Rabbi Dr. Natan Ophir (Offenbacher), Carlebachbook@gmail.com, updated June 21, 2023.

Lilith’s Portrayal Of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach’s ‘Shadowy Side’

Why did the feminist magazine Lilith portray a demonic picture of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach four
years after his death and how does this impact Cancel Culture today?
https://bit.ly/3g0oh6J
https://www.academia.edu/68915075/Analysis_of_Liliths_Portrayal_Of_Rabbi_Shlomo_Carlebachs_Shadowy_Side
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Carlebach
Published in The Times of Israel - https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/liliths-shadowy-side-of-rabbi-shlomo-carlebach
https://bit.ly/3ofUJ7V

Lilith Magazine pre-dated the #MeToo Movement by almost two decades and
pioneered in exposing sex abuse in the religious Jewish world. The aim of my
article is to analyze the sex abuse allegations in the 1998 article published in Lilith
as to this day this is the primary source for accusations against Rabbi Shlomo
Carlebach.1 I will also examine the Lilith impact upon the recent wave of Cancel
Culture against Carlebach.

A. Preface
B. Lilith Vs. Carlebach
C. Lilith: Mythical Demon or Modern Feminist?
D. Did Lilith Invent An Imaginary “Feminist Carlebach”?
E. What Was Reported in Lilith Magazine and Why?
F. Contextualizing the Lilith Hugs
G. Blustain’s Lilith Analysis Two Decades Later
H. Cancel Culture & Lilith’s Victory
I. Towards A More Accurate Memory of Shlomo’s Legacy
J. Lilith’s Truth: Bifurcated Or Complexity?
K. Afternote

1
Sarah Blustain, “A Paradoxical Legacy: Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach’s Shadow Side,” Lilith
Magazine, vol. 23, no. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 10-17. Note: The critique here is based on the printed
version of Lilith because Blustain has been updating the online version and it is difficult to keep
track of emendations and additions. However, her most recent additions added a new depth to the
original article - https://www.lilith.org/articles/rabbi-shlomo-carlebachs-shadow-side.
Disclaimer: In no way are comments below meant to discredit genuine reports of sex
abuse. The purpose is to distinguish between distinct allegations rather than lumping them
together indiscriminately to produce a baffling social media verdict.

A. Preface
Unwanted hugs are wrong. Some use handshakes while others offer hugs as social
greetings. But a hug intended for sexual pleasure against the recipient’s will is a
criminal offense. As the #MeToo Movement has emphasized, many instances of
sex abuse are silenced because of shame or disbelief. However, today there is
heightened sensitivity to listen with empathy to those who come forward and
describe abuse. This includes offensive hugs.

Rabbi Carlebach distributed about half a million hugs. He began hugging in the
late 1960s. He would hug old and young, homeless and wounded, ugly and
beautiful. But some hugs were upsetting for recipients. Even if this is 1% of the
hugs, that still accounts for a huge number of unwanted embraces. In retrospect,
those who wish to defend Rabbi Carlebach have a problem. What about wrong or
hurtful hugs? And was there any criminal abuse more serious than a misplaced
wrong hug?

The background of this current article can be found in chapter 13 of the biography I
wrote Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach: Life, Mission, and Legacy (Jerusalem and New
York: 2014) and in chapter 9 in my Hebrew biography published by Yediot in 2017.2
In March 2021, Oxford Bibliographies, a prestigious peer reviewed series, published
my bibliographic article which details the debate about Carlebach’s legacy including
a chapter summation of the controversy about sexual abuse.3

My purpose here is more limited. It is to understand the specific Lilith allegations

published in 1998 because these are often cited in both academic literature and
social media as unequivocal evidence for a guilty verdict.

Unwanted hugs are wrong.

2
2017 ,‫ הוצאת ידיעות אחרונות‬,‫ משנתו והשפעתו‬,‫ חייו‬:‫ הרב שלמה קרליבך‬,‫נתן אופיר‬
See also Natan Ophir, “Commentaries on Carlebach: Evaluating Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach’s Place
in Jewish History,” American Jewish History, vol. 100, no. 4, Oct. 2016, pp. 541-546. For related
videos and references see http://www.carlebachbook.com and
https://www.facebook.com/thecarlebachbook. Many others have also addressed this issue. See for
example, Rabbi Chaim Dalfin, The Real Shlomo, Jewish Enrichment Press, 2014, pp. 174-177.
3
Natan Ophir, “Shlomo Carlebach”, Oxford Bibliographies in Jewish Studies. Ed. Naomi
Seidman. New York: Oxford University Press, March 2021,
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199840731/obo-9780199840731-
0203.xml.
B. Lilith Vs. Carlebach
Lilith Magazine is the flagship journal of the Jewish feminist movement. It is self-
defined as "independent, Jewish & frankly feminist.” Lilith deals with issues such
as gay marriage, new liturgies, gender justice, and sex. When Lilith Magazine was
founded in 1974, the name was chosen to emphasize the feminist quest for gender
equality.4 In 1998, Lilith Magazine published an article claiming that Rabbi
Carlebach’s hugging included sexual abuse. Lilith published the conflicting
responses by readers in a follow-up issue in the summer of 1998.5

Over the past two decades, the Lilith accusations have been repeatedly cited as if
this a decisive and conclusive verdict was rendered. The analysis below is the first
in-depth attempt to analyze the reliability and/or veracity of Lilith’s
assertations.

Shlomo’s last LP record (his 15th LD) was published in 1981. Entitled L’Kovid Shabbas, it was dedicated to
his two little daughters, Neshama and Nedara (Dari), whose picture adorned the cover.

4
See Anne Lapidus Lerner, “Lilith Magazine”, Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical
Encyclopedia, March 1, 2009. Jewish Women's Archive,
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/lilith-magazine.
5
Lilith Readers Respond, “Sex, Power and Our Rabbis,” Lilith Magazine, Summer 1998, pp. 14–
16. https://www.lilith.org/articles/sex-power-and-our-rabbis
C. Lilith: Mythical Demon or Modern Feminist?
The name Lilith is connected to two Babylonian and Akkadian demonic deities:
Lamastu and Ishtar6 and is derived from the Proto-Semitic layil ‫“( ליל‬night”). It is
also connected to Ishtar which in cuneiform tablets implies “storm”. Thus, Lilith
possessed both a “Lamastu Aspect” deemed responsible for torturing pregnant
women and kidnapping newborns, and an “Ishtar Aspect” as a seductress who
entices men.7 Both demonic dangers take place in the darkness of night.8 Lilith was
envisioned as a demon of the night, sexually wanton, who steals babies. Jo
Milgrom sums up the Ancient Near Eastern representation of Lilith as “the female
power of seduction... a monster and a demon, baby, and mother killer”.9

In Jewish tradition,10 Lilith was also feared as a female demon. She rebelled against
Adam, the angels, and even God and was considered a witch and “the incarnation
of lust”.11 Images found on amulets and incantation bowls in Nippur (Babylonia) in
late Talmudic times show how Jews protected themselves from her reign of
terror.12 The story told in Alphabet of Ben Sira13 is that Lilith was created coequal
with Adam from the same dust on Rosh Hashana.14 Immediately upon creation they
fought, arguing who should be on top in sex. Lilith then flew to the seat of
witchcraft in Egypt where she gave birth to hundreds of demons and upon hearing
that Eve was created, she plotted revenge.15

