Friday, June 16, 2006

Mara Deasra of the Badataz of C.H., Rabbi Osdoba Shelita - Applies "DIN RODEF" on several members of the community, for going to Court!



Click Here to Download PDF of the above letter

58 Comments:

At June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have an English Translation of Rabbi Osdoba's Letter?

 
At June 16, 2006, Anonymous Benny said...

I can't really translate everything it's too long but I can tell you in a nut shell what I think it says (Beli Achrayus).

First of all he names Reb Refael Vilshansky, Reb Chayim Serebransky, Reb Zalman Shagalov and Reb Leibish Nash and he says the following about all these people:

Because they are following the Psak Din of Rabbonim (Rabbi Schwei's Psak Din and Rabbi Mangel's Psak Din and Rabbi Bogomilsky's Psak Din) to go to court, therefore, Rabbi Osdoba says all of the following about all the aforementioned who went to court:

1) The Don't have a Chelek in Olam Haba

2) They have a Din Rodef (Everyone Knows exactly what that means - I don't want to translate/spell it out)


The above 2 items (you can see in the photo of the letter) were in BOLD letters

Then Rabbi Osdoba also ads that all of the above named people are also:

3) Posul L'eidus

4) Posul for Shvuah

5) They are considered a "MUMER" which means that if any of the above people are Shochtim, Their Shechita is Posul

6) They all have a Din of a Mosur, even Bizman Hazeh

He then explains why he disagrees with the Psak Din of Rabbi Schwei as follows:

1) Although it's correct that at times people have a Heter to go to Court, but that is only issued to a Baal Din in order to obtain the same items which he has originally demanded in Beis Din.

However in this case, Rabbi Osdoba says, the Standard Heter to go to Court should not apply because the Plaintiffs are asking in court for more than they had asked for when they called for a Din Torah.

2) The Permission to go to court is only to be able to recover funds however in this case Rabbi Osdoba says the complaints against Rubashkin are only False Allegations merely to damage Rubashkin Physically and Monetarily.

3) The Only Time when Torah permits us to go to court is in order to protect and recover lost funds but in this case it is the opposite that by going to court all funds to CH are now in jeopardy of being lost.

In conclusion, Rabbi Osdoba says that since what they are doing is Sheloy Kedin, the obligation is now on them to correct this and to take it out of court and if they have any complaints, they can bring their grievances to the Beis Din of the Elected Rabbonim of the Badataz.

 
At June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the Din of a Rodef?

 
At June 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think the Rav would want anyone to explain exactly he meant by a "Din Rodef".

That's OK for "US" all who can figure it out on our own.

I hope our "Webby" will censor any comment that explains exactly what the Din Rodef means.

The only problem is that Rabbi Osdoba's letter will undoubtedly be shown to the Judge this Monday when the case against Rubashkin is to be heard.

The Judge will undoubtedly want to know exactly what Rabbi Osdoba meant by the "Din Rodef".

We can tell the Judge that we don't want to say.

But the Judge is not likely to take "no" for an answer.

 
At June 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WHERE are the rabbonim regarding -Tznius- in our holy community?


WHERE are the Rabbonim regarding -Kashrus- and -TV- issues in our holy community.


If the "new" Rabboninim feel they are in a different position than before Beis Sivan. Then WHY have they not said a word... Do THEY have a gag order... or just maybe they don't feel 100% right .

Please respond with respect.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous cc said...

What? He instructed Rubashkin not to go to zablo and now he saying they have din of rodef? ? ?

If he only instructs them go to zablo - all the Machlokes is end in a SECOND!

In the Fisher case also was Rabbi Osdoba that claimed "bais din kovua" and didn't let the Vaad going to zablo.

By the end Rabbi Marlow put his foot down and even Rabbi Osdoba accepted zablo.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Yosef said...

cc,

Since the 3 Elected Rabbonim, Rabbi Osdoba and Rabbi Heller and Rabbi Schwei, never sit in the same Beis Din any more, it's obvious that the concept which we once had, "Beis Din Kovuah", is History and no longer exists.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Yehuda said...

