Total Pageviews


Tuesday, 23 September 2014

ליצן ליצנות - Man hits back at Jewish gender-segregating posters in Stamford Hill with video campaign


Finsbury Park resident Sam Aldersly has hit back after reading about the controversy surrounding posters in Stamford Hill, telling women which side of the road to walk on during a Jewish religious parade, in a unique way.
The 26-year-old filmmaker printed his own posters with the words “Women please feel free to walk wherever you want…it’s 2014” and pinned them around the Stamford Hill area.
He then filmed a video, shared on Youtube, detailing the reactions of several orthodox Jewish men and children, looking around and then taking the posters down.
Sam said: “It was quite interesting as they were taking them down pretty quickly. They were mainly men but there was a woman who took one down that I wasn’t quick enough to capture on camera.
“I think they were taking them down definitely for other reasons rather than litter. They were reading and looked angry afterwards while walking down the street.”
Sam said he put the posters up mainly to send a message.
He said: “I’m not a massive fan of religion in the first place because it has topics that class woman as second class citizens. I think even separating genders is a bad thing.”
Sam added that it took “literally minutes” for 30 of his posters to be taken down.


  1. An open letter to Rabbi Pinchos Roberts shlito:

    Rabbi Roberts,

    In your droshoh this past shabbos morning you forcefully condemned the NW London Eruv.

    While nobody can begrudge your right to hold an opinion and to promote it as you see fit, the tzibbur is entitled to know that the "facts" as you presented them were a slanderous mix of half-truths and deceptive omissions.

    You conveniently neglected to mention that the London eruv is mentioned in the teshuvos of only one of the great poskim of the past generation: the Tzitz Eliezer zt"l, who wrote that it was a "chiyuv" to establish the eruv, and that no attention should be paid to its detractors.

    You cited R. Aharon Kotler zt"l in your support, yet once again, you conveniently neglected to mention that he was opposed to eruvin in even the smallest of towns, and that the minhag has clearly never been like him. If his view is not accepted in Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak (nor was it in Vilna, Brisk or Warsaw), then why do you scurrilously accuse the LBD of promoting chillul shabbos by not adhering to it here?

    You claimed that your sense of responsibility to the kehilloh does not allow you to remain silent, despite the fact that your view on the eruv is already widely known. Yet where was this sense of responsibility over the last two and a half years, when you left it to others to take action regarding a case that was clearly within your remit? Where was it when, after finding a then-influential rov engaged in inappropriate behaviour with married women over a decade ago, you sufficed with his verbal assurances that such misconduct would cease, yet, as you yourself admitted in writing, you never once sought to ascertain whether this commitment had been adhered to, as indeed it was not?

    Whilst it pains us to point this out, the contrast between your alacrity in publicly denouncing the eruv and your outright refusal to do the same when it came to a well-connected rabbinic impostor engaged in the most heinous aveiros speaks for itself.

    With great tzaar,

    Toshvei NW London

  2. ‎Dear "Toshvei NW London",
    Your own open letter is a "slanderous mix of half-truths and deceptive omissions"

    ‎(1) You claim Rabbi Roberts "refused to speak out against C.H". This is not true. He did speak out against C.H. I agree with you that he should have been more outspoken but I accept his explanation that he did not want to cause more harm than necessary to C.H esteemed father. 

    (2) Tzitz Eliezer did not say that there is a "chiyuv" to establish a halachicly problematic eruv!

    (3) R'Ahron Kotler was not, as you falsely claim, against ALL eruvim even in small towns. He allowed an Eruv in Lakewood!

    Most of the "toshvei NW london" were moved by Rabbi Robert's heartfelt sincerity and profound expertise shown at both his droshas on shabbos. 
    It is a shame that you are too vindictive and ignorant to appreciate it. 

    With great tzaar,

    Bnei Torah NW London. ‎

    1. Rb Roberts did not speak out against a local rov who is alleged to have committed vile acts. He cryptically alluded to some irregular behaviour, which could have been about anyone, in any place and at anytime. When discussing a certain resident of Bridge Lane publically, he barely fell short of canonising him.

      My  father is an esteemed man. Therefore I can go about raping women at will, and no one may speak out against me least they cause more harm than necessary to my father? Or is there a flaw, competing with the Grand Canyon in size, to your argument? 

      And then you have the audacity to include yourself in the category of Bnei Torah.

