You try your best but all this is of course a long, long way from keeping real kosher, committed kosher – the kind of kosher kept by those strange people in black hats. Those people who seem to inhabit a different world, the world in which there is no place for a person like you. You could never bring to your dining table the same devotion and piety as they do, right? Well, what if you could? What if keeping real kosher was within reach? Let me show you how you may be closer than you think:

Checking the ingredients is all good and well but what about factory equipment? Wouldn’t the products manufactured on un-kosher equipment also not be kosher?

The subject of equipment contamination is discussed by Rav Moshe Feinstein – a leading authority in all areas of Jewish law. In a lengthy ruling concerning the kosher status of margarine manufactured on a production line previously used for other non-kosher products (Igros Moshe, YD 2:41) the Rav establishes two important principles. The first is that halacha does not require a rabbi or mashgiach to be employed to ensure that the cleaning required for kashrus is satisfactorily implemented. Provided the factory cleans to what are halachically acceptable standards for its own food safety protocols, we can rely upon them and the governments guidelines and the government penalties. Rather than acting as a second-tier system inferior to the ‘gold standard’ of direct supervision, Rav Moshe argues that this standard is consistent with the very principles of traditional Jewish dietary supervision.

The second principle advanced by Rav Moshe has even greater repercussions. Jewish law postulates that a utensil used for cooking absorbs and retains flavour of the food cooked within it. If used again – the vessel may impart this absorbed flavour to the food now being cooked. If the absorbed food is not kosher, it may make the food presently being cooked not kosher. However, once unused for 24 hours (aino ben yoma), the absorbed food inside the walls of the container becomes spoiled (pogum) and can no longer affect the kashrus status of the next food being cooked (Shulchan Aruch, YD 103:5). Jewish law designates all utensils owned by non-Jews as aino ben yoma, unless we actually know otherwise.

Nevertheless, we are not permitted, by decree of our Sages, to use such vessels until they have been kashered. This applies when a Jew will be using these vessels, or where the non-Jew has been directed by the Jew to cook on behalf of a Jew. However, where a non-Jew decides to cook on behalf of a Jew, even if a rabbi or mashgiach is employed to ensure that non-kosher foods and ingredients are not used, the vessels need not be kashered and the foods are kosher. Rav Moshe’s argument essentially renders the cooking utensils factor a non-issue in the determination of the product’s kosher status.

What about enzymes? Some say that they don’t make it to the ingredients list. If they are not-kosher, wouldn’t that make the final product not-kosher too?

The general rule is that an ingredient inadvertently added to a food mixture is nullified at the ratio of 1:60. This rule is restricted to a Jew adding the non-kosher ingredient inadvertently. A Jew may never knowingly add even the tiniest amount of non-kosher content to a food designated for kosher consumption. However, here too we must observe that a non-Jew is not restricted by such decrees of our Sages. A food manufacturer who is not Jewish can produce kosher foods even when he adds non-kosher foods and ingredients, and even if a rabbi or mashgiach is there to supervise that the final product is kosher.

However, a substance necessary to effect a transformation that is impossible without it (such as an enzyme) can affect the kosher status in any quantity. We must remember, however, that a substance can only have a kosher status if it is a food item. Something that is not food or is derived from food but rendered inedible (Nifsal M’Achila) is neither kosher nor not-kosher.

Many of the enzymes used in food industry are derived from food, some from non-kosher food – but they themselves are not food. It is meaningless to talk of a kosher status of an inedible item. A halachic template for this is the use of dried-up shavings of a cow’s stomach wall to produce cheese (Shulchan Aruch YD 87:11). The stomach of a non-kosher animal is not kosher. However, when the stomach wall is dried up and added to milk to transform it into cheese, the ingredient does not render the cheese not-kosher. In the words of the Shulchan Aruch, the stomach wall has become ‘like wood’ and no longer has a non-kosher identity.

What about gelatine and cochineal?

Gelatine is derived from inedible parts of the animal, usually hooves, horns, bones or skin. During its manufacture, gelatine is denatured into a tasteless, colourless matrix which is completely inedible. Cochineal is a red tasteless substance derived from insects and used in minute quantities as a red food colouring. Neither of the substances could ever be described as food and therefore do not fall under kosher/not-kosher definition.

What about Chalav Yisroel milk?

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe YD 1:47-49) argues clearly that the modern regulation requiring strict supervision and testing of milk at the factory level as well as the risk of financial loss to the farmer if the milk is found to be contaminated with non-cow milk, appropriately reflect the standard of supervision required by Jewish law. Once again, this is not some kind of ‘second tier’ observance but a standard in line with halacha. It is noteworthy to mention that while Rav Moshe himself drank only chalav yisroel milk, Rebetzin Feinstein did not (as communicated by Rebbe Chaim Jachter, www.koltorah.org).