I agree with what Yosef said but would like to add that not only do we no longer have any Beis Din Kovuah, we no longer have "A Beis Din" at all, rather, (whether we like it or not) BY DEFAULT - we now have "TWO Beis Din's"

One Beis Din is the Beis Din of Rabbi Schwei.

The Other Beis Din is the Beis Din of Rabbi Osdoba.

Rabbi Schwei's BEIS DIN, (THREE Rabbonim signed) says go to Court!

Several MONTHS later Rabbi Osdoba, (WITHOUT A BEIS DIN), is now making a New Machlokes, to argue against, Rabbi Schwei's Beis Din's Psak Din, permitting, going to court, (Just Like the Rebbe took Barry to court and Just Like Rabbi Marlow paskened to take Fisher to court).

Rabbi Osdoba as a Single, Individual, Rav WITHOUT A BEIS DIN (only one signature) says "don't go to court".

Although I respect Rabbi Osdoba's Daas Yochid, but Torah says Acharei Rabim Lehatos - Majority Rules - and a Beis Din of THREE RABBONIM signed a Psak din, to go to court VS One Rav who apposes it.

Whom to follow, is self evident.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rabbi Osdoba is the Rav of the kehila, he is more senior to R. Schvei.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Hershel said...

Anonymous,

Your right, that Rabbi Osdoba's has been a Rav for a longer period of time, however as Jews we follow the Torah and we don't follow Daas Baley Batim's, "Seniority BOBBE MAASEH's".

Torah does not recognize Rabbi Osdoba's "Seniority", in any way that would make his vote count any more than his equal partner Rav, Rabbi Schwei's vote.

Acharey Rabim Lehatos, Majority Rules - which is Daas Torah states that Both Rabbonim (Rabbi Schwei and Rabbi Osdoba) both have 100% equal say, 100% equal rights, 100% equal power and 100% equal vote! ! !

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't get it.

What could R' Ozdoba possibly be thinking?!

On one hand he says here that these people have a din of a rodef because by them bringing him to court they are likely to have him thrown in jail for his actions.

On the other hand, when the plaintiffs tried to bring him to a din torah - for committing these very acts which are liable to land him in jail - R' Ozdoba told him he doesn't need to go.

If he really thinks rubashkin could end up in jail for his actions why is he giving him carte Blanche to run the schuna in any way he sees fit. while giving him total immunity from beis din?!?!?!

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous member from Getzel's Shull said...

Boymelgreen, the president of the Machlokes in CH, announced Shabbos in shul:

I did a mistake we had to accept the agreement...

also Moshe Ruabshkin is declaring now that this his last time and he's not running again..

First signs of understanding that it's not a joke any more.

Btw: I know some one who spoke to Moishe’s mother and she is extremely heart broken and begging by moshe to quit…

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous BT said...

Benny,

Hi

I am a long time c.h. resident and a Baal Tshuvah.

Please excuse my ignorance but would you please be so kind to explain to some of us, who are not so well versed in the Shulchan Aruch exactly what the Rav meant, when he wrote that "They have Din Rodef"

What is a Din Rodef?


Benny said...
2) They have a Din Rodef (Everyone Knows exactly what that means - I don't want to translate/spell it out)

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Benny said...

BT said...
What is a Din Rodef?



BT,

I don't think it would be respectful for us to explain what Rabbi Osdoba meant, when he said that they have a Din Rodef.

Some things are better not to explain, for Rabbi Osdoba's sake.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are people scared to define what a rodef is?

If Rabbi Ozdoba puts it in his letter, that means its part of Torah and should be properly understood.

A rodef is an attacker who is putting you in danger. The Gemoro refers to as roidef anyone who is trying to kill another person. In such a case the person who is threatened may defend himself even if it means putting the attackers life at risk. In simple english that is called self defense. This type of selfe defense is permitted according to jewish law and is also legal according to secular law, since secular law too allows for self defense when one is being attacked and his life is in danger.

