Hebrew National would not use Agri/ Aaron's, etc. trimmings "as it doesn't meet Hebrew National's kashrus standards".
But it meets the standards of Lakewood's KCL!
But Uri N. et al says it's very acceptable for Bnei Torah.
Monday, July 21, 2025
Hebrew National V Agri/Aaron's/ Weismandel's supervision/ KCL-
Sunday, July 20, 2025
Update: GEVALD- EMPIRE chicken- IN Menashe Frankel's- (Matel) Chasunah halls in Lakewood- Reb Moshe said "This is not to served to Yeshiva Leit"- See comments of interest
Menashe Frankel has them use EMPIRE poultry, etc. that Reb Shnuer, Z"L did not allow in BMG.
You can (hopefully) ask for kosher fish.
From a comment: This caterer has some serious kashrus concerns that are in the areas of chilul Shabbos, Bishul Akum, Bos'ur Shenis'alem, treif utensils, misleading clientele, etc. R"L
We gave them some better choices from a kashrus point and reliability.
Lakewood caterers, restaurants, take-out, pizza stores, food service, etc. establishments do not all have an acceptable kashrus standard.
Some are more reliable from a kashrus standpoint.
***************************************
from a commentor; Others found they could make their families life very easy by going the URI N. way in kashrus, using Empire, Tartikuv, Minchas Chinuch, Yecvhiel Babad, Weismandel, Star-K, Infested strawberries, infested Sun dried tomatoes, Bossur Shenisalem, Bishul Akum, etc. it does not mean that it's necessarily kosher, but at least one could say, I followed URI N.'s protocol. After 120, they'll tell you where to go .
Friday, July 18, 2025
We were asked by.....to post this article, the article clarifies why it's not signed.
The Anatomy of a PR Campaign: What the Bais Havaad Controversy Reveals About Transparency in Halachic Process
In recent weeks, the leadership of Bais Havaad – famous for its now-discontinued beis din column in Ami Magazine – has launched a carefully coordinated media campaign. This initiative appears aimed at discrediting a psak halacha issued by nine highly respected roshei beis din and Gedolei Torah, which raises serious concerns about the conduct of Bais Havaad’s beis din.
When the psak halacha was first issued, Bais Havaad’s initial response was to quietly attempt to persuade individual signatories to withdraw their support. These efforts failed. The signatories, it turns out, were unwavering in their convictions. With private persuasion unsuccessful, the organization turned to more public tactics: rolling out a calculated series of letters and statements from various figures aimed at casting doubt on the legitimacy and integrity of the psak.
This campaign, however, does not appear to be a response to theological or halachic disagreement. Rather, it seems to be an effort to avoid a public diyun (hearing) regarding potential misconduct in the granting of a controversial heter to marry. The nine signatories have not sought to shut down Bais Havaad or impose uniform rulings on other rabbis. They have simply called for transparency: a hearing in which serious concerns can be reviewed and evaluated in an open and accountable forum.
Why This Matters
In halachic life, secrecy can be dangerous. When suspicion of impropriety arises—especially in sensitive areas like yuchasin—a responsible beis din should welcome, not resist, scrutiny. In this case, Bais Havaad’s leadership, possibly due to close relationships with involved parties, has instead resisted engaging willingly in such examination.
The public narrative now being promoted is troubling. It frames the nine rabbanim and Gedolim – figures known for their independence and venerated for their integrity – as having been manipulated or misled. This line of reasoning not only dismisses the seriousness of the original concerns, but implicitly undermines public trust in our most revered halachic authorities.
Let’s examine the facts that underlie the psak halacha and consider why the efforts to discredit it do not withstand scrutiny.
Timeline of Involvement: Bais Havaad and the Controversial Heter
-
Origin of the Heter: The initial heter was issued by a panel of dayanim strongly affiliated with the Bais Havaad beis din. Though the panel later stepped back due to a conflict of interest, they continued to support and promote the ruling informally.
