Response to Osher Badiel from a Former talmid

Dear R. Baddiel,

As a former talmid of yours, I was extremely disappointed to read your recent letter to Rav Winegarten. It appears that you have failed to appreciate the seriousness with which the local rabbonim take their moral responsibility to the kehilloh. It is most unfortunate that you do not realise that from the perspective of one who has been convinced that Chaim Halpern is indeed guilty of exploiting vulnerable individuals for his own gratification, the very tame means that have been adopted to warn people away from him are certainly justified.

Indeed, one would have to possess a warped moral compass to suggest that, if the allegations against him are true, then his continued presence in Golders Green is anything but a dagger in the back of the entire kehilloh,and that anyone working to allow him to continue functioning in his current role is not himself a “chover le’ish mashchis”.

The only valid question you raise is whether there is good reason to believe that Halpern did in fact engage in the behaviour he is accused of. After all, if he did, then the blame for the “machlokes” that has ensued is entirely his –the moral obligation of one who learns that another is exploiting vulnerable individuals is not alleviated because the exploiter decides he will not “go down without a fight”.

As one who has unfortunately been exposed to some of the evidence (including multiple reliable testimonies) against him, I can affirm that this is indeed the case beyond doubt. It is clear from your vigorous defence of Halpern that you are not even aware of the things he has admitted to (and has been recorded doing so) –such as his fictitious “therapy” involving arm-wrestling married women (and never men, of course), or of the photos of women in various states of undress that were discovered in the ‘sent items’ section of his email account.

The fact that you have styled yourself as such an avid defender of Halpern without engaging in even the most perfunctory research into his behaviour makes it clear that your motives are the polar opposite of tzedek, emes and sholom.

It is astounding that you adopt the position that his guilt or otherwise in the eyes of halocho should be decided by the police. You seem to misunderstand the very basis of this unfortunate episode. Under English law, there is no prohibition whatsoever for a powerful man in a position of influence to convince vulnerable women that it will be “beneficial” for him to have his way with them. The lack of legal censure makes this no less abhorrent in the eyes of either morality or halocho.

Furthermore, most of his victims are from Stamford Hill, where cooperation with the authorities on issues of abuse (and all the more so where the perpetrator is a prominent rov) would earn them the wrath of many of their neighbours.

Others who have spoken out against Halpern in the past have been the victims of tire-slashing and a barrage of threatening phone calls. To ensure that my family is not on the receiving end of similar behaviour, I have chosen not to disclose my identity to you in this letter.

Sincerely

Former talmid