6
Etymologically, the first evidence of Lilith’s existence is a Sumerian list from 2,400 B.C.E. that
describes the father of the hero Gilgamesh as a “Lillu-demon.” These “Lilludemons” were comprised of
four creatures of the night who visited sleeping men to seduce them and produce grotesque children.
7
See Siegmund Hurwitz, “Lilith, the First Eve: Historical and Psychological Aspects, of the Dark
Feminine,” Zurich: Daimon Verlag, 1992), pg. 32. Cited by Carvalho, Woman Has Two Faces, pg. 21.
8
Liliths as demons “slipped through windows into people’s houses looking for victims.”
9
Jo Milgrom, “Lilith,” in Encyclopedia of Love in Yudit Kornberg Greenberg (ed.), World
Religions, Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford, 2008, vol. 2, pg. 365.
10
The Bible mentions Lilith once as a dweller in waste places among the desert animals and
demons who haunt the ruins of Edom (Isaiah 34,14) and there are four Talmudic references that
assume Lilith’s existence. Thus, for example in Shabbat 151b R. Hanina warns against someone
sleeping at home alone because then he might be possessed by Lilith. In Nidah 24b a placenta is
identified as being in the shape of Lilith.
11
See for example Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004, pp. 216-217, 224.
12
See Naama Vilozny, “Lilith’s Hair and Ashmedai’s Horns: Incantation Bowl Imagery in the Light
of Talmudic Descriptions,” in Markham J. Geller (ed.), The Archaeology and Material Culture of
the Babylonian Talmud, ch. 7, pp. 133-152.
13
In the fifth of Ben Sira's responses to King Nebuchadnezzar, he writes an amulet listing angels in
charge of medicine and describes how Lilith fought: She said, “I will not lie below” and announced
“We are equal to each other”. Lilith “pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air”.
The angels pursued Lilith and she swore to them: “Whenever I see you or your names or your forms
in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant”. Thus, when Lilith “sees their names, she
remembers her oath, and the child recovers.”
14
See David Stern and Mark J. Mirsky, Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical
Hebrew Literature, New Haven, 1990, pg. 167.
15
See Milgrom, Lilith, pg. 366.
In the Zohar, Lilith became identified as the primary feminine force of evil while
Samael was the primary male force.16 Then in Hasidut, Lilith assumed a horrific
demonic representation as the cause of sexual sins. For example, Rabbi Nachman
of Bretzlav identified Lilith as the Source not only for unhappiness and depression,
but also as the lustful provocateur who causes adultery and instigates men to sexual
sin especially nocturnal emissions.17

But for modern feminists the name Lilith evokes a radical and self-empowering
sense of independence, a woman who is not afraid to be courageous in her defiance
of Divine Law and man-made law.18 Lilith is the alternative to the paradigm of Eve
who was viewed as a product of patriarchy and male dominance. Neopagans went
ever further to elevate Lilith to the status of a powerful feminine Goddess.19 But for
modern feminists, Lilith became a rallying point and a trigger to explicating
feminist theology.20

Lilith Magazine under the editorship of Sarah

Blustain, was not particularly favorable
towards Orthodox Rabbis. For example, in that
same year, 1998, Lilith castigated Rabbi
Simcha Meron for suggesting that Israeli TV
programs for religious audiences need follow
halachic requirements that only men sing.21
However, Lilith’s attack against Rabbi
Carlebach was sensationalist because it not
only defamed a leading representative of
Orthodox outreach, but also implied a demonic
“shadowy” side. The tables were reversed.
Carlebach was portrayed as Sexual Demon
and Lilith took front stage as Saintly
Crusader for Justice.

16
Zohar 1, 148a-b, Zohar 3, 19a.
17
The antidote proposed by R. Nachman for Lilith is singing Hallel ‫ הלל‬and reciting Tehilim ‫תהילים‬.
This is a play on similar sounding words ‫לילית – הללויה – הלל‬.
18
See Diana Carvalho, “Woman Has Two Faces: Re-Examining Eve and Lilith in Jewish Feminist
Thought,” MA thesis, University of Denver, June 2009, http://bit.ly/2LtmKc8
19
See Rebecca Lesses, “Lilith”, Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia,
March 20, 2009, JWA (Jewish Women’s Archive), https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/Lilith.
20
See for example Judith Plaskow’s 1972 article variously titled as “Epilogue: The Coming of
Lilith” or “Applesource”, and reprinted as “The Coming of Lilith: Towards A Feminist Theology”
in the 1998 Lilith collection edited by Enid Dame, Lilly Rivlin, and Henry Wenkart (ed.), Which
Lilith?: Feminist Writers Re-Create the World's First Woman, Lanham: Jason Aronson, 1998. In
this anthology, a provocative sampling of responses to the Lilith myth are offered: “The editors have
provided the space for contemporary women to link themselves to a tradition and participate in a
sacred activity, thereby infusing energy into Lilith and creating a new tradition”.
21
See “Rabbi Seeks to Ban Women from Israeli Radio”, Lilith, Fall 1998,
https://www.lilith.org/articles/rabbi-seeks-to-ban-woman-from-israeli-radio.
D. Did Lilith Invent an Imaginary “Feminist Carlebach”?
How reliable is the Lilith descriptive reporting? In her opening paragraphs, Lilith
asked readers to believe a surprising new narrative about Rabbi Carlebach:

An Orthodox rabbi by training, Rabbi Carlebach took down the separation

between women and men in his own synagogue… and gave private
ordination to women before most mainstream Jewish institutions would…
“He was the first person to ordain women, to take down the mechitza, and I
think he thought all boundaries were off,” says Abigail Grafton…

This description is not factually correct. Rabbi Carlebach never took down the
mechitza “in his own synagogue”. In his Manhattan congregation there always was
a mechitza. It is reported that because he was considerate of the women in the
women’s section, he would sometimes stand on an elevation when he spoke. But
there always was a mechitzah. Similarly, in his synagogue on Moshav Meor
Modiim, there always has been a mechitza. In fact, he stated explicitly to an
interviewer in 1980: “If this is the way mamesh for two thousand years we build a
synagogue, that’s the way it’s supposed to be”.22 So why did Lilith invent a fallacy?
Why did Lilith not phone his two synagogues and verify that there is indeed a
mechitza? And to this day (2022), why does Lilith not correct the mistake in her
online version?

Here are screenshots of the mechitza in the Carlebach Shul in Manhattan on Hoshana
Rabba 1994. Reb Shlomo is standing next to the women’s section shortly before he replaces
Rabbi Sammy Intrator as hazan. Shlomo’s second daughter Nedara can be seen as the
photographer from the women’s section.

