בס"ד Concerning the גילוי דעת signed by five prominent רבנים of North-West London concerning one of the רבנים of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations (heretofore referred to as the Union). On line 2 they write that the Union is “at last in process of setting up a בית דין” which implies that they have been begging for the Union to set up a בית דין and the Union was dragging its feet. This is however far from the truth; the Rav concerned has agreed to a בית דין right from the start, and it was these very five רבנים who repeatedly pushed it off. As a matter of fact Rabbi W. was approached by many רבנים and laymen to ensure that a panel be set up right after the ימים טובים to which he responded that he’s going on holiday and will negotiate afterwards. (An email with the above response will be presented to the בית דין if necessary). After returning from holiday he was approached once again. This time he replied, “There is no point in a panel, since there is no evidence, and therefore I have nothing to do with the case anymore”. This proves that the signatories deliberately jeopardized all attempts at forming a mutually nominated בית דין for the case. Furthermore, on the Monday after the so-called “investigation and conclusion”, Rabbi E. agreed with the גאב"ד of the Union that should the Rav concerned step down from public position, he can continue to serve in his own Shul, and say Shiurim. Why did this decision drastically change retroactively only a couple of days later, as soon as the Union announced the forming of a בית דין? How does this fact concur with the signatories’ supposed desire that a בית דין shall be set up? On line 7 they write that a decision was taken “after painstaking and extensive investigations”. This, regretfully, is an awfully deceitful statement, since על פי תורה, and even להבדיל in legal action, true investigating must be done שמוע בין אחיכם, which in this case was not. The accused must be present and allowed to defend himself prior to any prejudices, and definitely a decision, being made. If a conclusion was made without the aforementioned condition, to the effect that the rav is currently not fit to serve in Rabbinic capacity, then this decision can in no way be upheld either in הלכה, nor in secular court. It holds no ground. No proper חקירה ודרישה according to דיני שלחן ערוך, or with experienced professionals, was ever conducted on the matter. Rabbi G. admitted that not only was there no fair trial, but there was no trial altogether; the conclusion was made prior to the Rav’s appearance, based on the allegations! Without kosher עדים, lies and exaggerations were accepted and used with clear intent to destroy the reputation of the Rav. Furthermore, if the decision was already made prior to the ‘trial’, why was the Rav called upon at all? Was he summoned just so they can present a façade of a trial? It is also worth mentioning, that Rabbi K. expressed to the Rav at this session, his heavy heart against him because of the milk issue etc. Can such an outspoken foe judge objectively? The tactics employed to destroy the Rav, by forcing מתפללים to leave his Shul and by pressuring all shuls to publicly display the above mentioned document, even those who are not affiliated with the London Beth Din, is reminiscent of tactics employed by authoritarian dictators when somebody dares question their rulings. If you wish to appeal the ruling you are welcome to do so, but you’ll be destroyed before you reach the appeals court!