Rabbi Ozdoba is broadening the concept of self defense to include its use even when one does not physically threaten someone, and is implying that even where one is merely sued and may face prosecution by the authorities as a result of such a lawsuit, that in itself would justify an act of self defense from a defendant.

In this case I dont think that it would legally hold water, and any retribution from a defendant could put him in much bigger trouble than he was in before.

Also, any such retribution could also be legally harmful to Rabbi Ozdoba himself , since a case can be made for incitement or for aiding and abetting a criminal.

I really hope it never even remotely comes to that.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous BT said...

Anonymous,

I am not sure if I understand you correctly?

Are you saying that by Rabbi Osdoba, in his signed letter, using the "Din Rodef" here, Rabbi Osdoba has in effect issued "a License to Kill" (or a Request to Kill) all the individuals which Rabbi Osdoba has mentioned specifically by name?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous DD said...

The din of rodef applys to any jew that sees someone running after another to kill. not only the one that is being chased. Rabbi Osdoba and Segal are giving instructions here to have a Jihad in CH. "Hizharu bedivreichem ....." man dkar shmey!

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To yehudah,

In your opinion Rabbi Schwei has a Beis Din of 3 Rabbonim:

In fact he is the Elected Rav, himself, but has taken 2 other, non-elected, Rabboim of the community, to join Rabbi Schwei in what is now Rabbi Schwei's Beis Din of 3 Rabbonim, which had called Rubashkin, to a Din Torah of ZABLA and when Rubashkin refused, the Beis Din of 3 Rabbonim authorized going to court.

If I would think like you, that a member of the Badatz can form a Beis Din and issue Hazmonos to a din Torah with two unelected Rabbonim who join the Elected Rav as a complete Beis Din of 3 Rabbonim, then indeed there are two Botei Dinim in crown Heights:

1 - Rabbi Scwei, Rabbi Bogomilsky and Rabbi Mangel.

2 - Rabbi Osdaba, Rabbi Raitport, with Rabbi Segal.

The argument that Rabbi Bogomilsky and Rabbi Mangel were used as Dayanim in the past within the Badatz can be also said regarding Rabbi Raitport. Regarding Rabbi Segal he has been working in the Badatz answering Shailos.

Yehudah , Please re think your position.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's exactly the case, if Leibish Nash was called by Rabbi Osdoba to a Beis Din of Zablo, he would be obligated to go. Fact is, he was never called to one.

So who's in the wrong here?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Yehuda said...

Anonymous,

You are making it sound as though this is a "matter of opinion" if it's "like I THINK" or if it's "like you THINK" (and if you thought like me then......)

Actually this is not a matter of "opinion" it a matter of FACT.

Although I certainly don't like the idea and you don't like the idea - but their are in fact, 2 (unofficial) Beis Din's, although we all try to deny it, - but the fact remains that this is so.

Rabbi Schwei has people Brining Din Torahs, every day, to his Beis Din of 3 and Rabbi Osdoba also has Din Torah's heard, by his own Beis Din of 3.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Yehuda said...

Part one of a Two Part reply.

to anonymous, comparing Rabbi Osdoba "permanent" appointed UN-elected Beis Din VS. Rabbi Schwei's "temporary" Un-Elected Beis Din, only to call for Zabla.


---

Regarding what you said that Rabbi Schwei is only "One Rav who was Metzaref 2" other Rabbonim, and you try to use that as a defense, to justify Rabbi Osdoba,s letter and or actions:

1) First of All, Rabbi Osdoba was the first one to "Break the Beis Din" by the fact that Rabbi Osdoba, took on himself, 2 unelected helpers -

The timing is very telling!

Curiously, WHEN do you think Rabbi Osdoba chose to appoint 2 more helpers?

Rabbi Osdoba made his move immediately preceding Rabbi Schwei's Elections!