Unfortunately, Lilith confused two separate ideas. The Haight Ashbury commune
that Reb Shlomo’s followers invented in 1967 was designated The House of Love
and Prayer (HLP). It was specifically not called a synagogue. The name
“synagogue”, especially one with a mechitza, would have alienated the very people
it was trying to attract. The HLP lasted until 1974 in the vibrant epicenter of a hippie

22
Interview with Rabbi Yakov David Schulman at the Moshav on July 31, 1980, Reb Shlomo was
recorded as saying “We have a mechitzah in the moshav shul. You know why we have a mechitzah?
For one reason: because I want to be connected to all the synagogues in the world. If this is the way
they do it, it’s enough reason for me… A Never-Before Published Interview with Shlomo Carlebach-
-July 31, 1980 (dotletterword.com)
movement where rock bands, psychedelic drugs and free love were popular. It was
an alternative to the other communes, a crash pad with free room and board.
Thousands came for meals, classes, sing-alongs, Shabbat and holiday events. By
offering a Jewish version of communal life and music, Reb Shlomo was saying we
can do this too, but with a Jewish bent and he encouraged spiritual seekers to
continue on to more religious settings.

So why did Lilith create a narrative as if Carlebach deviated from the Orthodox
tradition of mechitza? Perhaps for the same reason that Lilith tried to discredit
Carlebach’s “Orthodoxy” by telling a narrative of “ordination to women before
most mainstream Jewish institutions would”. This is a blatant error of the
journalist’s reporting. First, “mainstream Jewish institutions”, i.e., Reform and
Conservative, granted women ordination long before Reb Shlomo.23 Secondly, of
the approximately 50 “ordination” documents written by Reb Shlomo, only one
was for a woman, and it was not a formal Rabbinical semicha. It was a document
empowering the recipient to “teach and transmit the Torah of hitbodedut
(meditation) and the pouring forth of the soul”.24 Reb Shlomo wrote documents of
empowerment for his followers to enable them to succeed in their careers.25 In his
lifetime, he signed documents empowering his followers for leadership roles as
rabbis, storytellers (maggidim),26 prayer leaders,27 outreach workers,
cantors/singers,28 and even meditation teachers. There were about 50 recipients of
such documents. Only one was female. True, Reb Shlomo did consider granting
semicha to one outstanding learned female disciple, but in reality, he did not do so
in his lifetime.29

What can be concluded from the Lilith reporting style? Was it merely irresponsible
journalism? Lilith could have inquired why HLP was called Love & Prayer. When
Reb Shlomo described his vision of empathy in 1967, he said: “The House of Love

23
Ordained in 1935 in Germany, Regina Jones is considered to have been the first female Rabbi.
Sally Priesand, ordained in 1972, was the first female rabbi ordained in America. Amy Eilberg was
ordained in 1985 as the first female rabbi in Conservative Judaism.
24
The ordination took place on December 19, 1989, when Reb Shlomo presented his Manhattan
assistant, Mindy (Melinda) Ribner, with a non-rabbinical semicha document.
25
Many of these “empowerment” statements were designed as a form of honor and guidance. For
example, on June 26, 1988, a semicha was presented to Matthew J. Ritchie who was a chaplain in
the Arizona state prison system. Reb Shlomo composed a semicha type document recognizing the
devoted service of Rabbi Yaakov Mordechai Ritchie to “help those imprisoned and support those
who fall.”
26
For example, in the late 1970s, Reb Shlomo gave a non-rabbinical ordination to Yitzhak Buxbaum
as a maggid, an inspirational teacher, and a storyteller.
27
For example, on July 10, 1984 in Dorena, Oregon, Reb Shlomo presented Yitzhak Husbands-
Hankin with a certificate, ordaining him as a baal tefillah, a prayer leader whose mission is “to
awaken the hearts of Israel to prayer, to pray for all of Israel with love, and to guide the scattered
holy flock of Israel to return in teshuva to Mt. Sinai and to Jerusalem.
28
For example, on October 5, 1984, Reb Shlomo gave semicha to Yitzhak Miller emphasizing his
mission as a cantor to enthuse hearts – the broken hearts of the people of Israel.
29
In the summer of 1994, Reb Shlomo wrote out a syllabus, primarily Talmud and Halacha, towards
granting official ordination to Mimi Feigelson and her learning partner Yoni Gordis. Shortly after
Shlomo’s death, their semicha was recognized by a panel of 3 Orthodox rabbis.
and Prayer is a place where, when you walk in, someone loves you, and when you
walk out, someone misses you”.30 The “prayer” events were a social happening
with ecstatic music and inspirational explanations. This was far from a typical
Orthodox synagogue where a mechitza would be deemed mandatory.31

Why did Lilith deviate from factual reporting about Carlebach’s Synagogue
Mechitza and Rabbinic ordinations to women?

E. What Was Reported in Lilith Magazine and Why?

When Sarah Blustain became senior editor of Lilith Magazine in 1996, she decided to
take on a social mission of exposing the severity of sex abuse in the Orthodox Jewish
community. Blustain was approached by Jewish Renewal Rabbi, Lynn Gottlieb, to
promote an agenda to address "violence against women" in the Jewish community.32
So Lilith with Blustain at the helm became a pioneer in exposing sex abuse in the
Jewish community. And the women who were cited in her article were eager to
advance the cause. They became a leading harbinger of the earliest Jewish version
of the #MeToo Movement.

Why did Lilith/Blustain choose Carlebach for their first expose of sex abuse by
Orthodox rabbis? Carlebach was an easy target. Sex abuse by other Rabbis was not
publicized as it is today. Contrastingly, Shlomo’s practice of greeting everyone with
an embrace was common knowledge. Some women, especially young religious girls,
were appalled that an Orthodox rabbi would embrace them. Often, they had no one to
tell or explain their discomfort. Lynn Gottlieb told Blustain that the focus should be
on Shlomo as “a child predator” who had molested “young girls”. Gottlieb provided
Lilith with one person to interview, her jogging partner, “Rachel”, a pseudonym,
who had received an unwanted and disturbing hug in the late 1960s. However, one
hug would not be adequate to prove Carlebach’s guilt. Blustain began searching and
discovered other hugs and phone calls enough to put together a dramatic and
convincing statement of wrongdoing. The Lilith inuendo became the primary
source for all subsequent indictments. Blustain’s stories and the original quotes
were filed away in archives labeled “not available” until the year 2048.33

30
Aryae Coopersmith, Holy Beggars: A Journey from Haight Street to Jerusalem, El Granada,
California: 2011, pg. 68.
31
And if Lilith thought that there was something unusual about not having a mechitzah in such a
setting, Lilith could have noted that in those days, leading Halachic authorities, such as Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein and Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, permitted Orthodox Rabbis to take synagogues without a
mechitzah with the hope that they could eventually convince the congregations to assume an
Orthodox affiliation.
32
On Aug 27, 2012, Lynn Gottlieb wrote to me: “I am the person who received so many reports of
his habit of molesting young girls, that I encouraged Lilith Magazine to do the research and write
an article”.
33
They are filed in the American Jewish Historical Society as part of the Rabbi Goldie Milgram
Papers, series III, box 19 folder 3, http://digifindingaids.cjh.org/?pID=552551. Thanks to the
persistence of researcher Benzion Eichorn in July 2022, I was able to examine the folder. It provides
 After beginning research for an academic biography of Carlebach in 2011, I
interviewed hundreds of people who had interacted with Shlomo, and eventually, I
spoke to all the women whose names were mentioned in the Lilith article. Besides
Gottlieb, this included another four women. Below is a summation of what I found.
a) Lilith cited Goldie Milgram as saying that when she was 14,34 she received a hug
from Carlebach “when they passed in the hallway”. Lilith attributed to Goldie the
statement, “I presume he had an orgasm. He called me mammele”. The term
“mammele” was not used by Carlebach - it is an Eastern Yiddish dialect not spoken
by him. In a personal email on October 18, 2012, Goldie wrote: “I wish the full
interview with the Lilith person existed; I would love to hear it myself for some of
the little bit she wrote does not precisely correlate with my memories of the
experience”.35 I interviewed Goldie on October 22, 2012, and she explained why the
protracted hug was wrong, offensive, and traumatic. Goldie added that 1/3 of her
Reconstructionist rabbinical class of 1993 had been sexually abused and that “some
women are still healing from the wounds of growing up Jewish and having been
sexually abused by Rabbis”. She explained: “I never wanted to degrade Shlomo's
fame, I wanted people to be able to get therapy, to help victims find healing”.