In light of the above we can therefore safely assume that the רבנים involved in coming to the disparaging decision, have personal נגיעות against the accused, whilst others are against the Union in general for various reasons, such as the heated dispute over the עירוב. Perhaps this is also just a continuation of the Manchester מחלוקת over 20 years ago, when the מרא דאתרא was similarly pressured to leave town with the help of one of these signatories. In paragraph 3, the five רבנים further state that “whatever the motivation of the proposed בית דין, and whatever it may conclude…” their own conclusion calling for the immediate withdrawal of the Rav still stands. גדולי ישראל have decreed that על פי תורה, the correct way to proceed with the matter was to set up a בית דין. It takes lots of gumption to suspect that such a בית דין would have motives other than to come out with the ultimate truth עפ"י צדק ויושר. Continuing with the statement in paragraph 3, that whatever the בית דין will concur, “We are in no doubt as to the veracity of our own conclusion that the grave allegations warrant immediate withdrawal…” brings us to question. Why would they not accept a פסק from the בית דין? The document claims that the signatories purportedly desired all along that a בית דין shall be formed? Didn’t Rabbi W. agree to this with the גאב"ד and other רבנים in a meeting at his house (being unwell to travel to the גאב"ד, after having been up Thursday night till the wee hours of the morning at one of the famous meetings)? The idea in itself that רבנים should state that no investigation or conclusion will change their decision, is neither rational nor democratic. It brings to mind the proverb “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind”. Moreover, since the document repeatedly refers to allegations, indicating that nothing has been proven further than allegations (out of fear of a slander lawsuit this had to be admitted), then why are they not waiting breathlessly themselves for the panel’s finding on these unproven allegations. Does it make sense that רבנים who cannot identify their findings any more compelling than allegations, should choose to uphold their conclusion albeit on non comparative fact findings? Do these רבנים perhaps fear that the בית דין might exonerate the Rav completely? Are they afraid that they may have to admit that they erred, and in doing so destroyed the reputation of a reputable Rav and his entire family, in addition to generating an outrageous חילול השם? In paragraph 4 the five רבנים are “disheartened by the totally erroneous perception created by troublemakers… that they are creating a battle between the various kehillah organizations”. Perception?! After all the above clarifications on the way they dealt with the issue, is it not clear that it is the five רבניםwho have a hidden agenda and wish to besmirch the Union, either to settle a score on the issue of the עירוב, or for personal נגיעות these רבנים have to denigrate the accused Rav. There remains no other explicable reason for the unethical and unhalachic manner in which the five רבנים conducted themselves on this particular matter. The undersigned רבנים write in paragraph 6, that they took every precaution to prevent מחלוקת and רכילות from spreading, and regret and condemn the “inappropriate and inaccurate manner in which certain individuals have aired their views” on the matter. I wish to bring to attention that the individual guilty of spreading lies on the internet and in the media is alleged to none other than a close associate of Rabbi W.! (and a Mispallel of Rabbi F.)
Last but not least, they mention in paragraph 4, their desire to “see אחדות and merging of all קהילות in North-West London into one united body for the benefit of our families…”. Under whose guidance? For whose benefit? Let us go back in history to the first forty or fifty years post World War II. Who built up yiddishkeit in North West London? Who built the mikvaos? Who initiated חלב ישראל? Who created the Bais Yaakov schools, and the חדרים? Who introduced our bochurim to ישיבות? Who implemented and rallied for צניעות? The Union along with the London Beth Din. At the same time there were many prominent דיינים in North-West London, for example Dayan Swift z”l, and Dayan Grossnass z”l, who were at all times accorded the greatest honor as befitting such legendary תלמידי חכמים. No individual or organization in that era ever quarreled with them and never was there מחלוקת or פירוד לבבות. The first one to unfortunately launch a מחלוקת in the previously united community was one of the undersigned רבנים! Shall we stand idly by as he lectures us about unity and spills crocodile tears over the לשון הרע, or מחלוקת caused in this case? And while אחדות is mentioned, it is noteworthy that the אחדות that suddenly formed between Rabbi E. and Rabbi L. smacks of נתחברו מואב עם מדין; conflicting sides uniting to combat a common enemy. The fact that Rabbi E. testified against Rabbi L. in secular court is no longer relevant due to the issue of greater importance, namely ridding NW London of the influence of the Union. It is common public knowledge that the five undersigned רבנים each have agenda’s of their own in this deliberate dispute, and it was most certainly not publicized לשם שמים. Its goal is to try to remove the Rav from North-West London, and ultimately undermine the entire Union, so that it should not be more powerful than them. They go so far as to insinuate that they wish to see the merging of all Shuls in North-West London to be united into one body under one power only; namely theirs. Is it mere coincidence that their conclusion was publicized only one week prior to the announcement of the completion of a new Shechitah under the supervision of Rabbi K., or perhaps was the allegation and decision preplanned for commercial reasons? After all, it is an old trick successfully used by pre WWI Anglo Jewry to rid itself of an acknowledged frum Rav, by spreading allegation of misconduct (as attested to in the memoirs of the London Rabbi Ferber z”l at the time). All this sheds light on the only viable reason they saw it fit to get involved in the matter to begin with, when the Rav is not under their jurisdiction, they were never called on to intervene, and the Union was assiduously looking into the matter. The פסוק tells us that אבימלך said to יצחק: "לך ממנו כי עצמת מאוד" (Take leave from me as you have overpowered me.)