Rubashkin's followers, were not even ashamed to later claim, (In Rubashkin's Book) that this was not "coincidental", but rather it was in fact as though, Keilu, Kaviyochol, a "premeditated conditional" (which of course is not true) to have 2 UN-elected Rabbonim, to able to outnumber Rabbi Schwei, who would was destined to be legitimately elected my Majority Vote, immediately thereafter.

Obviously it was intended to undermine Rabbi Schwei - just in case - "chas v'shsolom", Rabbi Schwei would indeed succeed in being elected.

Now I ask you: Did Rabbi Schwei "Start the Machlokes" after he was elected? or did Brook plan this premeditated machlokes before Rabbi Schwei was even elected?

Now who's fault do YOU think, all this Machlokes is?

The plan was simple and obvious:

As long as Rabbi Osdoba is the only Rav, he may rightfully appoint "helpers". Because then, until the elections, Rabbi Osdoba is the "Only Boss"

Although everyone knew, that once Rabbi Schwei is elected, then it would require BOTH Boss's of the Badataz to approve the "helpers" (Segal and Rabbi Reitport), but Brook, Katzman and Reitzes argued that this would give them the (false) "legitimacy" to make a Blazing Machlokes in the Badatz, just in case, Rabbi Schwei refused to be a subservient to Brook's (and company), Monopoly and Dictatorship of the Badatz.

This Machlokes too, would have been over in one second flat, had Rabbi Osdoba agreed to a Zabla Din Torah about this issue, it's self.

Needless to say, Rabbi Osdoba refused the Din Torah where he was called himself, to a Beis Din of Zabla, by his fellow and 100% full and equal to himself, Mara Deasra of the Badatz.

However, Brook and Katzman and Boimlegreen wanted to be "Machzik Bemachlokes" in the Badatz and refused to allow any fair Din Torah concerning the Badataz, It's Self.

Why do you think Brook didn't allow the Din Torah, because he knew he's wrong and he knew he would loose, with flying colors (if it was a fair, ZABLA, Beis Din)

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Yehuda said...

Yehuda said...
Part TWO of a Two Part reply.

to anonymous, comparing Rabbi Osdoba "permanent" appointed UN-elected Beis Din VS. Rabbi Schwei's "temporary" Un-Elected Beis Din, only to call for Zabla.

---

2) Regarding what Rabbi Osdoba did to establish his own "PERMANENT" Beis Din, adding his own unauthorized Rabbonim (unauthorized by his 100% EQUAL PARTNER, Mara Deasra) - this is not permissible according to Rabbi Schwei and a great many Poskim.

However what Rabbi Schwei did, was to establish a TEMPORARY Beis Din, AFTER Rabbi Osdoba Broke Off, First, by not treating Rabbi Schwei as a 100% Equal Partner, after he was Elected.

Then afterwords as a direct RESULT of Rabbi Osdoba's actions, his refusal to share the power of Rabbonus 50/50 fairly, so Rabbi Schwei was FORCED, to form a Temporary Beis Din, just for the purpose of calling a "ZABLA Din Torah", to another ZABLA BEIS DIN, to be chosen by the Plaintiff and Defendant themselves -

Note that it so happens to be, that this is the STANDARD method and standard practice used, in the entire world, whenever a Zabla is called and their is no other UNBIASED alternative in CH, today.

In other words:

When Rabbi Schwei called Rubashkin and Segal to a Din Torah, he said clearly the OPPOSITE of what Rabbi Osdoba said, - when Rabbi Osdoba invited those in dispute with Rubashkin to have the case heard by Rabbi Osdoba HIMSELF (together with Rabbi Osdoba's Friends, Rabbonim) instead.

Did you know that Rabbi Osdoba has a Pending Din Torah against Himself about the very same and similar and related issues just like Rubashkin and Segal? ! ? ! ?