b) A second hug described by Lilith was given to Robin Goldberg in Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania. Because of a mistake by Lilith in determining Robin’s age as 12 years
old, this became the lynchpin for the claim of “sexual molestation of very young
girls”. Robin was actually about 18 years old, at the time of the hug.36 She explained
that she had shared her story with Lilith because she wanted the community to face
the problem of sexual abuse: “I really want the Jewish community to grapple with
sexual disturbances in all its forms”. She added that she had not intended specifically
to harm Reb Shlomo’s reputation.37 But Blustain believed that there was criminal
abuse and phrased a description of Carlebach’s actions as “whispering in her ear,
saying ‘holy maidele’, and fondling her breast.” As with Goldie, we now have a
profile of a sex predator on innocent young girls.

c) The next accusation in Lilith is a letter from Marcia Cohn Spiegel, founder of the
Anti-Rape Movement within Jewish communities. Marcia wrote that “a number of
women” told her about “experiences they had when they were in their teens.”38 Marcia

background correspondence deliberating if and what should be published. It does not offer evidence
of sex abuse that did not appear in the published Lilith Magazine article.
34
Goldie Milgram was born in Philadelphia Jan. 6, 1955. She received rabbinical ordination and a
Masters in Hebrew Letters from the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in 1993. My guess is that
the hug she described was around January 1969.
35
On July 21, 2022, I was able to access the archived Folder of the American Jewish Historical
Society. I discovered that the mention of “orgasm” was Blustain’s journalistic
invention/interpretation. It was not explicit in the original description by Milgram.
36
Robin was born in 1952 and the first known documented appearance of Reb Shlomo in Harrisburg
was after 1970. Therefore, it would seem that Lilith incorrectly conjectured that Robin was 12.
37
I interviewed Robin Goldberg on Feb. 22-23, 2018.
38
At Speiel’s workshops she heard many stories of sexual violence and abuse. Marcia Cohn Spiegel was
born in Chicago on October 16, 1927. In the 1970s, she joined a feminist consciousness-raising group
explained that the stories related to many different men and Shlomo was merely an
example, and therefore, she was surprised to discover that the Lilith article focused only
on Shlomo.39 Lilith conflated several of Marcia’s stories into one account of a girl
who received a protracted hug. Marcia had used “fondling,” to describe the contact.
Blustain added colorful and graphic sexual depictions.

d) The fifth name mentioned in the Lilith article is Sara Shendelman. She described
how she had met with Shlomo in 198140 and spoke to him about phone calls at
unconventional hours and that he should meet people in neutral places. Sara says that
Reb Shlomo accepted the criticism. She explained to me in a personal interview that
although Shlomo’s affectionate type behavior may have reflected the social norms of
his time, it was problematic. Sara states that Reb Shlomo agreed “to fix” this.41

Had Lilith merely presented the three hugs of Goldie, Robin and pseudonym “Rachel”
as sex abuse, it is unlikely that Blustain’s article would have sparked a sensation. But
hugging with emotionally dramatic interpretations did create a demonic picture of a
sex pervert.42 And this then was cited as if it were irrefutable fact. For example, David
Wilensky, online editor of J. and "Jew in the Pew", lamented that Carlebach’s music
“is everywhere in contemporary Jewish worship” and to justify discarding it he wrote:
“Since his death in 1994, dozens <sic> of women have bravely come forward to tell
stories of sexual abuse at his hands — most notably in a now-legendary 1998 article
in Lilith that chronicled his legacy of sexual abuse.”43 We now have DOZENS of
women in a chronicle.

As the years go by, every so often a new writer ventures forward with this unequivocal
“guilty” verdict. For example, a 21-year-old Yeshiva University student, Doniel
Weinreich, posted an opinion piece in the YU Commentator student newspaper.44
Again, the main evidence for the criminal verdict was Lilith. Now in judicial thinking,
a guilty verdict in criminal accusations requires a high level of certainty,45 yet Lilith

because she was suffering from abuse from an alcoholic husband. She wrote: “I recognized that I was
not alone. Other Jewish women were living with alcoholic husbands, or with domestic abuse.”
39
Phone interview Feb. 8, 2018.
40
Yehudit Goldfarb, who participated in this event, told me that it took place on November 26,
1981, Rosh Hodesh Kislev, at the home of Barry & Debby Barkan in Berkeley.
41
I interviewed Sara Shendelman on August 31, 2011.
42
For example, the statement “I presume he had an orgasm” is meant to imply that a sexual pervert
is seeking young girls to pleasure himself. As noted above, only recently (July 21, 2022) did I
discover that the “orgasm” charge was Blustain’s journalistic invention.
43
David Wilensky, “Purging the music of Shlomo Carlebach in the age of #MeToo,
https://www.jweekly.com/2017/12/12/purging-music-shlomo-carlebach-age-metoo.David
Wilensky is a co moderator of a Facebook group entitled “Anything but Carlebach”.
44
Doniel Weinreich, “Why We Must Acknowledge Carlebach’s Sexual Abuses”, Yeshiva
University Commentator, Nov. 20, 2019, https://yucommentator.org/2019/11/why-we-must-
acknowledge-carlebachs-sexual-abuses
45
In judicial thinking, four levels of proof are defined in order to prove “guilt”. A judge will grant
permission to obtain a search warrant if there is a minimal amount of evidence, i.e. the level of
certainty required is rather small, say 25%. In civil litigation, a higher level of proof is required,
25%-50% certainty is called “Preponderance of Evidence”. In civil constitutional claims, “clear and
convincing evidence”, say 50%-67%, is required. However, in criminal accusations, because there
is based on 2nd hand reporting developed by a journalist with a purpose/agenda.
Therefore, Carlebach followers feel that an injustice is done when writers like
Weinreich judge Carlebach harshly without ever having met him.