הקנאה התאוה והכבוד מוציאין את האדם מן העולם השנאה מקלקלת את השורה ודי למבין
Have you spoken to anyone involved??? ... Probably not!!
Well I did !! And guess what !! it was not any one of the Rabonim in GG, it was a very respectable Rabbi from outside of the UK who is in contact with one of the victims.
Anglo Jewry knows his stuff, whatever the truth is, he makes a very good case. I think there is another issue here. The old-timers, choshuve rabbonim who earned a livelihood from traditional but not Sabbath observing kehilos, but whose hearts were at one with the herliche yidden were happy with their portion in life. Some noted rabbonim today are bitter over theirs. Until recently no London Beth Din dayan made his own private shtiebel, nor would it have been tolerated. Either they served as rabbis of United Synagogue congregations or had no synagogal role. But that is not enough for today's successors, they need to daven in prestige minyanim which they control. And when a yeshivishe rov has a nice quiet minyan of Bnei Torah but has a chance to gain control over a Federation synagogue, and is blessed with family funding and a position in a yeshiva it is not enough for him. He needs to be recognized by the Adass and Kedassia and if he cannot get all the kavod he needs, he'll put his name on milk bottles.... whatever it takes
בס"ד
ReplyDeleteConcerning the גילוי דעת signed by five prominent רבנים of North-West London concerning one of the רבנים of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations (heretofore referred to as the Union).
On line 2 they write that the Union is “at last in process of setting up a בית דין” which implies that they have been begging for the Union to set up a בית דין and the Union was dragging its feet. This is however far from the truth; the Rav concerned has agreed to a בית דין right from the start, and it was these very five רבנים who repeatedly pushed it off.
As a matter of fact Rabbi W. was approached by many רבנים and laymen to ensure that a panel be set up right after the ימים טובים to which he responded that he’s going on holiday and will negotiate afterwards. (An email with the above response will be presented to the בית דין if necessary). After returning from holiday he was approached once again. This time he replied, “There is no point in a panel, since there is no evidence, and therefore I have nothing to do with the case anymore”. This proves that the signatories deliberately jeopardized all attempts at forming a mutually nominated בית דין for the case.
Furthermore, on the Monday after the so-called “investigation and conclusion”, Rabbi E. agreed with the גאב"ד of the Union that should the Rav concerned step down from public position, he can continue to serve in his own Shul, and say Shiurim. Why did this decision drastically change retroactively only a couple of days later, as soon as the Union announced the forming of a בית דין? How does this fact concur with the signatories’ supposed desire that a בית דין shall be set up?
On line 7 they write that a decision was taken “after painstaking and extensive investigations”. This, regretfully, is an awfully deceitful statement, since על פי תורה, and even להבדיל in legal action, true investigating must be done שמוע בין אחיכם, which in this case was not. The accused must be present and allowed to defend himself prior to any prejudices, and definitely a decision, being made. If a conclusion was made without the aforementioned condition, to the effect that the rav is currently not fit to serve in Rabbinic capacity, then this decision can in no way be upheld either in הלכה, nor in secular court. It holds no ground. No proper חקירה ודרישה according to דיני שלחן ערוך, or with experienced professionals, was ever conducted on the matter.