      The Tzitz Eliezer and Rb A Kotler are not Poskim for London, the TE was not the first to say it is a Chiyuv to put up the eiruv. Numerous poskim of yesteryear cite the obligation on the beis din of a town to erect an eiruv, and build a mikvah (which NW London is also awaiting). Rav A Kotler did not survey this part of London (neither did any of the 'Poskim' who  oppose the eiruv), and was not in a position to pasken on its kashrus. He may have held shittos about eiruvin in general, and every individual is free to choose to follow a chumra or hanhoga, and not to use the eiruv personally,  but that is a far cry from the rhetoric spouted from the Adass pulpit. 

      You then add insult to injury by stating that it is a halachically problematic eiruv, and one which the TE did not include in his chiyuv. 

      Fortunately for you, nobody will ever be able to classify you as an apikores, for your great ignorance - which is of epic proportions - saves you from such a fate. 

      No different to any large scale eiruv, there where challenges to overcome, but the eiruv as it stands today is one of the most - if not the most - kosher lmehadrin eiruvin in the world. 

      And your final comments are equally as ridiculous as all else you have stated.  Believe it or not, whilst there are 2 times every year that Rb P Roberts reverses his work of 40 years, and gets to fill the seats of the Adass. Nevertheless,  the audience he managed to muster is barely a percentage of the "toshvei NW London", and certainly nowhere near approaching even 51%, which is the minimum requirement to boast that MOST OF. .., 

      So please take your great tzaar and stick it with your ignorance, preferably away from the public arena.

    2. Bnei Torah, I've got the Tzitz Eliezer's teshuva (19:17) open in front of me. It is written to Rabbi Kimche and, as far as I can tell, he writes exactly what Toshvei NW London said he did. Unless "vegam ika chiyuva lehaskin ha'eruv kefi hamutza" means something different in your parralel universe. So who's the liar now?

  3. am ha-aretz of NW London28 September 2014 at 19:25

    Interesting Mr Ben Torah!

    You dismiss the small point of not doing enough to stop CH doing his tumahdikah aveiros as not to offend his father.

    Since when do we worry about the defendants family. We should have one goal, to protect the victims. If EH nebach suffers when CH got exposed to bad!

    I am very sorry, victims kept on being abused till very recently.

    Our only concern must be to protect victims.

  4. You ain't no ben torah28 September 2014 at 19:32

    Anonymous / ignorant -

    "More harm than necessary"? What a laugh. He did nothing and stopped every effort to condemn him. CH is still going strong because of Rabbi Roberts' refusal to act. Putting Reb Chuna before the welfare of the tzibbur is exactly it.

    The Tzitz Eliezer very much wrote that it is a chiyuv to establish the North West London eruv, so he obviously didn't agree with Rabbi Roberts that there's a reshus horabbim problem here.

    What nonsense you write about Lakewood - there is no eruv there until this day. Have you ever actually opened his teshuvos in Mishnas Reb Aharon or are you just making stuff up for the fun of it?

    Er, the only thing most people were moved to is to look forward to the day that this bitter, vindictive and pathetic man will finally leave us.

  5. To the pair of you!
    Quiet frankly no one gives a hoot what Mr Roberts spoke about, if you do not agree with him then just knock on his door and have it out like a man.
    This site is about preventing children or adults ,having awareness of the current pedophiles that are roaming the streets of golders green and Stamford Hill,
    Married women, I am sure u are all fully aware the danger that CH prosesses.
    Boys girls and bochurim be very careful of this midage fellow YK, he has harmed many others, always watch over your sholders.
    He is an extremely dangerous man.

    Someone has never been to Lakewood!

    1. You ain't no ben today28 September 2014 at 20:11

      Yes, you apparently. There are small eruvin, but no Lakewood eruv, and the Lakewood rabbonim recently opposed an effort to create one.

    2. Correct. They are anti eruv there despite the fact that the town has only 100 000 people in total, so no shishim riboi shailah. Of course, it's clear that those who hold of the eruv in Benei Berak or Yerusholoyim don't go with this shiteh. See here for Lakewood anti-eruv letter:

  7. ‎So now you concede that there ARE eruvin in Lakewood but claim they "are small"!
    What exactly is your personal definition of a "small eruv"?!
    Stop making a fool out of yourself. Like the post above said (although obviously written by a bitter rude individual): if you have a problem with Rabbi Roberts go talk to him yourself. 
    Just don't post "open letters" that are full of lies and display your ignorance. ‎

    1. You ain't no ben torah28 September 2014 at 21:09

      The only person making a fool out of themselves is you. Lakewood does not have shishim ribo according to anyone's definition, yet the rabbonim there are opposed to a shtot eruv because of R. Aharon's shita - so unless you can tell me why Lakewood, with under 100 thousand residents, is halachically worse than Warsaw, Vilna and Yerushalayim, R. Roberts' critique of the NW London eruv for "not adhering to R. Aharon's shita" is ridiculous. If Rabbi Roberts would have had anything worthwhile to add to the halachic discussion surrounding the London eruv, he could have done so at any point over the last 30 years.