But on Passover the rules are different. So what about food ingredients then?

On Passover any leaven material added to a food product retains its unique identity and is not nullified in any quantity. This, however, only applies when the leavened material is added during the days of Passover itself. If added prior to Passover, the leaven becomes nullified by the same measurements as other food products (the 1:60 rule usually applies) and ‘disappears’ within the food mixture. Thus the frenzy of obtaining Kosher for Passover foods is in many cases nothing but a figment of the imagination.

The last argument

This argument has nothing to do with kashrus, or with food for that matter. It is the argument that kashrut supervision (in the form of a little symbol on your food container) is somehow inherently good for us. This argument is advanced in many different forms by various players in the kashrus field. We are variously told that kosher certification is good because it gives jobs to frum people, because it raises awareness of kosher, because it encourages stricter observance, because ‘otherwise you just can‘t be sure‘.

Most of all, an assertion is repeatedly made that the Jewish dietary laws are so complex, that food manufacturing is so advanced that an average person could not possibly comprehend all the intricacies of the subject. It therefore follows that we shouldn’t even try and should entrust ourselves instead into the hand of ‘knowing men’ who will take care of it all for us. To put it simply, this is nonsense. Indeed, while I hold in great admiration those individuals who choose to undertake tougher, more stringent levels of observance incurring a significant degree of additional effort and financial cost in the process, this admiration does not extend to those who seek to impose upon others their own ethical constructs which they seek to pass as true foundations of Jewish law.

To keep a kosher home is to feel the gift of spiritual connection with G-dliness resting in the very heart of our home. It must never be made the privilege of a few – a special task to be outsourced to ‘those people in black hats’. The Sages of the Talmud use poignant imagery to illustrate the damage one does in the process of making another feel embarrassed, humiliated or left out: the redness that rushes to a person’s face is compared to spilling blood in murder. Indeed, today we witness a generation being ‘murdered’ in this way through their inability to participate in the sacred tradition of keeping a kosher home – a tradition increasingly out of reach for ordinary Jews.

It may be hard for some to imagine, but for a sizable proportion of the Jewish community, the very thought of walking into a specialty kosher store is out of the question – for reasons of distance, price, or sheer embarrassment. In recent years a growing list of items (strawberries, honey, olive oil to name a few) have been branded as ‘unacceptable without a kosher logo’ for reasons unrelated to food production. With every new item declared off limits another wall is erected, another boundary separates the life of an ordinary Jew from the aspirations of holiness and connection to the bigger whole we all seek.

This article cannot and is not intended to be a comprehensive kashrus manual. To those who feel that the kosher world is beyond their reach, it is an open invitation to learn and educate themselves while letting go of the false notions they may have taken as truths. To those who couldn’t imagine a life without kosher, it is a heartfelt plea to not let themselves be intimidated into supporting opinions and views that are passed off as authentic Jewish tradition but in fact corrupt the very tradition and values they are meant to represent.

It is fitting to conclude with the words of the Sages (Yerushalmi, Kiddushin 4:12): “A man will have to give an accounting to the Presence for everything his eyes beheld but he chose not to eat, though permitted and able to do so.”

Robert is an Orthodox Jew, a life-long learner, and a kosher consumer.

The Treasury at Petra, one of Jordan's most popular tourist sites, perhaps in part due to these three gentlemen

By David Werdiger
Q. Why do the Irish have the potatoes and the Arabs have the oil?
A. Because the Irish had first choice.

Natural resources are both a blessing and a curse. While they can be a source of wealth and prosperity for a country, they are something that is obtained with relatively little effort. As such, they can invariably lead to laziness and complacency. Just have a look at rates of literacy and innovation in so-called “rich” Arab nations – they are among the worst in the world. While there are many reasons for this, their economic dependence on oil was certainly a contributing factor.

In Australia, we are running a two-speed economy in the current mining boom. Demand from China and India for the stuff we have in the ground is one of the reasons our economy has stayed out of the deep recession affecting other countries. But what of the non-mining industry? Retail is weak, business confidence and investment is down, and people don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel.

I was thinking about all of this as I pondered this week’s Torah portion, Lech Lecha, in which God promises the land of Israel to Abraham. There are two angles to this:

Israel is variously described in the Torah as a land flowing with milk and honey; a land of brooks, waters, and fountains; a land whose stones are iron and from whose mountains you will hew brass; and so on. This doesn’t seem to correlate with the Israel we know today. Agriculture has not come easy, water is scarce, and there is little in the way of natural resources. So what’s the big blessing? I’m not about to launch into an exposition and explanation of how we might understand these attributes and what they mean (because I don’t know). However, I think the lack of natural resources in Israel is itself a form of blessing, because it has led modern Israel to be one of the leading knowledge economies in the world. Israeli companies are world leaders in technology and innovation. Israel’s economic success has been built not on the stuff in the ground, but on its people, and that is a resource that won’t run dry in 2050 like an oil well might.