-
Responsibility for Subsequent Involvement: Rabbis Bess and Sherwinter relied on the findings and documentation of the original panel, supplementing it with a smattering of additional testimony before seeking a ruling from Rabbi Farbstein—who opposed the marriage. The case was then taken to Rabbi Fuerst, who recently stated he was the one who ultimately permitted the marriage.
-
Post-Heter Response: Attempts to explain the reasoning behind the heter, particularly before the marriage took place, and attacks on it, were consistently deflected or handled by members of the original panel.
-
Reluctance to Submit Willingly to a Diyun: Over the course of more than a year, despite public resignations by three Bais Havaad dayanim and repeated requests for a hearing by prominent rabbanim such as Rav Forcheimer, the leadership took no steps toward establishing a formal diyun. The letter that Rabbi Grossman claimed to have written in response to the request of Rav Forcheimer was never shared with the family, giving the appearance of an insincere public statement.
-
Pressure and Delay: Only after facing the possibility of losing one of their most senior dayanim did Bais Havaad begin to negotiate toward a diyun. Even then, the conflicts of interest and uselessness of most of the names submitted by Bais Havaad left a pre-selected panel almost predictable. That panel later withdrew under vague circumstances. Post their withdrawal, with the immediate threat diminished, efforts to reestablish the diyun went unanswered.
Were the Gedolim Misled?
One of the central claims of Bais Havaad’s campaign is that the nine Gedolim were misled into issuing their psak. The argument rests largely on technicalities, such as who formally issued the heter, and on a letter from the withdrawn panel stating that neither side was to blame for its dissolution.
But this misses the point.
The language of the psak halacha is measured and precise. It does not accuse Bais Havaad of refusing a diyun outright. Instead, it notes that a request for a hearing was made, and that no hearing took place. This is both accurate and relevant.
Regarding the Bais Havaad dayanim’s responsibility for the heter, the psak speaks of those who “permitted (or misled others to permit)”—a formulation that reflects the complex sequence of events in which members of the original panel laid the foundation on which others relied and dealt with its aftermath.
The suggestion that such seasoned poskim were tricked into making a grave public ruling stretches credulity. In fact, when an earlier draft of the psak included a detail not personally verified by Rav Shlomo Miller shlita, it was removed at his request. That’s the level of care involved.
Who is This Campaign For?
If the public campaign is intended to convince those with strong emunas chachamim, it is unlikely to succeed. Those who trust in the integrity of senior Torah authorities will not be easily swayed by attempts to portray them as naïve or easily manipulated.
If, on the other hand, the campaign targets the skeptical or cynical, the strategy is self-defeating. If one is willing to believe that nine roshei beis din can be deceived, why should one not also believe that two or three other rabbis might be similarly misled—particularly when their accounts rely on the same disputed chain of events?
A Simple Solution: A Transparent Diyun
Ultimately, this is not about who “won” or “lost” in the court of public opinion. It’s about whether serious allegations regarding the halachic integrity of a disputed psak will be addressed responsibly.
When rabbanim disagree not merely on halachic principles, but on the integrity of each other’s sources of facts, the only meaningful way forward is to submit the matter to a mutually agreed-upon panel. This is not just proper—it’s necessary.
Avoiding such a process in favor of PR statements and open letters undermines the credibility of the institutions involved and erodes public confidence in the beis din system as a whole.
Final Note
While this article was written with rabbinic guidance, the author has chosen to remain anonymous due to the personal nature of their prior involvement and the risk of retaliatory attacks, which have unfortunately occurred in the past.
Thursday, July 17, 2025
Shatnez warning- Hat box- De Ja Vu
|
|
Wednesday, July 16, 2025
Re: Bais Havaad's response to claims made against some of their Pisokim
Harav Fuerst שליט״א,
I am writing in response to your recent letter dated י"ג תמוז תשפ"ה.