    2. There are big differences between eruvim on single streets and city eruvin. (not that it matters in this discussion - R' Roberts thinks meseches eruvin is about as relevant as me'ila)

    3. A good part of Lakewood has an eruv, under auspices of the Congregation Sons Of Israel which preceded R' Aaron Zatzal.
      It is true that when the Eruv was made (by Rabbi Moshe Tendler & others) the Roshei Yeshiva & many local Rabonim signed a letter asking their community not to rely on it.(they didn't say it was posul). Yet anyone making airuvei Chazeiros in the area covered by that eruv does not make a brocho.
      It is worth checking your facts about the Lakewood eruv, & there is adifference between asking people nicely to respect the will of the Rosh Yeshia Zatzal, & outright banning an eruv.

  8. Ex - H.A. youth minyan-ite28 September 2014 at 22:13

    I question the value of an anonymous open letter but the point is well made. R' Roberts is no doubt a yarei shomayim, a gifted orator and a good lamden; but he has been a dismal kehilla rov and has made no significant positive contribution to NW London that I can think of. Instead, his legacy is that he managed to slowly empty the seats of his enormous shul. He will be remembered for his farcically fierce opposition to the eruv and for being the catalyst in the creation of 3-4 flourishing kehillas in Hendon whilst his dwindles.

  9. You (and Rav Roberts) simply miss the point. Rav Aharon does not subscribe to the shita of shishim ribo. Accordingly, Rav Aharon would not allow an eruv to be erected if it crosses a public street that is more than sixteen amos wide. Hence, most of the eruvin established in Lakewood are in opposition to Rav Aharon’s opinion. Consequently, if eruvin can be established in Lakewood, even though they do not follow Rav Aharon’s shitos an eruv can surely be established in GG, as well.

  10. Rb Roberts, on a personal level, is probably a sincere erlicher yid. As a communal rabbi, he is an unmitigated disaster.

    He has held a personal vendetta against one of the local community rabbonim, who carried out his job diligently and with remarkable successful results. Instead of taking the challenge of a little competition, and getting down to carry out the job he was hired, and continues to neglect, to do, RR found it appropriate to find fault with the eiruv, and mustered the clout of the bully boys of the Halpern family, to have the eiruv outlawed.

    His vendetta continues, and in order to maintain support for his anti-eiruv stance, he was obliged to tread softly, and issue the flimsiest of reprimands, followed by continued support, of the only family who sides with him on the eiruv and - remarkably - maintains the public awe. (But the Halpern family is an entirely different chapter).

    The only community beneficial act that RPR has taken in the last 50 years, is tending his resignation. And even that he has schlepped out over a period of time without a final date.

    I feel like shouting at him "Be a man, if you're going, then go!" But then if he was a man, we wouldn't be in this situation, now.

    1. tendering, not tending.

  11. Another Am Ho'oretz29 September 2014 at 12:08

    It should be pointed out that neither Rav Halpern or Rav Roberts are "moroh d'asra" of NW London and acceptance of their rulings is voluntary. Many eminent NW London Rabbonim including, but certainly not only, Rav Ehrentreu say that it is 100% kosher. It appears to be a simple machlokes haposkim and since no major undisputed world authority has come out either way it appears to be a case of "ovid ke'mar ovid" etc.

    UOHC Rabbonim appears to have got themselves into a bit tizzy here. On the one hand they say that the pro-eruv Rabbonim are be'mayzid machshil a tzibbur in chillul Shabbos de'oyraisoh, yet consistently Kedassia (a UOHC offshoot) consistently use LBD hechsher ingredients in their manufactured products which (believe this!) have a Kedassia hechsher logo on the packet.

    Even worse they will unquestioningly allow a divorcee to remarry under UOHC auspices on confirmation that her GET was done by LBD i.e. Rav Ehrentreu's beis din.

  12. Mate, its all about MONEY MONEY MONEY.

    1. Another Am Ho'oretz.29 September 2014 at 14:45

      The eruv was about power!
      The UOHC for some reason which they won't, or can't, tell us refuse point blank to make or permit an eruv in Stamford Hill even though it is halachakly perfectly viable and indeed roidef anybody who tries to.