So obviously their can't possibly be any BIGGER NOGEAH BEDAVAR, then Rabbi Osdoba himself who is himself a named DEFENDANT, in this case, (according to Rabbi Schwei, in the case where Rabbi Schwei is Calling Rabbi Osdoba HIMSELF to a Din Torah.)

Just THINK about this for second!

How does Rabbi Osdoba respond to this Din Torah?

Rabbi Osdoba says it's no problem, "I" (with his appointees and employees, Rabbonim, will be the sole Judge and Jury of his own case, where he himself is a named defendant! ! !

What does Rabbi Schwei demand?

Rabbi Schwei is not ashamed to admit that he is obviously a Nogeah Bedavar, so TO BEGIN WITH, Rabbi Schwei didn't even THINK, in the furthest stretch of anyone imagination, that he should possibly preside as Rov and Dayin, over his own case! ! !

So the difference in the sense of fairness here, how Rabbi Schwei sees things as compared to how Rabbi Osdoba sees things - is a difference of Day to Night.

So how can you dare to compare and say that if Rabbi Schwei can call for an IMPARTIAL Beis Din, of Zabla, and making this call via the Tziruf of a TEMPORARY, 2 additional Rabbonim, - then according to you, it's Kaviyochol "the same" as - When Rabbi Osdoba is Metzaref a PERMANENT 2 Additional rabbonim, against the will of his equal CO-PARTNER, Rabbi Schwei, who is 100% just as much "THE BOSS" of the Badatz, just as much as Rabbi Osdoba is! ! ! -

And now try to understand this:

Rabbi Osdoba says, that he wants Rubashkin' case, which directly and indirectly, involves Rabbi Osdoba himself, to be heard by Rabbi Osdoba HIMSELF with his 2 employees/appointees! ! ! ? ? ?

How can you even THINK of comparing?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous To Getzel's Shull member said...

Its sound from your comment that Boymelgreen feels bad since he caused a big machlokes in CH...

But actually it's the opposite.

He is regretting his behavior only because his brutal behavior caused Rabbi Schwei to GROW in our community, Growth in Popularity and Growth in Sympathy and Growth in his much greater and wider acceptance by all, much more, than ever before.

whereas, Boimelgreen's entire purpose for the elections was only in order to get rid of R' Schwei

Every body, now sees the ugly side of Rubashkin/Boymelgreen's team, and actually people see today much more than ever before, how dangerous it is that our entire Kehila is being controlled by Boymelgreen, Rubashkin and Brook.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Shect's Em Mit A Bruche! said...

Why should Nash or anyone else be called to a Din Torah of Zabla?

NASH could and WOULD WIN, that !

Instead it's much "smarter" for the "loser's" to get a "Heter" to hire "Hit Men"!

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous What Bruche? said...

To: "Shecht's Em Mit A Bruche"

What Bruche must one make when Killing someone, by order of the "Din Rodef"?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Yitzchaky said...

Please answer my question.

Why when Rabbi Osdoba writes a letter you address him J U S T Rabbi Osdoba, but when Rabbi Schwei is mentioned you address him as Morah DeAsra. Why? Please print and answer.

 
At June 18, 2006, Blogger DaasHakohol said...

Yitzchaky,

Rabbi Osdoba's letter was put up hastily because it wasn't released to the public until late Erev Shabbos in the afternoon. We didn't have time Erev Shabbos to pay attention to every slightest detail.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with addressing Rabbi Osdoba as "Rabbi Osdoba", the way most people do.

Thanks for brining it to our attention, though.

The Caption has been properly Updated on Sunday and changed in several ways, to more accurately reflect the newsworthiness of the letter, including the proper title and Kovod to the Rav.

Also on Sunday, when we had more time, the letter it's self has been "highlighted" (Yellow and Red) to highlight parts of the letter which readers comments have indicated as being the most striking and most interesting parts of the letter.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A former member of a previous vaad hakohol told me the following regarding this whole thing of Rodef.

One day as he was walking down Kingston Ave, Brook told him that he better be careful how he crosses the street, because one day a car may come and run him over.