The other thing that came to me today was about another natural resource found in abundance in the Middle East, but one whose economic potential has not yet been fully realised. What is the world’s biggest industry? Tourism. Imagine the huge untapped market for biblical tourism that could be unlocked if countries like Iraq were more open to the western world. Christians and Jews would flock to visit ancient cities and to follow the historical trail of the Patriarchs.

Historical sites are a far better natural resource than oil. They don’t deplete, and a strong tourism industry leads to cultural exchange and tolerance for others. And a bit of tolerance for others wouldn’t go astray in the Arab world.

Yes, I know it’s a bit of a pipe dream for a group of Jews to celebrate the weekly Torah portion of Lech Lecha by visiting Ur (the birthplace of Abraham), but as they say, “if you will it, it is no dream!”

This article was originally published here at David Knows.

A previous cover of the New Statesman, also featuring Pilger, and described by many as anti-Semitic

Australian journalist, John Pilger, 2009 winner of the Sydney Peace Prize, has launched a bizarre attack on Australian Jewish businessman and philanthropist, Frank Lowy. New York writer, Adam Holland, does his best to make sense of it all.

John Pilger is not one to miss an opportunity to point an accusing finger at Israel, regardless of the wrong he’s addressing. Pilger has a column in the New Statesman (Sept 22) which focuses on a newly opened shopping mall in London’s East End to decry consumerism, ill-treatment of workers, and bad shopping mall design. He’s also upset that he couldn’t find a bookstore that he was looking for.  Pilger chose to headline this column:

“War and shopping – the extremism that never speaks its name: The Westfield Stratford centre, backed by a former Israeli commando and touted as the future face of London by the likes of Boris Johnson, makes a mockery of the East End’s history of productive work.”

Apropos of nothing else in the column (other than that headline), he includes the following paragraph, focusing for some reason on one of several co-founders, whom Pilger oddly calls “the” co-founder.

The co-founder of Westfield is Frank Lowy, an Australian-Israeli billionaire who is to shopping what Rupert Murdoch is to media. Westfield owns or has an interest in more than 120 malls worldwide. Lowy, a former Israeli commando, gives millions to Israel, and in 2003 set up the “independent” Lowy Institute for International Affairs which promotes Israel and US foreign policy.

Pilger may feel strongly about protecting the rights of workers and raising the standards for the design of shopping malls, or he may merely be using those good causes as an excuse to bash Israel on the most tenuous of bases. You be the judge.

(Read here: New Statesman – War and shopping – the extremism that never speaks its name)

From Wikipedia (grain of salt alert) I reprint the following thumbnail sketch of Frank Lowy’s early life:

Lowy was born in Czechoslovakia, and lived in Budapest, Hungary during World War II. He made his way to France in 1946, where he left on the ship Yagur, but was caught en route to British Mandate of Palestine by the British and deported to the detention camp in Cyprus. After a few months, Lowy was allowed into Palestine and was brought to the Atlit detainee camp. Lowy then moved to Sde Yaakov a small yeshiva school [sic] near Qiryat Tivon [and] eventually joined the Haganah and then the Golani Brigade, fighting during the Arab–Israeli War in the Galilee and in Gaza.

Those who oppose Israel’s existence, as does Pilger, view the role played by the Golani Brigade in repelling the Arab invasion of the newly formed state to be an evil one. That a brave young man who barely escaped the death camps of Europe and survived British “Displaced Persons” detention camps in Cyprus and Palestine would choose to defend his new homeland from aggression should, in Pilger’s view, forever ban him from the development of shopping malls in London. Pilger, forever the would-be freedom fighter, would have it that a small part of London’s East End is now Zionist occupied territory and the workers there are Britain’s Palestinians. If Pilger was standing on a soapbox at the Westfield shopping mall spouting this rubbish he would be regarded by most passersby to be a madman. Because he instead publishes it in the New Statesman, he’s considered a pundit.

Funny.

This article was originally published on Adam Holland’s blog and he has kindly given us permission to republish for our readers

Siren Gjerme Eriksen

This Capital Jewish Forum interview with the Norwegian Ambassador to Australia, conducted by Manny Waks, covers the topics of Norway’s 22 July tragedy, Israel, and tolerance and racism, amongst other things.

Capital Jewish Forum (CJF): Firstly, my sincere condolences to you and the people of Norway for this incredible tragedy.

How has this terrible tragedy impacted on the nation?

