Hayman told he’s not welcome
The president of the Yeshiva Centre has told Daniel “Gug” Hayman he is not welcome at the syngagogue following confirmed reports that he lead prayers on the same day he was granted bail on charges of indecent assault against two young boys in the 1980s.
Tzedek, an advocacy group focusing on child sex abuse, issued the following statement:
“This morning Tzedek received an anonymous phone call from a concerned member of the Sydney Yeshiva community stating that last night Daniel “Gug” Hayman, soon after his release on bail, went to Sydney’s Yeshiva Centre and led the evening services (as a cantor) in their main synagogue. We have now been able to confirm this with a Yeshiva congregant who was present during these services. Apparently Mr Hayman led the second, smaller service.
Daniel Hayman
It should be noted that Mr Hayman recently lost his mother and there is a special prayer (Kaddish) that mourners are required to say during services for one year (and on other special occasions). However, there is no obligation to lead the services – this is only a custom within mainly the ultra-Orthodox community. There is also no obligation for these prayers to be conducted in a synagogue – they may be conducted anywhere where there are ten Jews (a Minyan).
We believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to adhere to their religious beliefs and practices, but questions must be asked. Importantly, how is it that Mr Hayman was given this honour on the day he was released from prison – and within the same institution that the offences were alleged to have been committed and in light of the allegations that the leadership were themselves involved in a cover-up? It is also astounding that so many members of this congregation felt that it was befitting Mr Hayman to be their conduit to God through this prayer service.
It is reasonable to assume that if someone was alleged to have committed other serious crimes (e.g. serious assaults, especially against multiple innocent and defenceless victims), that he would be an unwelcome guest at Yeshiva – certainly not seen fit to lead a prayer service.
Allowing Mr Hayman to proceed in a way that indicates business as usual sends out a very poor message to the victims and to the community.
There are many within the Yeshiva community who want to see sustainable change in terms of how their community addresses the issue of child sexual abuse. For this to occur, they must take action. In this case, they need to hold the leadership to account for their words and deeds.”
President of the Yeshiva Synagogue Gaby Amzalak told J-Wire: “I have sent e-mails and voice messages to Hayman telling he is not welcome in our Shule and have asked him to confirm receipt. However, the matter was been discussed at length with various community members and Rabbis, following his attendance at the minyan in Yeshiva last night. He has subsequently been notified to find an alternate location for minyonim and Kaddish, until the matter has been resolved by the authorities. He has acknowledged this request.”
Manny Waks continues his vendetta against Chabad – everywhere.
All he will achieve is to alienate decent and sensible supporters of Tzedek.
Here we go again. Tzedek accusing Sydney Yeshiva of some kind of complicity in the Hayman case.
I know that Tzedek reckon they are uphoilding “The Law”, that they are singularly the highest form of morality in the Jewish community when it comes to child abuse. We have all learnt through the Tzedek “counduit” that they know how the entire Jewish Orthodox commnity has failed the “Tzedek Standards”. Tzedek will jump to hold Yeshiva responsible for all the sins allegedly on Hayman’s account. I am not defending Mr. Hayman, never met him in my life and I also happen to agree with Sydney Yeshiva’s decision not to allow Mr. Hayman to daven in their shule. I would also assume that on the day Mr.Hayman said kadish for his departed Mother inside the same shule and lead the service, the 2nd part, those who allowed him to do so were not made aware of any prohibition from the leadership of the Yeshiva regarding the prohibition simply because they would have not had the oportunity to meet on the question or, maybe, on the day inside the shule they would not have been even aware of the actual case being run. Maybe Mr. Hayman went up and said what his situation was regarding the shiva, and it was agreed on ad hoc.
From all this Tzedek is not justified to launch once again into a rabid offensive against the Yeshiva.
Yet, if Tzedek want to milk the best ( actually worst ) out of this serious situation so, once again, they float on the surface as the Super Batman of the child protection cause and gain all the ensuing publicity, who could possibly stop them ??!!!
Leading a regular secondary evening Service at many Orthodox Synagogues such as the Yeshiva is often a small haphazard affair. Usually the first competent person who arrives and has a reason (such as honoring a recently departed parent) to lead the service will do so as soon as a Minyan has arrived. So it would be a misconception to attribute too much to the fact that on that particular evening Daniel Hayman managed to
lead the service
I am not going to pass any comment on circumstances I know nothing of, except to state the obvious that any act of sexual molestation is abhorrent and such crimes must be condemned in the strongest manner possible.
With that noted, this article suggests that a person leading a minyan is a conduit to G-d. This is not a Jewish concept. Every person’s connection to G-d through prayer is direct and not via any form of intermediatary. The shaliach tzibor is a representative and many complex ethics are involved regarding the type of person that is appropriate for such a role. This however should not be confused with the concept of a conduit.