It is not my place to offer criticism to a Rav of your stature, and I do so
with the deepest respect. However, I feel compelled to express my profound
concern regarding the tone and content of your letter, particularly in how it
characterizes a public statement signed by several of the foremost poskim and
Gedolei Torah of our generation. To summarily dismiss their position as having
no halachic weight and stating it should be completely disregarded is, I
believe, a regrettable misjudgment that diminishes the honor due to such
preeminent Torah authorities, some of whom are foremost Einei Haeida.
With regard to your citation of a psak you heard from Rav Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל
and its application to the current case, I do not presume to comment. The
ability to compare cases accurately—dimui milsa l’milsa—requires deep Torah
insight developed through years of amelus baTorah and shimush talmidei
chachamim. I leave that judgment to those far greater than myself. (As an
aside, I will note that this paragraph describing your rationale behind the
psak represents a welcome break from the hitherto policy of the mattirim not to
put nimukim on record. Hopefully, this will spark the long-awaited scrutiny of
the heter and allow a more wholesome evaluation of its merits.)
However, I must address your commentary on the background and context of the
aforementioned letter from Gedolei Yisrael. Frankly, it reads more like the
rhetoric of a blogger than the measured tone expected from a Rav of your
distinction. Terms such as “deceptive tactics” and “destructive work” are
deeply troubling. As someone personally familiar with the outstanding talmidei
chachamim of note you refer to as “agenda-driven,” I can say that their actions
have consistently reflected a sincere bikush ha’emes and a commitment to
halachic integrity. But how would you know if you refused to engage with them?
It is certainly understandable that you rely on those whom you trust for
information, given the many demands on your time. But with all due respect, I
struggle to comprehend the confidence with which you assert that nine leading
poskim and gedolim were deceived, while you alone were able to discern the
truth. Does it not warrant a measure of humility to consider the possibility
that you, too, might have been misled? Is it inconceivable that others may have
provided you with inaccurate or deceptive information?
You cite two specific points as examples of falsehood in the letter issued by
the Gedolim. Permit me to address them briefly:
1. The claim that the Bais Havaad had, in fact, agreed to the demands for a
diyun.
The behavior of the Beis Din over the course of more than a year strongly
suggested a reluctance to engage in a diyun. Despite the public resignation of
three of their dayanim and requests for a diyun by multiple batei din, there
was no movement toward a hearing. Only when a significant overwhelming threat
to their standing emerged did they reluctantly begin negotiations. Once that
threat subsided, all attempts to resume discussion were ignored.
Furthermore, the Gedolim’s letter does not claim that the Bais Havaad outright
refused to attend a diyun. Rather, it states that a herkev of dayanim was
requested to present evidence before an agreed-upon beis din, and that such a
hearing had yet to occur. The language was measured and factual. In the absence
of a diyun, the Gedolim offered a halachic assessment of the status of the beis
din based on the current status quo.
2. The assertion that Bunim’s heter was not issued by, or based on the
information provided by, dayanim of Bais Havaad.
It is a matter of record that the initial heter was issued by dayanim of Bais
Havaad before your involvement. Although the original herkev later withdrew
formally, they continued to promote the heter informally and were instrumental
in transferring the case to other figures, including Rabbis Bess and
Sherwinter. When Rav Farbstein ruled against the marriage, the heter-shopping
continued until the heter was ultimately issued by you.
The claim that the heter was not influenced by the Bais Havaad dayanim's
information is difficult to reconcile with the facts. In your initial letter
dated ה' ויצא תשפ"ד, you explicitly referenced information—such as the
attribution of a kever to the chasan's ancestor—which was later completely
reversed in your subsequent letter dated חשון תשפ"ה. That revision was
based on information you received through the Bais Havaad’s involvement, as you
have stated on multiple occasions. To deny that the heter was based, at least
in part, on information from them, is inconsistent with the record.