Ambassador Siren Eriksen (SE): Thank you. The attacks on 22 July have brought the Norwegian people even closer together and the whole of Norway has been moved by the heartfelt condolences received from around the world, including from Australia and Israel.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has stated that Norway will be recognisable after the terrorist attacks, that our answer is more democracy, more tolerance and more togetherness.

Norway will continue its international commitment to the values we believe in – democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and human rights – and continue to stand up for them.

CJF: How would you characterise the relationship between Norway and Australia?

Australia and Norway enjoy warm bilateral relations and work together on a number of international issues in the United Nations and other fora. Norway was very happy to receive a visit from Foreign Minister Rudd in May this year.

As regards people-to-people relations, a bilateral working holiday-maker arrangement came into effect in August 2001, and is a popular means for young Australians and Norwegians to experience each other’s country. Student exchange also boosts the ties – there are currently around 2000 Norwegian students in Australia.

Israel

CJF: I have had it said to me by supporters of Israel that they perceive Norway to be “anti-Israel”. There have been a number of prominent examples raised by these supporters. For example, it has been reported that the Deputy Environment Minister stated, before she entered the Government, that she dreamt about the U.N. launching rockets against Israel. The Foreign Minister recently condemned Israel for its reaction to the penetration of its northern border by Syrian citizens by describing it as the “most serious incident on the Golan since 1973”. Jostein Gaarder, a leading Norwegian writer, created an uproar when he published his 2006 article entitled God’s Chosen People, for which he later apologised. There was also the case of the Norwegian diplomat in Saudi Arabia who compared Israeli actions to those of the Nazis during the Gaza War. How do you respond to these issues and the perception that Norway may be anti-Israel? I note that internationally acclaimed human rights lawyer and pro-Israel advocate, Alan Dershowitz, has recently stated that ‘Norway is the most antisemitic and anti-Israel country in Europe today’?

When a former Norwegian Prime Minister, Kare Willoch, condemned US President Barrack Obama for appointing a Jew as his Chief of Staff or when a Labor Party lawmaker, Anders Mathisen, recently denied the Holocaust, do these views and attitudes not reflect the views of some of their current or former constituents, or provide legitimacy to the antisemitic views of some of these individuals?

SE: All through the State of Israel’s history there has been a strong engagement in Norway for Israel and for the situation in the Middle East. Norway enjoys close bilateral relations with Israel based on long-standing historical ties. The Norwegian Government has repeatedly confirmed that Norway is a friend of Israel.

There should be no doubt about the Norwegian Government’s clear and firm opposition to all forms of antisemitism in all its manifestations wherever they occur.

CJF: As Israel has been a victim of terrorism since its founding, do you believe the recent terrorist attacks in Norway will at all influence the Norwegian people’s empathy for what Israel has endured for decades? Could this lead to greater support for Israel within Norway?

SE: The Norwegian Government condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, irrespective of their motivations or manifestations.

There is great interest in the Middle East in Norway, particularly in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and I believe that this interest is likely to be continued.

CJF: There is often conflation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism? How does the Norwegian Government distinguish between the two? Is there a clear policy on this? The European Union, for example, has a very clear and comprehensive definition of antisemitism.

SE: The Norwegian Foreign Minister has clearly stated that we must all be wary of attitudes and actions that can breed renewed antisemitism or other ideologies and mindsets that exclude or segregate groups of people, spread hatred and intolerance, and pursue policies of discrimination of minorities.

Norway wants a society with equality for all and the absence of discrimination. The Government’s action plan to promote equality and prevent ethnic discrimination 2009–2012 is designed to combat both direct and indirect discrimination. The Norwegian Anti-discrimination Act and the Civil Penal Code offer legal protection against discrimination.

CJF: What is the Norwegian Government’s policy in relation to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement which targets Israel?  Why do you think this movement, which has large support amongst some segments of Western European populations, focuses on only one country? Are there not other countries that deserve greater scrutiny?

SE: The Norwegian Government has clearly stated that it has never discussed nor considered a consumer boycott of Israel, and such a boycott is not the position of the Norwegian Government.

Tolerance and racism

CJF: In June 2011 a disturbing survey was released by the Oslo Municipality in the Norwegian capital. It found that 33% of Jewish students there are physically threatened or abused by other high school teens at least two to three times a month. The group which suffered the next highest amount of bullying was Buddhists at 10%. “Others” were at 7% and Muslims at 5.3%. Furthermore, the survey found that fifty-one percent of high school students consider “Jew” a negative expression and 60% had heard other students use the term. Is there an explanation for these concerning statistics? In particular, why is the Jewish demographic so disproportionately represented? Is this consistent with the European trend? If so, why is there such a trend and when or how will it end?