      Had the NW eruv gone ahead with their (even only implicit i.e. silent) approval they would have been completely screwed. The main reason for their opposition to the NW eruv is because of the likely Stamford Hill ripple effect.

    2. Another AH, it's just the reverse. The UOHC opposed the NW eiruv first. This reverts back to the days when it was first proposed by a "young upstart" rov who was brought to London to lead a tiny community, which has since grown to be the largest mokom torah in Europe. When that rov proposed the eiruv there was almost unanimous approval of the proposal by all the local rabbonim, from every denomination. Rb E Halpern was quick to point out that this has been a long time ambition of his, and referred to a booklet he published some 20 years earlier promoting an eiruv of even greater ambition.

      There were indeed just 2 objectors, Rb Feldman of the GGBH, on the grounds that they stick to the minhogim as they were established when arriving in the UK from Frankfurt and that they are a completely independent kehillo. The other objection came from RPR, ostensibly on the grounds that with an eiruv shabbos would evolve into a sports day of football in the park. (He couldn't jolly well say because Rb AK proposed it I automatically object). When news of the objection to the eiruv broke, it was a matter of hours before almost every bumper in nw London had the iconic white and red "We want the eiruv now" sticker.

      RPR took this as a further personal affront, and ran crying to REH that the eiruv issue has already started to detract from his kovod, as a rov he is entitled to object to a project (which he did with great frequency) and balei batim who organise a bumper sticker campaign are being mevazeh him as a rov.

      It was at this point that REH turned 180, and became the leader of the no campaign. He bullied all the charedi-type rabbonim to go with the no party. When someone dared point out that it may be a kosher eiruv so on what grounds will he tell his flock not to use it? REH then moved up the food chain and got Rav Padwa to pasken against it. Thus the Cheshev Ho'efoid paskened that he opposes the eiruv because his predecessors hadn't seen fit to erect one etc. etc.

      That remained the status quo for a number of years. Until some bright sparks decided to erect an eiruv in N London. REH warned the incumbent rov that if he dares permit an eiruv in SH, that would undermine his father's ruling for GG. Therefore, there is no eiruv in North London.

    3. Reb Chuna's original teshuva in favour of a large London eruv can be found on page 263 of the following PDF:

      What's interesting is that he makes many of the arguments that his porcine son was later to publicly castigate R. Kimche for. Apparently mefulash meant straight when R. Chuna was writing but forty years later its meaning had changed. And sechiras reshus from London officials was OK in the sixties, but not when Dayan E did it. I'm amazed these clowns got away with antics like this for so long.

    4. you have an agenda30 September 2014 at 09:45

      Pi HaOson (or just oson) you clearly have a serious anti Halpern agenda. REH didn't turn a 180 and lead the anti Eruv cabal. RPR was the one who persuaded RHP that they either back him on the Eruv or lose NW London forever and since PRP was always seen as the foremost Kedassia Posek of the area and the one that every Rov followed, they backed him.
      It was one of REH sons who then lived in Stamford Hill who led the anti Eruv cabal, on behalf of Kedassia, not his father. REH has always said publicly and privately that he's relying his sons with regards to Eruvim.

    5. Another Am Ho'oretz30 September 2014 at 09:55

      Pi Ha'osoin (should be spelt with tav. with a samech it means an accident:-)

      An eiruv was proposed in Stamford Hill many years ago. I remember it. It was before I was married so it must be at least 30 years ago. HaRav Padwa z"l immediately objected to it in the strongest possible terms and to his last day never deviated. He was asked several times why but always managed to evade giving a clear answer. He never said it was because of safek reshus harabbim de'oyraisah (He was a great gaon and would never say something against the halacha.

  13. The main issue with R. Roberts is that this name-dropping is just devious and seeks to take advantage of gullible baalei batim. There are an untold number of issues in Hilchos Shabbos where there are disputes between najor poskim regarding issurim min ha-torah (from baby wipes to bottle tops) and no rov has ever felt the need to protest incessantly against the ruling of a Beth Din because they assume a more lenient position. The same could be found with keddasia. This whole eruv debacle is so ridiculous.

    1. Another Am Ho'oretz1 October 2014 at 09:22

      Kedassia consistently come out with attacks and protests etc. against any other hechsher or ruling that comes out in Stamford Hill.

      Here are just 3 many.
      1. Herczl's yoghurt
      2. The milk debacle.
      3. The Pesahdig foil dish covers.

      There's plenty more.