Moreover, following the issuance of the heter, a comprehensive historical study
of the family's history—portions of which were published under the title Keser
Kehuna—was made available, which potentially undermines the heter. You chose
not to engage with that material, relying instead on the baseless assertion of
one party that the work was “full of lies,” despite widespread recognition of
its value by numerous talmidei chachamim and experts. Again, this reliance appears
to have shaped your position without a full and balanced review of all relevant
information.
In light of this, one must ask: If Keser Kehuna is dismissed based on what you
were told, and a psak signed by nine Gedolim and poskim is similarly rejected
on the same basis, might it not be more honest to question the objectivity of
the sources you rely upon, rather than accuse so many others of having been
duped?
Additional Considerations
You express grave concern about the precedent of undermining the Bais Havaad
(whose importance you measured by the yardstick of being "mesader most of
the gittin in Lakewood," as if numerical success is a measure of halachic
reliability), suggesting it is “dangerous and destructive.” But is it not more
dangerous to dismiss the halachic conclusions of nine leading Gedolim and
poskim as baseless and deceptive? And is the expectation that a new Beis Din
respond to serious public allegations of misconduct by participating in an
impartial hearing truly so unreasonable?
You further write that “there is no precedent for others about whom the psak
was not specifically applied to and enforced on to demand that the shaila be
decided by Rabbanim of their choosing.” Yet had you reviewed the content of the
letter you criticized, you would have seen a clear reference to a precedent
established by none other than Rav Elyashiv זצ"ל, who insisted (based on
the רשב"ש) that a Rav who issued a controversial heter involving mamzerim
appear before a beis din to explain his ruling. This precedent directly refutes
your claim.
In conclusion, I write not to argue halacha but to urge humility, integrity,
and careful deliberation in the face of serious questions. Disagreement in
halacha is part of our mesorah, but it must be conducted with respect,
accuracy, and full recognition of the stature and sincerity of all involved.
Monday, July 14, 2025
בבא קמא נב.-כד רגיז רעיא על ענא עביד לנגדא סמותא- רש"י כך כשהמקום נפרע משונאי ישראל ממנה להן פרנסים שאינן מהוגנים-הפוך בה דכולה בה!
The word Askan/ Shtadlan, the title public servant, has referred to a person characterized by selfless love for the Jewish people who sacrifices himself for the public good. We grew up hearing stories of people ran across Europe meeting with kings and governments in an effort to avert terrible decrees against the Jewish people. All this was done at their own personal peril and their own expense. The early klal workers in this country wanted nothing more than to spread chinuch and literally were moser nefesh for that ideal.
Every good thing can be abused. This includes public service
and community service when a trust of the people with interests other than
those of the public they represent. If that happens, the people who suffer the
most are all of us, all of klal yisroel, because the true askanim /
shtadlanim-and there many out in there in the
trenches helping others lesheim shomayim will have lost the goodwill of
the public due to the indiscretions and selflessness of the abusers.
"true Askanus tell the Authorities what are the needs of the community".
Some have turned askanus into telling the community what the Authorities want them to pass on to the community, R"L
Friday, July 11, 2025
ALL Corn on the cob (frozen, Fresh, cooked, Microwavable) all infested.
UPDATE: Calif. delight W/ Hisachdus?
Rav Ekstein removed hashgocha.
Why?
Corn on the cob, is known to be infested, including the frozen ones.
Even if it's soaked and salted.
Are the ones from Mexico, Thailand, any better? [No]
Does a Heimish Hashgocha help to eliminate, not just minimize the insects? NO
Bottom line, (fresh & frozen, cooked) Remove the kernels & rinse.
NOT THE BABY CORN, as they don't have the insects- you don't have to de-kernelize baby-corn- eat as is.
Tuesday, July 08, 2025
Monday, July 07, 2025
A well‑known civil–rights and police‑brutality lawyer is Thomas J. Mallon at Mallon, Tranger & Budzek. They handle excessive force and police misconduct cases, and their clients have posted strong testimonials about results and compassionate support
If your concern is “overactive” police or excessive force claims, Thomas J. Mallon and his team in Freehold have a strong reputation and track record.