SE: Bullying in schools is unacceptable and any form of bullying is a serious problem that the Norwegian Government is actively pursuing.

We all have a responsibility to combat all forms of antisemitism and possibly the best way to combat antisemitism, as all discrimination, is to get it out in the open, describe it and condemn it.

The national Centre for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities, with support from the Norwegian Government, is currently conducting a national wide survey to identify inter alia antisemitic attitudes in Norway.

As chair of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education in 2009, Norway put emphasis on how the reservoir of academic and practical skills could be better utilised to help governments to confront increasing antisemitism, racism and exclusion of groups in their societies. Norway strongly believes that the fight against antisemitism calls for political leadership.

CJF: Keeping kosher in Norway is a major challenge as slaughtering animals according to Jewish Law has been banned since around 1930. Former Chief Rabbi of Norway, Michael Melchior, has argued that antisemitism is one motive for the ban. Do you believe antisemitism played any role in the initial ban? Are there any changes expected in the Government policy?

SE: Norway was one of the first countries in the world to adopt a law for the protection of animals in 1935 and is one of several countries that ban ritual slaughter.

The current conditions for the slaughter of animals are laid down in the Animal Welfare Act that came into force in 2010. The Act was adopted nearly unanimously by the members of the Parliament in 2009. This demonstrates the strong political support for continual improvement of animal welfare.

CJF: There have been public statements, most notably by the German Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, to the effect that multiculturalism has been a failure in European countries. Do you agree? Would this also reflect the reality in Norway?

SE: There is a need in all countries to bridge the gap of misunderstanding and prevent the “clash of ignorance” that may lead to increasing stereotyping of religious groups and others. What we have seen in Norway – not least after the attacks on 22 July – is all parts of the society coming together to preserve and strengthen common values.

CJF: To what extent are Norwegian school children taught about the Holocaust and Norway’s involvement during? Is anything taught about the collaboration with the Nazis? Is there attention paid to the efforts of the Norwegian Resistance?

SE: In the last 30-40 years, Holocaust awareness in Norway has increased both in the educational sector and in society in general. Several thousand Norwegian school children have participated in study trips to former concentration camps.

The Centre for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities was established in 2001.  In cooperation with the Directorate for Education and Training, the Holocaust Centre has built up comprehensive web-based information and given Norwegian schools a new learning centre for issues concerning the Holocaust, other genocides, racism, antisemitism and conditions of minorities.

This also includes information about the participation of the Norwegian Police and others in the arrest and deportation of Jews from Norway, as well as knowledge about the Norwegian resistance movement during the Second World War.

The educational efforts take into account that we all – wherever we live – have an obligation to learn from the past and fight antisemitism, racism and all ideologies that exclude groups of people and spread hatred.

General

CJF: A perennially controversial issue is with regards to Norway’s policy on whaling. What precisely is the current policy?

SE: Norway is playing an active role in efforts to devise an international environmental policy for the future. A central element of this policy must be co-operation concerning the protection and rational management of renewable natural resources and their environment. The Norwegian minke whale catching is based on the principles of sustainable harvesting of marine resources. The management of these resources is based on scientific advice and subject to a strong control system to ensure compliance with regulatory decisions.

CJF: Has this policy caused any strains in the Australian-Norwegian relations?

SE: Australia and Norway are well aware of each other’s views on this issue.

As regards Australian-Norwegian relations, I would like to draw the attention to  Foreign Minister Rudd’s words during his visit to Oslo in May this year where he said that often it is not visible to communities in Australia and Norway how much the two countries collaborate deeply and closely on the global challenges of the day.

CJF: Norway (and the other Scandinavian countries) is often described as a “social democracy”. How is this defined and what makes it different to the Australian system?

SE: The Nordic countries have managed to combine a just distribution and an efficient economy. Norway and the other Nordic countries are marked by a relatively high taxation level, strong labour unions, extensive welfare systems and large public sectors – as well as economic efficiency and high levels of employment, in particular female employment.

This apparent paradox triggers interest all over the world and is in some cases seen as an inspiration.

The Nordic countries have demonstrated a greater willingness to adjustment and reform than many other European countries. This has facilitated adjustments. Also, the Nordic societies represent a much higher degree of equality than most other countries.

CJF: Seeing that Norway is a major oil producer, what are its broad links with Iran and more specifically in relation to the oil industry?

SE: Norway has voiced a number of concerns about the situation in Iran, including the human rights situation and the uncertainties around Iran’s nuclear programme. The Norwegian Government has deeply deplored the statements from the Iranian President about the existence of the State of Israel.

Norway’s policy in Iran is fully in line with that of the international community as expressed by the United Nations Security Council. The Norwegian Government has also imposed more stringent sanctions and measures against Iran and brought Norwegian legislation in line with that of the European Union.