E. Contextualizing the Lilith Hugs

)‫ ה‬,‫עֵ ת לַחֲ בֹוק וְ עֵ ת ל ְִרחֹק מֵ חַ בֵ ק (קהלת ג‬
We saw how Reb Shlomo was selected as part of an agenda to raise awareness
about sex abuse in the Jewish community. He was easy to convict since his hugging
was well known. The hugs reported by Lilith date to the late 1960s – early 1970s.
At the time, the American counterculture was touting the slogan Make Love Not
War and the Beatles were singing All You Need is Love. It was during the 1967
Summer of Love, that Shlomo discovered the power of hugs. With 100,000 hippies
converging on Haight Ashbury, he reached out to alienated youth, some 30% of
whom were Jewish. He walked up and down Haight Street and with hugs
discovered a key to their hearts. That an Orthodox Rabbi with a flowing beard
offered an embrace was a startling alternative to their estrangement from religious
Judaism. Shlomo began pronouncing his goal to hug and love every human being.
Thus, for example, at the height of his outreach career in 1968, The Vancouver Sun
explained the Singing Rabbi’s success “Carlebach said his success with university
students rests on personal involvement. Before and after each concert he
embraces most members of his audience”.46
In a way, Shlomo was predating what is known today as The Free Hugs
Campaign which began in 2004 as a social movement of hugs meant as acts of
kindness to help others feel better.47 Hugs are extolled in
https://www.freehugscampaign.org: “In this age of social disconnectivity and lack
of human contact, the effects of the Free Hugs campaign became phenomenal”.
Hugs are meant to break down a physical barrier and create a sense of human
warmth and empathy.48

are serious consequences for the defendant, we want to make sure that the evidence is as close as
possible to 100%, and that the actions the defendant is accused of actually took place. This is the
highest level of proof – an 80% or 90% degree of certainty.
46
“Singing Rabbi Entertains: UBC Students Turned On”, The Vancouver Sun, Nov. 6, 1968, pg.
71, 06 Nov 1968, 71 - The Vancouver Sun at Newspapers.com
47
Ellen Connolly, “Hugs and smiles, but not everyone embraces the trend,” Sydney Morning Herald,
December 1, 2004, https://www.smh.com.au/national/hugs-and-smiles-but-not-everyone-
embraces-the-trend-20041106-gdk270.html.
48
See for example the Wikipedia summary: The Free Hugs Campaign is a social movement
involving individuals who offer hugs to strangers in public places… International Free Hugs
Month is celebrated on the first Saturday of July and continues until August first.
So, should Carlebach’s hugs be classified as “sex abuse”? Here is a response from
Kalman Serkez, the editor of “The Holy Beggars’ Banquet” (a compilation of
teachings of Reb Shlomo): “His empathetic hugs and kisses on the cheeks, of so
many forlorn souls both female and male may have averted more than one drug
overdose, suicide attempt, and God only knows what else”. Serkez then cites the
Talmud Ketubot 17a about Rav Aha who would take the bride on his shoulders and
dance with her. When the rabbis prodded him: May we also do this?, Rav Aha
responded: “If they are on your shoulders like a beam (awaking no sensual desire),
then it is all right, and if not, you may not”. Serkez’s defense rests on the premise
that Reb Shlomo’s actions were a strategy of empathy.49

Context is important. Pseudonym “Rachel” told Lilith that she received a protracted
hug and was flattered by Carlebach’s calling her “his special friend”. Lilith did not
mention that Carlebach told everyone that he/she was “his special friend”. This was
his standard expression and his life mandate as succinctly described by Jewish
Renewal Rabbi Sarah Leah Grafstein of Scottsdale, Arizona. Grafstein describes
how Reb Shlomo was there for each person – “He was so busy saving the world,
telling each person how special they are”.50 So when “Rachel” was called “special
friend”, Lilith might have mentioned that affectionate greetings were used by
Carlebach in encountering everyone. However, Lilith admittedly coached “Rachel”

49
Kalman Serkez (ed.). The Holy Beggars' Banquet, Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1998,
pp. xiv-xv.
50
Shonna Husbands-Hankin, “Soul Brothers: A Memoir,” American Jewish History, vol. 100, no.
4, Oct. 2016, pp. 547-553. See pg. 548 for Grafstein’s quote.
to reconstruct the sexual abuse from 30 years earlier. The result: a damning
accusation: “dry humping until he came”. Lilith’s verdict of a predator stalking
young girls to pleasure himself by masturbating was thus finalized.

To sum up: the hugs reported by Lilith are from half a century ago from the time of
Carlebach’s House of Love and Prayer (1968-1974) with its Hippie style of free
love. In later years Reb Shlomo hugged much less and with much greater
discrimination. So, the question remains: Did Lilith issue a verdict without giving
adequate room to hear the defense?51 We turn to Blustain for the answer.

Hugs reported by Lilith date to late 60s - early 70s era of Hippie style free love.

51
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, anyone charged with a penal
offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty in a public trial at which he
has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
F. Blustain’s Lilith Analysis Two Decades Later
In the fall of 2019, Sarah Blustain published a thoughtful essay about the
problematics in evaluating #MeToo media stories.52 She began by affirming the
#MeToo “powerful injunction”: “Believe Women”.53 Then Blustain asked: “in the
era of “Believe Women,” how do we differentiate who or what to believe? “And
when we read accounts in the press, how do we know which are valid?” Blustain
warned that if there is not adequate verification then “you have a disaster like
Rolling Stone’s”.54 Blustain defined the reporter’s challenge:

For journalists, putting together a legitimate (and lawsuit-proof) #MeToo claim is a

complex process. You start with a woman who has been hurt, and then disbelieved
or dismissed in an unequal power dynamic. But that’s just the beginning. Doing our
job well means finding enough credible witnesses, documentary corroboration, and
patterns of behavior.

Next, Blustain acknowledged the problem of pseudonyms: “When granting

anonymity, journalists need to establish (and tell readers) that there’s a good reason
for doing so, for example, “for fear of retaliation” or “because she is still
traumatized by the event.” Finally, Blustain informed us that “The so-called target
(the alleged perpetrator) … needs to be given very fair opportunities to respond to
the claims, as does every person and institution accused of protecting him”.

What is the result if we apply Blustain’s 2019 criteria to her 1998 Lilith article?
Blustain brought two 1st hand reports of unwanted hugs with additions of subjective
comments and speculative images. But there was little attempt to provide “fair
opportunities to respond to the claims”. There was a lack of alternative suggestions
of a defense attorney who could ask: “What is your understanding of what happened
that night?” So, the question remains: Did Blustain’s 1998 article meet her own
criteria for a valid verdict? Blustain seems to stand by her guilty verdict because
she concluded in 2019 by justifying the Lilith conclusions: “It was really hard,
tracking down enough voices to feel sure; dealing with requests for anonymity;
looking for contemporaneous evidence”. Indeed today, Lilith is believed by many
as an authoritative conviction.

52
Sarah Blustain, “#MeToo in the Media”, Lilith, Fall 2019, https://www.lilith.org/articles/metoo-
in-the-media
53
“Believe women" is an American political slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement. It refers
to the perceived necessity of accepting women's allegations of sexual harassment or sexual
assault at face value.
54
Blustain explains that this was: “A concocted tale of gang rape on campus where the primary
source turned out to have duped the reporter, leading to a string of lawsuits against the reporter and
the magazine.”
H. Cancel Culture & Lilith’s Victory
#MeToo has shown us how publicity about a sex predator enables victims to come
forward. It encourages survivors to voice their pain. The Lilith editors felt
successful in raising awareness about the problems of sex abuse and offering an
opportunity for aggrieved people to speak out. Indeed, it is much more acceptable
today for women to reveal how they were mistreated by prominent figures in Jewish
organizations and to hold them accountable for nonconsensual sexual contact.55

Although the Lilith 1998 article was published four years after Carlebach died, it
tried to implicate the deceased Rabbi and convict him on three charges:
1. Inappropriate behavior, unwanted embraces, propositions, and advances.
2. Misuse of charismatic power to sexually abuse women.
3. Sex predator on underage young girls.