Notable Police‐Misconduct Experience
-
Acted as lead counsel in multiple 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suits involving excessive force, false arrest, illegal searches, supervisory liability, and Monell claims hudsoncountyview.com.
-
In 2014, represented Ricky Patel in a suit against Union City officers for alleged excessive force, illegal arrest/search, and more tmallonlaw.com+3hudsoncountyview.com+3transparencynj.com+3.
-
Litigated cases against Atlantic City, Ocean County, Borough of Tinton Falls, and Lakewood for police misconduct fr.scribd.com.
💵 Significant Settlements & Verdicts
-
Mallon, Tranger & Budzek recovered over $1 million in police brutality settlements in 2020 alone in Freehold opramachine.com+9tmallonlaw.com+9tmallonlaw.com+9.
-
In 2015, Mallon secured a $200,000 settlement in a Monell excessive force case against Atlantic City PD after trial
Sunday, July 06, 2025
Update: The Bais Havaad challenges
Dear Rabbi ……….,
In response to
your request for clarification of the issues at play in the recent psak by
leading Gedolim and Roshei Beis Din on the status of the Bais Havaad (BHV), I
will attempt to summarize the Bais Havaad’s various justifications and defenses
and address them individually, with my responses:
1. “This was not a Bais Havaad case.”
This appears to be a de lection. The
Bais Havaad has historically been flexible in defining its associations—
referring to various projects, Rabbonim, and psakim as BHV-affiliated. Are we
now to believe that a diyun held at 290 River Avenue, with regular BHV dayanim,
invoiced under BHV's name, does not qualify as a BHV matter?
2. “The BHV dayanim were not matir.”
While technically accurate, it is
misleading. The dayanim initially issued a heter. When faced with opposition,
they formally withdrew—but continued to promote the heter in the shadows, with
intermittent visibility. They (a) shared their portfolio of evidence and
research with other Rabbonim who relied on it l’halacha as factual findings
established by a beis din; (b) reportedly signed the (confidential) heter; (c)
defended it publicly and privately; (d) compiled supportive letters as late as
a year after the wedding; and (e) when calls for a diyun were voiced, canvassed
the globe to solicit further halachic backing for it.
Can the architects of a heter’s
foundation and its most active promoters reasonably claim exemption from
responsibility by mere official withdrawal?
3. “The details of the case are too sensitive to share with the
family.”
This explanation does not withstand
scrutiny. The same dayanim who cite concern for the family’s dignity threatened
to publish the very same information publicly if pressured—via a newly created
blog. This contradiction suggests the concern is more about shielding
themselves than protecting the family.
Moreover, if they truly possess
sensitive information that justifies their conclusions, there is a
straightforward solution: present it to a credible, neutral third party in the
presence of a knowledgeable family representative who can properly assess and
challenge the claims. Had there been anything substantive, this process would
have resolved the matter last year, six months ago, or even yesterday. The
refusal to take this obvious and reasonable step—one that could conclusively
resolve the controversy—lacks any coherent justification.
The claim of secrecy appears more likely
to be a tactic to avoid the embarrassment of being proven wrong.
“Opposition to
the heter is politically motivated by the BHV’s opponents.”
This is demonstrably false. The active
opposition to the marriage predated the BHV’s involvement by several months. If
we are to attribute motives for involvement to petty politics, it would be more
plausible to question the motives behind the BHV’s heter, given the dayanim's
known acrimonious history with the Rosh Beis Din (Rabbi ______h _____z shlita)
who was leading the opposition to the marriage at the time that they got
involved. But why go there? Rather than dismissing critics as politically driven,
it would be more productive— and honest—to engage with the substantive halachic
and factual issues raised.
4. “Revealing details would arm the BHV’s enemies.”
