Isnt this like exactly Lashon Hara?

@@aidenkashi6110 Calling someone out because they are doing something sinful in the eyes of HaShem is not Lashon Hara

3 + people watched her act this way. It's public consensus and fact at this point.

alex f*f”m h) b be=

Jose Luis Alvarez Calvo you’re a Zionist

Darling please go back and read newly added comment.

And then what would be left in the museums? You are doing the work for the Nazis!

Because they have so much noise going on in their soul. Alot of pain! They are crying out for someone to care and listen. No one wants to spend their time with her pain. She requires professional assistance to obtain inner Shalom. Lets hope. Its a tougb place to be in Hope this helps.

😂

JACLA of Los Angeles

Furthermore, I would also like to point out that the Rabbi's claim that religious women covered themselves when being photographed while the non-religious did not is dubious as best. First off his source as far as I can tell, Rabbi Aryeh Zilberstein, was not a survivor (assuming I have the right one). His father was born in Poland but moved before the war, so he was not a survivor. So Rabbi Mizrachis source is not someone who witnessed the event. His source is not a second generation survivor. The real question is where did Rabbi Zilberstein hear this because he did not witness this, his father did not witness this, so I would like to know what survivor told him this story. Secondly, the story defies logic. First off a survivors testimony, especially one single testimony, can only go so far. In this particular case, it would've been impossible for anyone witnessing this to know how religious these women were. By the time they were naked and photographed, these women would have been shaved and stripped of all of their belongings. As with the men, determing who was religious would have been nearly impossible. You did not know who was a Rabbi or who was rebetzin unless you spoke to them. Everyone looked virtually the same. My theory is that this is the case of backwards deduction. The Rabbi has assumed that because the women in whatever picture he was referencing covered herself up then therefore she must be religious. Or perhaps a survivor told Rabbi Zilberstein that using the same logic."Oh she is covering herself up so she must be religious". Secondly, even secular people do not want to be photographed naked, even today but especially back then. On a whole the 1940s was still very conservative compared to today. There was no playboy magazine. People did not get nude. Secular people did not even sleep in the same bed together. There were no sex scenes in Hollywood movies. There were no bedroom scenes in Hollywood movies. Women covered themselves up from head to toe. Women wore hats. Men wore hats. Nearly all women in the 40s dress dignified and modestly. So the idea that only religious women would've attempted to cover themselves when photographed is most likely apocryphal at best and silly at the very least. On a related note, I would like to point out that many religious jews did not keep anything during the war. If you ask a survivor if they kept kosher, even the ones who were not in the camps, they would just laugh at you. Of course they ate treif. I have seen the question asked often "What holidays did you keep while in the camps". The survivors just laughed and said "We did not even know what day it was". They just wanted to survive so that one day they could rebuild, have children, and observe Judaism once again. I even heard a survivor tell me once that Rabbi Shmuel Dovid Ungar, the Nitra Rabbi, commaded him to eat treif in order to survive. Interesteingly enough, the Rabbi, kept himself to a higher standard and would not eat treif. He died of starvation near the end of the war.

I agree

Jew or non- jew, doesn't matter. I don't pity her. She did not have to be soooo disrespectful to the rabbi and people their! She's an adult not a 2 year old and should know better! You don't embarrass and disrespect a honored rabbi in public...Period!