The Lilith stories triggered other women to report unwanted hugs mostly from
1968-1974. Much less evidence has been forthcoming about the second two
charges.56 Nonetheless, for more than two decades, Lilith’s verdict has been cited
as authoritative. Encyclopedia entries felt an imperative to cite Lilith’s allegations.
Social media posts defaming Carlebach referred to Lilith. Synagogues banned
Carlebach music based on Lilith.

This banning of Carlebach is part of a phenomenon now called “Cancel Culture”.

This is a form of boycott in which someone who has performed an act that is
considered a violation of today's social justice norms, even if those acts occurred
long ago, is thrust out of social or professional circles – either online on social
media or in the real world or both. Merriam-Webster dictionary identifies the act
of “Canceling” as “boycotting an actor’s movies or no longer reading or
promoting a writer’s works”. The dictionary notes that the idea of “cancel
culture” has taken hold in recent years due to conversations prompted by
#MeToo”. Now “you can cancel people—in particular, celebrities,
politicians, or anyone who takes up space in the public consciousness”. 57
Cancel Culture usually assumes a black and white choice - “guilty or innocent”.
The guilty are “canceled” unequivocally. Then, not only is the sex predator
incarcerated and ostracized, but anyone who hints at possibilities of
“understanding” or “justifying” the actions is also “canceled”. Had Lilith wished to
analyze Carlebach in a more even-handed way and put him to trial in the Lilith
court while allowing for his defense attorney to speak up, what kind of evidence
could have been presented? Lilith might have explained Carlebach’s style of
pastoral counseling. Here is one example dealing with Carlebach’s involvement in
a criminal sex abuse court trial. On February 3, 1977, Rabbi Carlebach testified in
55
See for example Keren R. McGinity, “American Jewry’s #MeToo Problem,” The Jewish Week,
June 21, 2018, https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/american-jewrys-metoo-problem-a-first-
person-encounter
56
It is often stated that victims of sex abuse hesitate to come forth. See for example
https://bit.ly/3fwpxfE.
57
“What It Means to Get 'Canceled'”, https://bit.ly/3gg38Ur, Retrieved July 31, 2020.
a New York District Court on behalf of a woman named Nicole who had suffered
a horrific sexual assault that had triggered a breakdown. Carlebach testified as to
the gravity of the trauma that Nicolle had undergone. In his published decision,
Judge Gerard Louis Goettel described Rabbi Carlebach’s role as Nicole’s spiritual
guidance counselor. She had met him at the House of Love and Prayer in San
Francisco in 1966 and came to him many times for reassurance and empathy. She
even travelled to Israel to be with her Rebbe. Carlebach inspired Nicole and enabled
her to find meaning and purpose in her life despite the trauma. This is an example
of how people turned to Carlebach to find empathy and overcome trauma.58

In the MeToo era, we are much more aware of how wrong it is to give an unwanted
embrace. In that sense, Lilith pioneered in enabling victims of abuse to come
forward. Today, there is more empathy for victims of sexual trauma. So how should
we understand the complexity of Shlomo’s legacy? Prof. Shaul Magid recently
offered an answer:

“Many people claim to have been hurt by his affection and his distance. These claims
should not be denied nor reflexively confirmed. They should be taken seriously and
considered carefully. They are part of a complex fabric of who he was: inspiring,
charismatic, broken, and perhaps most of all, lonely”.59

So, the question remains. The #MeToo Movement focuses on people alive. It is rare
to find attacks on people deceased. So why Carlebach? One explanation is what I
would label the “Trigger Effect”. When the yearly yahrzeit arrives, there is a flurry
of activities and stories. That triggers an adverse reaction for those concerned with
the sex abuse issue. In addition, Carlebachian communities and Carlebach
Shabbatot and events are proliferating. It is not a coincidence that the Broadway
musical Soul Doctor recently was performed here in Jerusalem (June 2018). This
popularity draws fire from those who sympathize or feel the pain of those who were
hurt.

A second reason is what I would call the “Lumping Effect”.60 Sex offenders are
lumped together under a generic term of “sex abuse”. Those whose guilt has been
proven in court are lumped together with others about whom rumors spread. For

58
Nicole had graduated Brandeis University in psychology and musicology in 1968. She was at her
father's New York apartment when she was assaulted on April 11, 1969. I have incorporated
information from the court decision https://bit.ly/3dwqu6b as well as from personal interviews
conducted June 29, 2020 – July 1, 2020.
59
Shaul Magid, “Shlomo Carlebach: A Transnational Jew In Search of Himself,” in Arthur Green
and Ariel Evan Mayse, A New Hasidism: Branches, University of Nebraska Press, 2019, ch. 13,
pp. 339-356.
60
Lumping refers to the practice of grouping things that are perceived as similar, together. We form
“single mental clusters” by grouping similar things together; where the perceived similarity of the
constituent elements outweighs the differences among them. Because we strengthen our perception
of the similarity and connection between these elements, we are likely to see them as
“interchangeable variants of a single unit of meaning”. See Eviatar Zerubavel, “Lumping and
Splitting: Notes on Social Classification,” Sociological Forum, vol. 11, no. 3, September 1996,
pp. 421-433, https://www.jstor.org/stable/684894.
example, one blogger vehemently attacked Reb Shlomo by comparing him to a
convicted high-profile personality. A synagogue removed a plaque of a congregant
who was serving a jail sentence for sex abuse and simultaneously decided to take
down Carlebach while they were “punishing sex offenders”. Unfortunately,
numerous public figures have recently been convicted of sexual crimes. Lumping
together with Reb Shlomo creates an illusion that all cases are of similar severity.

A third factor is the “Competition Effect”. A cantor wishes to replace Carlebachian

music, or a congregant dislikes the “Carlebachian Shabbat”. The Lilith article is
summoned to ban Carlebach music. “Carlebachian Judaism” is considered a
challenge or threat to an established practice.61

A fourth factor was created by Lilith. It is the “Amplification Effect”. The

significance of an event considered minor is magnified in retrospect. This is
exemplified in an article by Sharon Rose Goldtzvik, a leader of the Movement to
ban Carlebachian music. She described a hug that her mother received as a teenager
from Reb Shlomo. Sharon noted that “my mother says that she doesn’t feel
traumatized by the incident”, but now, as a result of the Lilith article, Sharon
concluded that her mother’s story “fit into a much larger pattern” of sexual
misconduct and abuse of young girls.62 After Sharon wrote her opinion post in The
Forward, she reported on Facebook: “since I wrote my op-ed, I've had lots of clergy
reach out to me to say they would stop using Carlebach”. In sum, the hug of half a
century ago has been magnified and amplified.

Finally, to provide a broader perspective, I note an amazingly distressing statistic

as revealed in http://www.protectjewishkids.com, the website of Eric Aiken, a
leading advocate for victims of sex abuse. Aiken lists details of 335 Orthodox
religious people who were convicted or accused of sexual abuse. And 110 of
these have the title “Rabbi”. Such statistics reveal the importance of what Lilith
and MeToo are trying to do in developing a heightened awareness of the problem
of sexual abuse in the Jewish community.