The Capital Jewish Forum (CJF), based in Canberra, has recently launched a new initiative, where distinguished guests are interviewed on a range of issues which are relevant and of interest to Jewish academic, policy, business and other professionals. Previous CJF interviews are available here.

Kozminsky Jewellers in the Melbourne CBD

By Bracha Rafael

This July my entire family travelled to California to attend my grandfather’s 90^th birthday party. The day we landed in San Francisco, my sister received an email from a long-lost cousin of ours. He is a historian who had been looking for people from my grandfather’s side of the family for over 30 years. He found my sister, an amateur genealogist, on ancestry.com. And he came to our family reunion, to tell my grandfather why his side of the family had abandoned our side of the family 110 years ago.

In the midst of all this drama, I was reading about a different rift that occurred within a different family, but at almost exactly the same time. It is the story of Simon Kozminsky and his family, and the abrupt departure of one his sons from the family circle.

Tangea Tansley has written an imagined version of her family’s arrival to Australia in the height of the gold rush. With snippets of information gleaned from her father’s stories and the few primary documents that do exist, she has filled the gaps with creativity and verve. Unaware of her Jewish ancestry until well into her adult life, A Break in the Chain depicts the events that explain why, three generations later, this is so.

Her story begins with Simon Kozminsky’s journey to Australia from Prussia in the mid-19^th century, and finishes in 1936 in London. In between we witness the infancy of Kozminsky, the Melbourne jewellery icon, and are given rare insight into the world of 20^th century astrology. Tansley examines difficult questions of identity, from ancestry to faith to names. The story moves at a comfortable pace, and we see Melbourne grow and transform as does Simon’s business and family.

Tansley is to be commended for the research she must have done into Jewish traditions: but for one scene containing a couple of glaring errors, her depiction of the casual orthodoxy prevalent in eastern Europe in the 19^th century feels authentic. Her searing descriptions of the goldfields are also something to behold.

“And so now nothing would live here; nothing could live in a place where all that was left was the curious grey harshness of the felled trees lying with their roots pointing at the sun, where the soil was trampled to fine dust, where the flies still hovered over piles of cans, flour bags and torn cardboard boxes, and all the water was gone. Just as on the voyage, Simon thought, it was man against nature and to see this destruction it would seem that man had won.”

All of that said, I have some serious misgivings about the novel.

Tansley’s characters are forever imparting wisdom to the younger generation, to the point where you wonder if they ever spoke about mundane things. They also tend to speak in paragraphs rather than in phrases, and this makes for uninspiring reading.

As a collection of imagined significant moments in her great-grandfather and grandfather’s lives, they satisfy, but I couldn’t help but feel that too much is left out. When was Simon Kozminsky first confronted by the difficulty of keeping Shabbat in Australia? How did he feel? What did he do? We see nothing of this: we meet Simon as an unphilosophical observant Jew at age 20, and then are reintroduced to him in his 30’s, where he breakfasts on bacon and eggs before making his way to shul on Shabbat.

However, at certain points such gaps intensify the reading experience. We are as bewildered as Israel (Simon’s son) by his parents’ rejection of his non-Jewish partner. And we can easily see how this bewilderment, with its lack of explanation or dialogue or interest offered over so many years, leads to an irrecoverable hurt, and the irreparable rift in the family.

Disappointingly, Tansley does a lot of telling rather than showing. We hear a lot about Simon’s difficulty with the English language, but beyond a couple of stilted conversations during his crossing to Australia, we don’t see it. He makes many impassioned speeches to his young son, and not once does he struggle for words. We never see a business deal go wrong or an argument lost because of his imperfect English. And yet we are told, many times, that he struggles with the language.

Language itself is often a bit hit-and-miss with Tansley. Her creative similes are often delightful, but frequently fall flat: “it had ignited, in fact, somewhat like a spark set to a stagnant puddle of energy.” At other times, however, her prose is pitch-perfect:

“[Rhizomes] had a lot in common with extended families. Not much to be seen on the surface, but underneath you could be sure there was a vast network of tentacles working away in their subterranean hideout, linked for the term of their natural lives in dark and closeted conspiracy.”

She also uses terms that struck me as a little anachronistic. While Jews in the early 20^th century were certainly struggling with issues of identity, culture, community and assimilation, I can’t believe they discussed them using these terms. The tone of these arguments is altogether too postmodern to be convincing.

Despite these faults, A Break in the Chain is an engaging story that gives a human face to Melbourne’s explosive growth during the gold rush. The dilemmas facing Tansley’s family are no less significant or relevant today than a century ago. The rift in my own family is still felt keenly by my grandfather, even though the events that caused it occurred years before he was born. He openly wept at his own birthday party when he welcomed our mysterious cousin back into the fold. For him, our cousin’s presence meant that the tragedy that had stained his family had finally been overcome. For Tansley, it seems that an intergenerational reconciliation occurred in the researching and writing of her first novel.