Obviously he took this threat very seriously since Brook is already suspect in a few murders. Apperently Brook, fealt that his position was threatened by the Vaad Hakohol member, and so applied "Din Rodef" accordingly.

Thereafter he immedieately asked Rabbi Ozdoba for a meeting.

At the meeting he relayed what transpired earlier, and shockingly all Rabbi Ozdoba did was wave his hand as if nothing happened.

The former member of the vaad was in shock, since he expected the Rov to be outraged that he has an employee making death threats.

After that story, he realized that this was business as usual with Brook.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could someone explain me why would people like Boymelgreen who have tones of money with all of his developments etc why do they need this?

G-d gave them money and healthy children ENJOY LIFE WHY DO YOU NEED THIS Machlokes for?

Is this what Getzel Left Russia for?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Gevir said...

Is this what Getzel Left Russia for?

You ask good.

After all, what did Getzel have already? And what did Getzel ever want and wish for?

I tell you why.

When you dont have money, you think money is everything.

but when you have more money then you can spend in lifetime, then you get the Taaveh of POWER.

When you have all Rabbonim in your pocket you have a lot of power.

When you be rich, you be the same.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Money Makes MESHUGE said...

When you be rich, you be the same.

Yeh, so they say....:-)

The World says:

1) Mashke Makes Shiker

2) Chassidus Makes Eideler

3) Money Makes MESHUGE!

If you not yet..., this means you didn't have ENOUGH yet!

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous What could the letters purpose be? said...

Hey Fellas.

We have a bunch of intelligent people posting here, so let's stop and think about this all for second.

Everyone knows that the Rabbonim, Rabbi Osdoba and Rabbi Schwei, have opposing views on whether Rubashkin should go to court and we all know the reasons (reading between the lines) why One Rav said this and why the other Rav said that.

Being that Rabbi Osdoba is a very wise man, he certainly didn't expect Nash to take it out of court, just because Rabbi Osdoba disagrees with Rabbi Schwei on this issue!

It's OBVIOUS that they disagree and it's also OBVIOUS that Nash will follow what Rabbi Schwei says.

So let's hear SOME IDEAS - WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK?

The Million dollar question is:

What reason could Rabbi Osdoba possibly have had, why to issue this letter?

If Rabbi Osdoba knows full well (he is very bright) that these people, going to court, are not the type of people, by any stretch of anyone imagination - that they would suddenly change, to listen to Rabbi Osdoba, anyway.

Because they (the people who are in court), obviously follow the opposing Psak Din which permits them to go to Court?

So what's the point of Rabbi Osdoba's Letter?

Let's hear some ideas what people think?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Yossy said...

To: What could the letters purpose be?

I may be wrong but I'll tell you what I understood.

I understood "Din Rodef" to be a call for HIT.

This is something VERY serious.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The DA doesn't take such threats lightly and anyone who claims it was only "a Joke" or "just to scare someone?", will have to tell that, to the Judge.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying that Segal needs a Lawyer?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Levi said...

I think he already has a Lawyer.

The Lawyer advised that such a Letter should not be translated into English.

Usually all Rabbonim's Letters are always immediately translated into English.

Did you wonder why the letter was in Hebrew only?

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Beis Din originlly was Rabbis, Marlow, Osdoba, and Heller.When Rabbi Marlow passed away Rabbi Schwei was elected to serve as the third Dayan.The election of 2 new Rabbonim has created much contoversy in the community.
The solution is to beg and plead with Rav Heller to take an active role and become the third Dayan. Then Crown Heights will have one Beis Din which everyone can respect.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

IF what this website says is accurate, it looks like we will not have any Leibel Nash, Chanina Sperlin or Moshe Rubashkin around after the next election. Chanina is getting tired of al the machlokes on both sides and wants out. Moshe and Leibel will likely settle their arguments out of court.

We need a new generation of leaders in Crown Heights, not tied to Rabbi Osdoba, Schvei, Jacob Hertzog, Yussel Motchkin, or any of the others who ran the community previously.