To conclude, Reb Shlomo has been called the “most Unorthodox Orthodox Rabbi
of the 20th Century.”63 He often proclaimed that his purpose in life was to bring
people together with love, joy, and empathy. He did this with song and storytelling,

61
Rabbi Alan J. Yuter phrased this (personal email letter July 30, 2018): “Carlebach's persona
was a threat to their radical progressive narrative because he presented an Orthodoxy that was
inspirational, not institutional, experiential and not enfranchised”.
62
Sharon Rose Goldtzvik, “It’s Time To Stop Singing Shlomo Carlebach’s Songs”, December 7,
2017, https://bit.ly/2YfUVJu.
63
This categorization was proposed by Menachem Daum in a video report for Religion News and
Ethics, where he labeled Rabbi Carlebach as the “most unorthodox Orthodox rabbi.” See Menachem
Daum, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, April 29, 2005, Episode # 835, PBS.org,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week835/interview.html. However, such a description
was first used for Reb Shlomo in 1961 by New York Times music critic, Robert Shelton, in describing
how Shlomo revived Hasidic music in an American context: “He may be unorthodox in his
orthodoxy, but he was helping to keep the vanishing tradition of Hasidic song alive." – See Robert
Shelton, “Rabbi Carlebach Sings Spirituals,” New York Times, Oct. 24, 1961.
drawing upon a reservoir of Talmudic, Kabbalistic, and Hasidic treasures. But in a
candid self-eulogy, he requested that posterity remember him not as saint nor as
sinner but as “a simple Jew”:
Should your children and grandchildren ever ask who Shlomo Carlebach was, tell
them that he was neither a saint nor a sinner, but merely a simple Jew who loved
the Creator, the Torah, and his fellowman and whose only ambition was to draw
them together.64

This is a fascinating self-evaluation. Reb Shlomo did not wish to be

remembered as a flawless saint but merely as a “simple Jew” struggling to fulfill
a mission of love towards God, Torah and fellow-human beings. Towards the
end of his life, Reb Shlomo spoke about opportunities to correct erroneous ways
and heal scars.65 On September 13, 1994, the day before Erev Yom Kippur, Reb
Shlomo appeared with Diane Wolkstein at New York City’s American Museum
of Natural History. They told stories of how to ask forgiveness and learn
through mistakes to “transform ourselves towards a greater good”.66

Finally, I quote from a thoughtful article by Yaakov Klein:

It is not despite his struggles or even failings (the degree of which, again, is a
matter of near-irresolvable contention) that Reb Shlomo Carlebach had and
continues to have such a colossal impact on our generation, but because of them.
The question of whether or not Reb Shlomo Carlebach was a tzaddik aside, he
certainly never claimed such a title. He was quite open about the complexity of his
approach, and the nature of his experience on the narrow bridge a Jew must walk
in this world. However, the afflictions of his post-Holocaust trauma, isolation,
wandering, social persecution and their myriad effects on every aspect of his
expansive personality were his greatest blessing, because it was those elements
which imbued his teachings about hope, prayer, love, and joy amidst suffering with
a genuine and authentic quality. His singing wasn’t a performance just as his
teachings weren’t lectures. His love wasn’t a charade, just as his hope wasn’t
without challenges to be overcome. It is clear to all those with a heart of flesh that
Reb Shlomo Carlebach succeeded in planting a wondrous garden of optimism,
sacrifice, love, connection, holy desire, striving, joy, and refusal to despair – in the
dark and fearful Vacant Space that occupied the center of his enormous heart.67

64
Meshulam H. Brandwein, Reb Shlomele: The Life and World of Shlomo Carlebach, trans. Gabriel
A. Sivan (Efrat, Israel: 1997), pg. 13. See also Moshe Liebert, “President’s Message, Carlebach
Shul,” Kol Chevra, vol. 5, 1998, pg. 32. Moshe (Michael) Liebert, who first met Shlomo in 1982,
was president of the Carlebach Shul from 1991–1998. He died on Aug. 4, 2000, at the age of 56.
See “Moshe Liebert’s Obituary,” Kol Chevra, vol. 7, 2000, 23–24.
65
On Sunday, April 24, 1994, on the eve of Pesach Sheni, the 14th of Iyar, Reb Shlomo gave a
class in Newton, Massachusetts at the home of Michael and Brenda Edwards about the meaning
of Pesach Sheni as the “holiday of the second chance” with the message “it’s never too late…
to fix even the scars.” Then, on April 25, 1994, at the Carlebach Shul in Manhattan, Shlomo
elaborated on the idea of Pesach Sheni as a second chance for those who are on the “far path.”
66
In 2006, Diane Wolkstein produced a 57-minute DVD based on this performance entitled
Celebrating Our Mistakes: Stories and Songs from the Jewish Tradition. See MostlyMusic.com,
http://www.mostlymusic.com/celebrating-our-mistakes.html;
http://www.filmbaby.com/films/3168.
67
Yaakov Klein, “Reb Shlomo Carlebach’s Gift to Our Generation”, November 14, 2019,
https://matzav.com/reb-shlomo-carlebachs-gift-to-our-generation/
J. Lilith’s Truth: Bifurcated or Complexity?
Many readers of the 1998 Lilith allegations have reacted in a black/white fashion
creating a bifurcated debate of Lilith Vs. Carlebach, a categorical dichotomy of Evil
Sex Predator Vs. Saintly Caring Rabbi. Indeed, as social psychologists sometimes
observe, we tend to over-simplify our social worlds - seeing things that could be
conceptualized as complex and nuanced as simple and categorical.68 For instance,
we divide people into the category of “on my team” or “not” per the powerful
ingroup/outgroup phenomenon.69 Our minds seem to like simple categorical ways
to divide up information in the world. We see people as either good or bad.

But Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach himself did not present his persona as a paragon of
flawless virtue. He often portrayed himself with an awareness of his struggles with
life’s challenges. His daughter Neshama Carlebach summarized this complexity:

Human beings are complex, the questions of life are complex, the healing is
real, and the pain is real. There is no hiding from all these truths. My father, a
soul who saw sisters and brothers cut down by the Nazis, who jumped straight
from the insular Yeshiva world of his childhood into the boundaryless free-
love world of Berkeley in the late 60s, who revolutionized Jewish music
forever and embraced every human being, was complicated too.70

My summary observation is that Lilith fulfilled a pioneering social role by exposing

sex abuse predating #MeToo. Today we see many Jewish leaders convicted of sex
abuse. Unfortunately, this includes Rabbis.71 True, Lilith erred in factual statements
when Blustain wrote that Carlebach took down “the separation between women and
men in his own synagogue”. This Lilith mistake confused the “synagogue” with the
HLP commune where hippies visited and celebrated.72 The Lilith portrayal of
Carlebach’s “Shadowy Side” is similar to what happened to many of Carlebach’s
guru “colleagues” in the 60s – in later years they were accused of having misused
their charisma and abused disciples.73 But perhaps, even from such demons, healing