A Break in the Chain will resonate with anyone who has ever witnessed the deep, astonishing antagonism to an interfaith relationship, and the permanent damage to family ties that such antagonism can cause.

David Kramer

By Malki Rose

Perhaps the single most distressing thing about the David Kramer case, is not how many Yeshiva College students he preyed upon, or that he was quietly shipped out of Yeshiva and sent packing to the USA to strike again, but the fact that it took a shocking 18 years for issue to truly come to light and Victoria Police attention.

Those not affiliated with Chabad or Yeshiva continue to be mortified at its handling of the situation

Some of us in the Yeshiva/Beth Rivkah community ourselves in secondary school at the time had varying degrees of awareness of David Kramer, but others also an awareness of what was transpiring with our Yeshiva counterparts.

For some reason the early years of secondary school seemed to be plagued with incidents of sexual predators near and around our quaint school community.

The first incident in my memory was in year eight. Our first floor classroom window looked out over Balaclava Road and for some time our Jewish studies class was interrupted by peels of laughter from those who had happened to be staring out the window at the man in the flats across the road who made it a regular hobby of his to stand at his window and expose himself to onlooking students. Our teacher would advise us to stop laughing and “grow up”. When it continued to go on we were advised to “ignore it”.

In the next few years our class, our school, and our community would unfortunately come to be shaken by several other far more serious and terrifying incidents of sexual predatory behaviour, not just involving those of Yeshiva Beth Rivkah but also the Adass and Beth HaTalmud community and the Yavneh Mizrachi community. Some of the incidents involved predatory strangers and some of them involved known individuals in our community, people who prayed in our synagogues, but preyed on our children.

How did we know this? Simply because victims spoke up. Initially.

And those who had been preyed upon by strange ‘park paedophiles’ in Greenmeadows Park or the “guy with the red car who parked on Springfield avenue”…. those kids, they were the lucky ones.

Their reports and their complaints could be handed to their teachers, to their parents, to community leaders, and of course to the police and were publicised and dealt with as soon as was practical and in the strongest possible terms.

These external predators would not be allowed to get away with their preying on Jewish kids.

But these kids were not in the majority.

The majority were kids who were trapped. Trapped because no sooner had they found the courage to mention to a friend, teacher or counsellor, than were they summarily doubted.

They would find the courage to finally explain to someone why they had not been at school, why they were falling asleep in classes, why they had been slitting their wrists or why they just didn’t want to go home. The counsellors would always, to their credit take these matters seriously. But it would take little more than a flippant denial from the alleged predator or a remark from someone high up in the community that the child had an “active imagination” or was just “crying for attention” to put the matter to rest.

These predators are people in positions of responsibility in our community, within the walls we ironically build to keep danger out.

Most of these cases have never been reported to the police. They were briefly “dealt with” internally and then never spoken of again.  Neither the predators nor the victims have ever seen a day of justice, while the pain lingers, forever affecting every day of their lives, their relationships, careers, and functioning. These children have grown into fractured adults and the predators continue to deceive the outside world. Nothing has been learned.

In 2008 when the case of Malka Leifer, the principal of Adass, came to media attention, the shame it brought to the community was not because we had an alleged predator in our midst. (To paraphrase the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ‘the Jewish community is not different’) Rather the abhorrent shame was in the management of the situation. To pack a suspected child predator onto a plane, (not for the first time in our community) laden with community funding and send them off to a place where they can continue to harm others, reeks of a kind of evil that it is hard to imagine even exists.

Those outside of the Adass community shook their heads. Just as with the Kramer case.

It is one kind of evil to be a human being who inflicts harm on a child, but it is an altogether different and possibly worse kind of evil to facilitate and enable the predator. So far our community has demonstrated that it is more than capable of both.

But this is not a problem of the Adass community, nor of the Yeshiva community. It is not even limited to the Orthodox community and certainly not to the Jewish community.

This issue is the significant and burdensome responsibility of the entire community. A responsibility which too many have shirked as that of “the other” for far too long.

For many years the Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence (JTAFV), which has sought to involve the community at every level in taking responsibility, has been working hard to develop new programs to protect victims of abuse in all its forms.

JTAFV director Sheiny New advised “after many intensive development seminars with overseas and local specialists, we have created and now implemented an education programme for schools; something which we are encouraging all the schools integrate into their curriculum which can help equip the children, in an age appropriate, non-alarmist way, with the information and skills they need to protect themselves from sexual predators. So far it has been introduced successfully in several schools and we’ve had a great response.”