Rabbi G. admitted that not only was there no fair trial, but there was no trial altogether; the conclusion was made prior to the Rav’s appearance, based on the allegations! Without kosher עדים, lies and exaggerations were accepted and used with clear intent to destroy the reputation of the Rav. Furthermore, if the decision was already made prior to the ‘trial’, why was the Rav called upon at all? Was he summoned just so they can present a façade of a trial? It is also worth mentioning, that Rabbi K. expressed to the Rav at this session, his heavy heart against him because of the milk issue etc. Can such an outspoken foe judge objectively?
The tactics employed to destroy the Rav, by forcing מתפללים to leave his Shul and by pressuring all shuls to publicly display the above mentioned document, even those who are not affiliated with the London Beth Din, is reminiscent of tactics employed by authoritarian dictators when somebody dares question their rulings. If you wish to appeal the ruling you are welcome to do so, but you’ll be destroyed before you reach the appeals court!
In light of the above we can therefore safely assume that the רבנים involved in coming to the disparaging decision, have personal נגיעות against the accused, whilst others are against the Union in general for various reasons, such as the heated dispute over the עירוב. Perhaps this is also just a continuation of the Manchester מחלוקת over 20 years ago, when the מרא דאתרא was similarly pressured to leave town with the help of one of these signatories.
ReplyDeleteIn paragraph 3, the five רבנים further state that “whatever the motivation of the proposed בית דין, and whatever it may conclude…” their own conclusion calling for the immediate withdrawal of the Rav still stands. גדולי ישראל have decreed that על פי תורה, the correct way to proceed with the matter was to set up a בית דין. It takes lots of gumption to suspect that such a בית דין would have motives other than to come out with the ultimate truth עפ"י צדק ויושר.
Continuing with the statement in paragraph 3, that whatever the בית דין will concur, “We are in no doubt as to the veracity of our own conclusion that the grave allegations warrant immediate withdrawal…” brings us to question. Why would they not accept a פסק from the בית דין? The document claims that the signatories purportedly desired all along that a בית דין shall be formed? Didn’t Rabbi W. agree to this with the גאב"ד and other רבנים in a meeting at his house (being unwell to travel to the גאב"ד, after having been up Thursday night till the wee hours of the morning at one of the famous meetings)?
The idea in itself that רבנים should state that no investigation or conclusion will change their decision, is neither rational nor democratic. It brings to mind the proverb “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind”. Moreover, since the document repeatedly refers to allegations, indicating that nothing has been proven further than allegations (out of fear of a slander lawsuit this had to be admitted), then why are they not waiting breathlessly themselves for the panel’s finding on these unproven allegations. Does it make sense that רבנים who cannot identify their findings any more compelling than allegations, should choose to uphold their conclusion albeit on non comparative fact findings? Do these רבנים perhaps fear that the בית דין might exonerate the Rav completely? Are they afraid that they may have to admit that they erred, and in doing so destroyed the reputation of a reputable Rav and his entire family, in addition to generating an outrageous חילול השם?
In paragraph 4 the five רבנים are “disheartened by the totally erroneous perception created by troublemakers… that they are creating a battle between the various kehillah organizations”. Perception?! After all the above clarifications on the way they dealt with the issue, is it not clear that it is the five רבניםwho have a hidden agenda and wish to besmirch the Union, either to settle a score on the issue of the עירוב, or for personal נגיעות these רבנים have to denigrate the accused Rav. There remains no other explicable reason for the unethical and unhalachic manner in which the five רבנים conducted themselves on this particular matter.
The undersigned רבנים write in paragraph 6, that they took every precaution to prevent מחלוקת and רכילות from spreading, and regret and condemn the “inappropriate and inaccurate manner in which certain individuals have aired their views” on the matter. I wish to bring to attention that the individual guilty of spreading lies on the internet and in the media is alleged to none other than a close associate of Rabbi W.! (and a Mispallel of Rabbi F.)