This defensive posture is outdated. In
today’s climate, secrecy breeds suspicion. Following public resignations and
strong criticism from multiple batei din, BHV’s ongoing silence and evasion of
scrutiny only further harmed its credibility, leading it to total denunciation
by leading poskim.
5. “The reasoning is available to sincere Rabbonim, not those with
agendas.”
A circular policy. The BHV smokescreen
can easily fool unsuspecting Rabbonim with only a mild interest in the case,
while Rabbonim familiar with the details of the case or skeptical of the
integrity of the process are easily dismissed as "agenda-driven,"
leaving little room for meaningful oversight.
6.“This is not
a Choshen Mishpat issue. A beis din gave a psak to an individual and they are
not answerable to anyone.”
Irrelevant point, even if correct. The
BHV published letters alleging dishonesty by the family and its supporters; the
family alleges that it is the side of the matirim that has been infiltrated by
forgers and liars. When accusations of forgery and misconduct arise, they must
be addressed in a transparent setting. If a mashgiach accused a storeowner of
selling treif, and the storeowner claims the mashgiach has a personal vendetta
against him, would we clarify this with a hearing, or would we say it’s a Yoreh
De’ah issue? Halachic categorizations
cannot be used to evade responsibility.
“A kuntres will
soon explain everything.” That was
said six months ago. We are still waiting.
7. “There is no one to talk to on the other side.”
Entirely unfounded. Have they tried? The
BHV dayanim have repeatedly refused to engage in dialogue with the family or
their representatives, despite numerous invitations. Notably, one of the
family's most prominent advocates is a former longtime colleague of the dayanim
at the Bais Havaad, further underscoring the baselessness of the alleged
unfeasibility of dialogue. Finally, are we to be convinced that dayanim who
pride themselves on their skill at negotiating and settling the most
contentious disputes have found themselves unable to establish dialogue with
reputable talmidei chachomim and a family of erliche bnei Torah? This claim is another component in the
strategy of the cover-up.
8. “A Rav reviewed both sides and agreed with the heter.”
Initially promising, but inconclusive.
After one Rav originally agreed with the family, the BHV dayanim came to show
him their side. The family cooperated in good faith, hoping for a transparent
exchange. However, they were not given access to the BHV’s claims before the Rav,
making a true response impossible. The Rav eventually withdrew due to the lack
of full information. What resulted was not a diyun, but a lesson in the
necessity of transparency in a diyun.
9. “The Russian letter was certified as authentic.”
The alleged certification must be
scrutinized in the diyun. A private opinion, from unnamed experts with dubious
credentials, funded by one side of a dispute, cannot carry weight unless it’s
open to review, especially when multiple independent experts have declared the
letter to be a fabrication, and practically every native Russian consulted has
echoed this view. No expert is even claimed to have authenticated the letter
after being shown the complete array of angles that prove the letter to be
fraudulent, including the historical impossibility of two people with so many
matching details, the DNA tests, the usage of post-reform Russian in the
pre-reform era, and the insertion of extra paragraphs in the translation.
“A beis din met
the source of the Russian letter.”
This has all the markings of a forgery
backstory. A newly discovered granddaughter of a previously unknown (to anyone
in the extended family for 80 years) family branch appears once, presents a
pristinely preserved 1915 letter and refuses to ever appear again, as she is a
very private person. Her elderly grandmother, the supposed original source, is
unavailable for comment. The letter, translated by someone who inserted oddly
convenient paragraphs, contains exactly the points the matirim needed. Only desperation
would lead intelligent people to uncritically accept this concocted bubbe-meise
produced by an amateur noch-macher of Shloime Yehuda Friedlander.
This story further underscores the need
for transparency.
“The Russian
letter was never used for the psak.”
Untrue and irrelevant. The letter was
used to try to convince the Rav mentioned above, after he failed to be
convinced by all other arguments. Besides, if the forger managed to dupe the Rabbonim,
he likely deceived them with other lies, which is why the forged letter proves
that an independent transparent review of all the evidence is in order.