It is understood that not all the Jewish schools have been willing to introduce the program.

But the two greatest obstacles to protecting our children appear to be the demonising or doubting of the child, and allowing the reputations of notable community members to precede the rights of the child.

The predators so far have won. They are predominantly individuals of standing, people who are known and who hold positions of responsibility in our community, people who have the respect of our leaders.

This is the single greatest threat to our children’s safety. How can even the bravest young person find the courage to come out and say that one of these individuals are harming them? Who would believe them?

Detective Scott Dwyer of the Victoria Police remarked “People in positions of responsibility or power who abuse are often the most insidious. Their power over people, over children, means they can be even more dangerous and they have the ability to cause a lot more harm”.

If a predator is a rabbi, a therapist, a teacher or a leader, then we trust them. They hold the lives of so many in their hands and can manipulate them to their advantage.

So many victims would not dare speak out, believing that their story or complaint would never be believed over that of someone with a good reputation or strong standing in the Jewish or greater community.

Aside from the issue of reputation, victims also worry that nobody will believe them because the person they are naming “Is so lovely”, or “Such an active member of the community”, or “Someone everyone trusts implicitly”.

Parents and carers need to be aware that predators more often than not are warm, charismatic, and well-liked individuals. Rarely do they have teeth hanging out of their heads and “something dodgy about them”. They are almost always “not someone you would suspect”.

It has been 18 years since Kramer was sent packing and now for the first time in our communities history, the police are finally involved.

His victims can breath a sigh of relief that justice is and will continue to be served.

But what if something had been done many years ago, what if the school authorities had seen fit to confront the problem instead of handballing it to the USA where Kramer could victimise more children?

What have we learnt from the Kramer case? Or indeed from the non-existent Leifer case? That the only reason the Kramer case exists is because someone stepped forward.

Leifer’s name and whereabouts are known, there is no reason she could not be extradited to Australia tomorrow. But there is no complaint. Nobody will step forward because nobody wants to soil their reputation or that of their family.

Instead people would prefer to live comfortably with the knowledge that the person who abused them or their child is somewhere else, abusing someone else’s children and ruining other lives. But not theirs.

Since the story of Kramer broke in the Australian media some two weeks ago, the Victorian Police have announced that they are seeking any and all information from anyone who may have also been a victim of Kramer, so that they may be able to prosecute him in Australia should he be granted parole in April next year. This is fantastic.

But more importantly, the Police are also seeking information regarding other predators or other incidents that have not been dealt with to date.

A notice from the Victoria Police has been distributed throughout the Jewish community, including on websites and blogs, through email lists, letterbox drops and of course via the Yeshiva mailing system.

In writing this article 11 different people were spoken with, who have stated that they have claims or are victims of or witnesses to molestation. Every single one of them insisted on not being named. Only two of them are currently working with the police to bring in the perpetrators. The other nine (three of which are rethinking the prospect of filing a report) feel that nothing will be done and that they will not be believed; some also felt that coming forward poses too many risks to their family.

Maintaining a cone of silence only means providing a thick cloak of protection under which predators can hide, safe in the knowledge that nobody would dare ever step forward and name them.

But luckily this is no longer the case.

Detective Dwyer has advised that people in the Jewish community are at long last coming forward and that every single complaint is being treated with the utmost seriousness, confidentiality, and respect.

“At the moment we have 15 separate cases being investigated. In addition to this,  we also have several other names that have been nominated as potential sexual predators, with limited information and we will be making further enquiries into those individuals as well.”

The Rabbinical Council of Victoria has instructed the community to co-operate wherever possible with the police and Rabbi Telsner has  also reassured members of the Yeshiva community in a recent address that cases such as this do not fall into the category of mesira and that people should come forward to assist police wherever possible.

This is not a unique problem, not a religious problem, and not a problem of the corrupt outside world. It is an all too common universal problem. Not one person can say it is “Not my problem” or “Did you hear what happened in that community?”

Parents, victims or other witnesses who are afraid to come forward and make a report need to ask themselves this tough question.

If I, or my child, were to be in the presence of this individual and someone knew but did not tell me that they were a known sexual predator… how would this make me feel? Moreover, how would I feel once I found out the hard way? And how do I live with myself knowing that this could have been prevented had I have spoken up?

Let it not take another 18 years to bring to trial current predators living in our midst.

• For related content, see David Werdiger’s article on stigma.

If you or anyone you know has information regarding a sexual assault, recent or not, we urge those with information to please either contact crimestoppers on 1800 333 00,  or contact Detective Scott Dwyer at the Moorabbin Sexual Offences Unit directly on 9556 6128 or mobile 0414 181 311.

All complaints are completely confidential.