Last but not least, they mention in paragraph 4, their desire to “see אחדות and merging of all קהילות in North-West London into one united body for the benefit of our families…”. Under whose guidance? For whose benefit? Let us go back in history to the first forty or fifty years post World War II. Who built up yiddishkeit in North West London? Who built the mikvaos? Who initiated חלב ישראל? Who created the Bais Yaakov schools, and the חדרים? Who introduced our bochurim to ישיבות? Who implemented and rallied for צניעות? The Union along with the London Beth Din.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time there were many prominent דיינים in North-West London, for example Dayan Swift z”l, and Dayan Grossnass z”l, who were at all times accorded the greatest honor as befitting such legendary תלמידי חכמים. No individual or organization in that era ever quarreled with them and never was there מחלוקת or פירוד לבבות.
The first one to unfortunately launch a מחלוקת in the previously united community was one of the undersigned רבנים! Shall we stand idly by as he lectures us about unity and spills crocodile tears over the לשון הרע, or מחלוקת caused in this case? And while אחדות is mentioned, it is noteworthy that the אחדות that suddenly formed between Rabbi E. and Rabbi L. smacks of נתחברו מואב עם מדין; conflicting sides uniting to combat a common enemy. The fact that Rabbi E. testified against Rabbi L. in secular court is no longer relevant due to the issue of greater importance, namely ridding NW London of the influence of the Union.
It is common public knowledge that the five undersigned רבנים each have agenda’s of their own in this deliberate dispute, and it was most certainly not publicized לשם שמים. Its goal is to try to remove the Rav from North-West London, and ultimately undermine the entire Union, so that it should not be more powerful than them. They go so far as to insinuate that they wish to see the merging of all Shuls in North-West London to be united into one body under one power only; namely theirs. Is it mere coincidence that their conclusion was publicized only one week prior to the announcement of the completion of a new Shechitah under the supervision of Rabbi K., or perhaps was the allegation and decision preplanned for commercial reasons? After all, it is an old trick successfully used by pre WWI Anglo Jewry to rid itself of an acknowledged frum Rav, by spreading allegation of misconduct (as attested to in the memoirs of the London Rabbi Ferber z”l at the time).
All this sheds light on the only viable reason they saw it fit to get involved in the matter to begin with, when the Rav is not under their jurisdiction, they were never called on to intervene, and the Union was assiduously looking into the matter. The פסוק tells us that אבימלך said to יצחק: "לך ממנו כי עצמת מאוד" (Take leave from me as you have overpowered me.)
הקנאה התאוה והכבוד מוציאין את האדם מן העולם
השנאה מקלקלת את השורה
ודי למבין
Anglo Jewry
DeleteHave you spoken to anyone involved??? ... Probably not!!
Well I did !! And guess what !! it was not any one of the Rabonim in GG, it was a very respectable Rabbi from outside of the UK who is in contact with one of the victims.
It is shocking how MH behaves!!
http://gabylocksworld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/sex-in-community.html
ReplyDeleteBla Bla Bla...
ReplyDeleteIt is all Halpern scum ...
The scary thing is that they think that right minded people are buying it !!
Anglo Jewry knows his stuff, whatever the truth is, he makes a very good case. I think there is another issue here. The old-timers, choshuve rabbonim who earned a livelihood from traditional but not Sabbath observing kehilos, but whose hearts were at one with the herliche yidden were happy with their portion in life. Some noted rabbonim today are bitter over theirs. Until recently no London Beth Din dayan made his own private shtiebel, nor would it have been tolerated. Either they served as rabbis of United Synagogue congregations or had no synagogal role. But that is not enough for today's successors, they need to daven in prestige minyanim which they control. And when a yeshivishe rov has a nice quiet minyan of Bnei Torah but has a chance to gain control over a Federation synagogue, and is blessed with family funding and a position in a yeshiva it is not enough for him. He needs to be recognized by the Adass and Kedassia and if he cannot get all the kavod he needs, he'll put his name on milk bottles.... whatever it takes
Delete