10.“If you are
not convinced about our history of the alternate Avraham Lashinsky, BHV will
share with you a secret about the family it cannot disclose publicly.”
Bring the secret, too, to the diyun,
where all alleged “secrets” will be easily proven utterly laughable to anybody
familiar with the family's history. Coming from figures already accused of
historical distortions, such claims only deepen the skepticism. Moreover, once
BHV have shifted from asserting an alternative family lineage involving a
second Avraham Lashinsky to relying on vague claims of undisclosed information,
it is only reasonable to pause and ask: who, then, forged the letter allegedly
written by the alternative Avraham Lashinsky—whose very existence you now
implicitly deny?
10. “BHV agreed to a diyun, but it collapsed when the panel
resigned.”
The record is more complicated. For over
a year, BHV refused any form of diyun, despite resignations and pressure from
multiple batei din. Only under an overwhelming threat did they agree to
negotiate terms. The family accepted every condition of the BHV, including that
the panel be selected exclusively from BHV’s preapproved list of 12 Rabbonim
(of which many were connected to the BHV or the dayanim). After finalizing
arrangements, a third-party individual, acting expressly against the family's
wishes, distributed material about the case. A member of the panel “somehow”
found out about this, and used it to withdraw, due to his discomfort with the
surrounding atmosphere. As the members of the panel have recently clarified,
this was not a rejection of the opposition’s arguments or credibility. In the
aftermath of their resignation, calls to continue toward a diyun went
unanswered (to this day).
11. “Why are we being persecuted?”
All the actions the BHV characterizes as
"redifos" are based on a single, widely-accepted principle:
individuals who are unelected and lack experience cannot reasonably expect to
be granted autonomy by Klal Yisrael to issue secretive psakim without oversight
or accountability. Once this is fully understood, it becomes clear that the
heter’s critics have, if anything, treated the individuals involved with
greater patience than the situation warranted.
12. “During the WZO tumult, this issue went to sleep, because the
tumult makers were too busy.”
Why does a fair question deserve a
cynical answer? During the WZO tumult, the two sides were negotiating over the
makeup of the diyun (see above). There was no need to campaign for something
while it was being given a chance.
13. “The leaders of the opposition are kana’im who seek to silence
anyone who disagrees with them.”
Unfounded spin. Typically, those intent
on “canceling” others avoid calls for transparency and instead rely on public
outcry to rally support for their stance. Contrast that with this case, where
the opposition to the BHV since the marriage—primarily a concerned family—has
consistently requested a fair and transparent hearing, while BHV appears to be
doing everything possible to avoid transparency. Rather than framing the issue
as a conflict between kana’im and rationalists, it is far more truthful to
describe it as scrutiny chasing a cover-up.
14. "Matters of this nature are best addressed privately, not
in the public arena."
Every
effort was made to resolve this matter discreetly; however, the BHV
demonstrated no willingness to engage in a sincere or constructive manner.
Furthermore, where rabbinic reputations
are established in the beis hamedrash, discussions of rabbinic reliability
ideally should be con ined to those hallowed halls. But in an age where a beis
din relies on glossy brochures and magazine columns to establish its
reputation, and rabbinic positions are awarded to self-promoters, one must ask:
what alternative remains besides public accountability to restrain unworthy
rabbinic contenders and to root out halachic corruption?
What is the path forward?
The Bais Havaad at its core is
inarguably a respectable mosad, that has done and has the potential to do much
good for Klal Yisrael, in Lakewood and beyond. The beginnings of the Bais
Havaad were filled with idealism, honest dialogue, and aspirations for
transparency and credibility in the beis din system.
But with its material success, ideology
is no longer its guiding force and its idealistic vision is being eroded. Good and reputable institutions are always
vulnerable to being hijacked by those who know how to exploit their structural
weaknesses, often accompanied by a projection of irreplaceability and
invincibility. Over time, unchecked behavior by such individuals tarnishes not
only their own reputations, but that of the mosad as a whole.