68
See for example, Glenn Geher, “Black-and-White Thinking in our Social Worlds: The
Evolutionary Basis of Simple Thinking,” Psychology Today, Jan. 12, 2016,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201601/black-and-white-
thinking-in-our-social-worlds.
69
Michael Billig and Henri Tajfel, “Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour,”
European Journal of Social Psychology, Jan./March 1973, vol. 3, pp. 27–52,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103
70
Neshama Carlebach, “My sisters, I hear you,” Times of Israel.com, Jan. 2, 2018,
https://bit.ly/3fZ6z15.
71
See for example Elana Sztokman, When Rabbis Abuse: Power, Gender and Status in the
Dynamics of Sexual Abuse in Jewish Culture, lionessbooks.com, June 2022. Elana interviewed 84
abuse victims/survivors.
72
It was run by Carlebach’s followers during 1968-1974 and events were mixed gender.
73
See for example Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment,
Million Monkeys Press, 2005-2017, http://www.strippingthegurus.com
Damning accusations are presented against 40 spiritual leaders such as Andrew Cohen, Swami
Muktananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Yogi Bhajan, Satchidananda, Ramakrishna,
and Krishnamurti.
and transformation can now be found towards a greater good? One example can be
found in a new approach published in the avant-garde journal Hevria74 under the
title “Carlebach’s Legacy: Offering a Path of Healing,”75. The author asks that the
25th Carlebach yahrtzeit be an opportunity for “more compassion… an opportunity
for healing and truly embodying the spirit of hesed and emet”. Carlebachian hevra
are requested to “believe more deeply the stories” and the Carlebach hevra’s
leadership “is called to stand with those who are hurting, and to seek justice within
the community and in society at large”.76

A similar approach was suggested by Alon Goshen who characterized Reb Shlomo
as a “flawed religious genius”, flawed because of “problematic sexual behavior”,
but transformative in religion because he helped shaped it anew, based on his close
relationship with God and his intense spiritual life.77

In summary, Lilith became “authoritative” because it was a printed article with real
names and specific stories. Critics added social media reports frequently reporting
accounts told by pseudonyms. Soon, with #Me Too, Carlebach was included in
Cancel Culture although the main proof was Lilith’s “guilty verdict”. This then is
the tragedy of Lilith’s portrayal. Because the Lilith allegations were repeated so
often, an illusion of truth was created78 almost as if an official court verdict had
been rendered.

This is the tragedy of Lilith’s portrayal. Because the allegations were repeated so
often, an illusion of “undeniable truth” was created almost as if an official court
verdict had been rendered.

74
See https://hevria.com/our-mission/. Hevria is a home for the creative and out-of-the-box Jews
who feel like they don’t have one.
75
Hevria, Nov. 13, 2019, https://hevria.com/anonymous/carlebachs-legacy-offering-a-path-of-
healing/
76
“The leadership can further usher forward a truth-sharing in a receptive environment that will
allow the victims to be heard in a healing manner, as well as allow for the hevra to come to terms
with the impact of these stories on their lives so that the community can proceed to the next stages
– of mourning, reckoning, taking accountability and finally acceptance and renewal”.
77
See Alon Goshen, “A Flawed Religious Genius: Coming to Terms with Shlomo Carlebach,”
Times of Israel, December 26, 2017, http://bit.ly/2YH1HpY. Compare Alon Goshen-Gottstein,
“Was Shlomo A Religious Genius?”, in Joseph Schonwald and Reuven Goldfarb (ed.). The
Carlebach Anthology: Essays about Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach with Selections from His Teachings
and Stories, Jerusalem, 2017, pp. 58-69.
78
See for example, L. Hasher, D. Goldstein & T. Toppino (1977). Frequency and the conference of
referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(1), pp. 107–
112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80012-1
The conclusion from testing 40 college students rated how certain they were that each of 60
statements was true or false. Frequency of occurrence was found to be a criterion establishing the
referential validity of plausible statements.
K. Afternote
Citation from Micha Odenheimer, Nov. 25, 2019 posted in a debate at the
Yeshiva University Commentator, http://bit.ly/2sbXMVX

I spent many hundreds of hours with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, as did a hevraya
that consisted of both men and women. We adored Shlomo --all of us-- because he
was the most amazing person we ever met. He healed thousands of people, some
of them through hugs. And he hugged hundreds of thousands of people in his
time. I literally experienced a deep healing through his Torah at one specific
moment, and there are many stories like this. He was incredibly giving on so many
levels--emotional, financial, in every way. He was also a kind of post-holocaust
miracle for the Jewish people, bringing a kind of authentic spirit, with his deep
Torah, his stories and his music, that helped revive the Jewish people. He was a
crucial voice for Soviet Jews. He was a bridge between pre and post holocaust
generations. This is all not to say that he didn't have flaws. I never heard about any
untoward touching while I was with him, but I did know about phone calls that
some women liked and some were deeply offended by. I also witnessed many
women hitting on him and trying to be sexual with him. I have read many of the
stories--almost all of them anonymous and 40 years old. Even if we believe every
one of them there are none that say that a) he forced himself on someone after they
said no or pushed him away. b) that he "groomed" anyone or used his power as a
teacher to seduce them. c) that he repeatedly targeted someone. What you see at
most is a person that, in the time of the sexual revolution, coming out of Yeshiva,
made some bad boundary calls. His impulse control may not have been the
strongest. If he was alive, he should be taken to task for that by people willing to
come out of the shadows and accuse him. But now that he is gone, and he was never
accused when he was alive, so there was no trial, no opportunity for him to defend
himself or the opposite, make amends, we have to look at his entire legacy--at him
as a whole. His goodness, what he did for so many individuals, is well documented.
He was extraordinary in his Hesed and his humility. Rather than use his charisma
to support him financially, he gave away most everything he made. He never put
himself on a pedestal or told people what to do. He was, incidentally, a huge pioneer
of Orthodox feminism and believed that women's voices on spirituality to be
essential. I'm not sure why in this day and age sexual misdemeanor is considered
the be all and end all of a person--that a flaw, errors of judgment and control in a
very confusing time--are enough to "cancel" a person, to wipe out everything good
that he has done. Are black people doing the same to Martin Luther King? Indians
to Gandhi? Shlomo never ever claimed that he was faultless. Yet his goodness, his
depth of sensitivity (I can't tell you how many really disturbed people flocked
to him for healing; his aura was big enough to contain them) were once in a
generation, or in a century. That is part of the story too. It’s good that mores and
ethos of sexuality have changed. It’s legitimate to discuss Shlomo's faults. But it’s
unjust to use our new awareness to wipe out the incredible depth and goodness that
he represented. That is what I saw, and thousands, men and women, experienced in
his presence.
Micha added on Nov. 27, 2019: if we are talking about crimes, as you are, then
there has to also be some kind of due process. Due process means a hearing in
public forum, with open testimony, a chance for cross examination, and the
opportunity for a person to defend himself or herself as innocent and/or admit
guilt. Unfortunately, this latter part is impossible as Shlomo is gone 25 years.
And the first part has not taken place either. And people--in this forum as well-
-are saying things that they have heard third hand, and distorting those as well.
I am merely testifying to the fact that Shlomo was a person of
extraordinary goodness, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime,
and that his flaws should be examined in that context with that
understanding.