    2. They also pasken that tinned corn, & salmon, to mention just a couple, are oleh al shulchan Melachim.

      I suppose if you go along with the adage: mun malkoh? Rabbonon, they're probably right. However, if you look at the halachic definition, either a wedding seudah, or a royal banquet, you'd have to move to some forsaken village in Nigeria to find such foodstuffs presented at either a royal or wedding feast.

      I also have recollections of John West tuna being unacceptable and then suddenly, and without any changes to their fishing or canning methods, they bore the keddassia hechsher, and you could eat all the JW tuna you wanted to, at twice the price.

    3. Actually this is not true. UOHC/Kedassia never said canned tuna is unacceptable. In fact for many years it was possible to buy in London canned tuna with Eda Haredit or OU hechsher.

      About 10 years ago Kedassia decided they also wanted to get in on the act (thar's money out there!) so in partnership with a minor Kedassia licencee they did a Kedassia only tuna production in the far East. It appears to have been successful as since then they have done several runs and Kedassia canned tuna has been widely available.
      To be fair, the higher price is, at least in part, due to the high cost of sending mashgichim to Thailand, Philipines or Indonesia and on top of that Kedassia NEVER give a hechsher to anything unless it results in a considerable swelling of their already overstuffed coffers.

      Incidentally, even now, the Eda and OU tuna is cheaper than the Kedassia.

    4. John West Tuna brand, did not make any 'special production' for kedassia. Kosher caterers at food manufacturers were happily using it for years. Then, one day, out of the blue, it was stopped by kedassia - it was problematic. Not many decades later, the same tuna bearing a kedassia hechsher was marketed, at a ridiculously higher price.

      I assure you that any halachic problems JW had before, remain today. And there is no difference in the catching or canning of JW kedassia certified tuna to their uncertified tuna - other than the price.

  14. Imagine if I refused to attend someone's function because someone I didn't like was in attendance. I would rightfully be told to stop being such an obstinate, childish idiot. Yet Rabbi Roberts has done exactly this for decades (look at the way he snubs Rav Kimche, for example) and he is somehow considered a paragon of holiness. I suspect religion has nothing to do with his consistently awful behaviour. He'd probably have been equally obnoxious (and NW London far better off) had he never left Liverpool for Gateshead.

    1. But then Liverpool might be head of the premier league. Nothing is worth that.

  15. The bottom line is Tell Your Children To Be Very Careful With Whom They Speak To,
    As It's A Matter Of Time Before YK Does More Damage.


  17. Lamaan your children's safety - we need a concerted education program in place to train the Rabbonim to 1) recognise 2) deal with - abuse

  18. I would like to ask mechila in public from Mr CH for always considering you as a Rov,
    I hope you forgive me.

    1. That's not a matter for forgiveness. It's a case of stupidity.

  19. Anonymous - before getting rabbonim to recognise abuse we need to make sure that people recognise the rabbonim who are abusers. It's scandalous that all the supporters of Chaim Aharon Tzvi Halpern shr"y are still not ashamed to walk among us. While some of them are simply daft, others are just too arrogant to admit that they backed the wrong guy.

    There is still time to leave - you don't have to spend the yom hadin in a brothel with that disgusting animal.

    1. Oy Duvidel, Duvidel. You make me weep from anguish. You seem to have overlooked the caveat a man is innocent until proven guilty. As no guilt has been established in a court of law, these people are alleged supporters, who are allegedly not ashamed. They will allegedly be spending yomadin in an alleged brothel with that allegedly disgusting animal.

  20. Divided
    Where are they going to go to?
    The next choice is a Beis hamedrash that YK frequents - so it goes from women to child abusers.
    Unless the Rabbonim agree to be educated we are all in trouble.
    Even R'SW from Bridge Lane - for all the good work he does, doesn't fully comprehend the problem of child abuse. He believes that YK only commuted offended when he was younger but has been "rehabilitated" through his marriage.
    How naive! Professionals all agree that his is not a sickness that just goes away and certainly marriage is not the prescribed therapy for it

    1. I think marriage is a very suitable therapy. Don't forget, marriage is not a word, it's a sentence.

  21. YK goes upto boys in sage asking them how strong they are.
    Boys this man is a Pedo, don't full for his charm.

  22. If there is any truth in that comment, 'YK goes upto boys in sage asking them how strong they are.Boys this man is a Pedo, '.. then the Anonymous writer should tell the Matron Manager there, or Etty there, or any member of the Sage Management Committee! And not just post this as an Anonymous blog entry.

  23. To all you bocherim that have come home now for bein huzmunim,
    Please make sure to keep your distance from Mr YK , he is known to enjoy playing with younger bocherim.

  24. Sage have been advised about it, and are considering what actions to take.