Today, the issue is not a halachic
disagreement over איסור
והיתר alone. It is chiefly about the integrity of facts. There are
credible, evidence-backed allegations of forgery and manipulation, and many
honest, serious, unbiased people are deeply concerned.
Which has brought our gedolim to
conclude that the only way to restore trust is through openness: either via
full information sharing with those who’ve studied the case in depth, or
through a proper, mutually agreed upon diyun, with fair representation on both
sides and שמוע בין
אחיכם guiding the process.
Through such a process, the Rabbonim and
gedolim will be able to diagnose where the virus in the Bais Havaad is and
treat it appropriately, so that once again the Bais Havaad can continue to
serve Klal Yisrael with trust and reputability.
ואשיבה שופטיך כבראשונ
ה – אחרי כ ן יקרא לך עיר הצדק קריה נאמנה
בכבוד ובידידו ת
Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Update: Per the instructions of the Lakewood establishment & the VAAD- no Lakewood, Rabonim, Dayonim, etc. signed on this kol koreh- (?שחוטי חוץ)
בס"ד
ד' תמוז תשפ"ה לפ"ק
הנה זה זמן ארוך מעת שנתבקשו
הרכב מחברי "בית הוועד דליקוואוד" ע"י גדולי הרבנים
וראשי כמה בתי דין לפרוש את השמלה לפני ב"ד המוסכם על כל
הצדדים בגונע לבירור העובדות שעל פיהם התירו ]או הכשילו אחרים להתיר[ גיורת לכהן,
ועד היום לא התקיים הדיון המבוקש.
לכן הננו לגלות דעתנו, שכעת שחברי ההרכב הנ"ל ממשיכים לשמש
כדיינים בבית דין הנ"ל ,מהיום ועד שיענו לדרישה הנ"ל במלואה, ויציעו כל
הדברים הנוגעים לבירור הנ"ל, באופן
המניח את דעתינו ובלי דחיות ואמתלאות, ביה"ד בית הוועד ד'ליקוואוד אינו בחזקת בית דין כשר , ואין חיוב להענות להזמנה שבא מהביה"ד ד"בית הוועד ליקוואוד", וכן כל שטר המעיד על מעשה ב"ד שיתכן שנעשה ע"י אחד מהדיינים הנ"ל ]כולל היתירי נישואין על פי הגיטין שיסדרו מהיום[ אינו בחזקת מעשה בית דין כשר ]ועי' בחזו"א )חו"מ ליקוטים סי' ב' סק"א וסק"ב.[
וע"ז באנו על החתום בצער רב,
שלמה אליהו מילר אלי' דב וכטפוגל אברהם דוב בהר"ר שריאל רוזנברג
יונה הלוי ברומברג אשר חשואל
שרגא פייבל הלוי זיממערמאן הק'
יצחק שטיין ישראל
שלומוביץ
הנני מצטרף לדברי הרבנים הנ"ל.
והנני להוסיף, שכבר דיברתי עם רבנים חשובים שיש להם השפעה על הועד, שדרכה של
תורה היא שכל אחד מביע את עמדתו בגלוי ואחרי שמלבנים את הדברים מגיעים לעמק השווה
)ועיין תוס'
ע"ז ז. ד"ה הנשבע, ועיין בקונטרס אור הישר בענין הגט מקליווא( ,וידוע
שמו"ר הגרי"ש יצא מגדרו ע"פ הרשב"ש סימן מ"ו אחרי שרב
אחד התיר ממזר במטמוניות. ועל כן בוודאי שיש להיענות לדרישת גדולי הרבנים לבוא
לדיון באופן המוסכם לכל הצדדים..
רב
שכונת נחום מעלות דפנה אייזנשטיין ירושלים
Will Moetzes allow Sholom K. to become a member? MK, will definitely try very hard to keep him out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)