I will ask my 770 Netzig member to put an amendment out to term limit Vaad people to one term of 3 years and they cannot run again. That would be fair to Leibel, Moshe, Chanina, and the others.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Mendy said...

The solution is to beg and plead with Rav Heller

I love the idea, but save your breath. Rabbi Heller feels very strongly about keeping out of things.

And Rabbi Heller is Right!

Look at what Brook did Rabbi Schwei! Does rabbi Heller need such headaches too, chas vsholom?

Rabbi Schwei volunteered to Run as Rav, was elected, but the powers that be, (brook) made endless Machlokes to not allow Rabbi Schwei to do anything and not allow him any 50/50 power sharing with the other Rav.

Rabbi Heller is very smart for keeping out of it.

Does Rabbi Heller need Brook on his back, to destroy his life as he did to Rabbi Schwei?

After we ger rid of Brook, we will have no problem attracting Rabbi Heller and or other honest good Rabbonim but Right now, someone would have to be out of their mind to even think of going into this Brook Machlokes - with healthy feet into a sic bed.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Brook's "leave of honor" said...

Anonymous said...
I will ask my 770 Netzig member to put an amendment out to term limit Vaad people to one term of 3 years and they cannot run again.


----

Our problem is not "Term Limits" for "Vaad hakohol".

The reason we have so many problems is not because the elected Vaad members have been around too long or because they have some old ax to grind.

The real root of the problem is Brook.

Rubashkin was being "used" by brook boimelgreen and the rest of the group as a front, to do the dirty work. Rubashkin was the Stick, to Hit Rabbi Schwei with.

These Ruthless people could care less if their Stick Breaks. Rubashkin is Broken and crying now. Brook could care less.

Segal's sic Taaveh for Kovid, is being "used" by them the same way.

Segal got "so dirty" over this whole fight, that he will never be a Rov anywhere on earth, in this lifetime, with his current reputation.

Brook totally Ruined Segal here.

Again Brook could care less that he "broke" the the "Segal Shteken", to be "used" to hit Rabbi Schwei.

Brook is ready to take the Next Sucker, to "use" him to Hit Rabbi Schwei with. They say their is a new Sucker born every second and Brook is counting on it.

Rubashkin's foolishness was used By Brook which made it a million times worse, so as Rubashkin goes, their will no longer be additional Gasoline on the Fire, but the Fire isn't going away completely as longs Brook remains in Power.

If you want to make "Term Limits" it needs to be a On Brooks Position.

All the Vaad's of the past, consisted of different people, they all nhad one thing in common:

Everyone realized Brook is Crook and had to go. Problem is that with Cash Floating and with 2 sets of Books it's very hard catch him Red Handed.

Your idea of Term Limits, for Brooks Position would effectively solve the Problem because it would allowBrook to have a "Leave of Honor" without us having to say the real reason we want Brook to Leave.

Go for It!

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why only R' Osdoba singed the letter? he got a whole group of yes men Rabbis why they didn't sing the letter? [even we all know that one of the three – segal wrote it] obviously the realized that the community is against the elections... and now they trying to be on the good side of the community.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Answer to Letter - One by One said...

Benny,

Rabbi Osdoba mentiones 3 reasons he disagrees with the Mara Deasra who permits court in this case:

Regrarding Rabbi Osdoba's first Taaneh:

The position of the people going to court as I understand it, is only that they want to get rid of rubashkin in order to stop all the damage including monetary damage that Rubashkin is running the council into the ground.

For example:
Suppose they ask for 18 Million dollars, and they had not asked for it in Beis Din...etc

There is no halachic Problem here.

You see,

If Beis Din said that Nash is entitled to $100 and Nash now gets 18 million that would be wrong of nash but the 18 million is an arbitrary number just to illustrate that Rubashkin is causing "a monumental sums of money by mismanagement". No one is going to collect 18 million! IT's a JOKE to think so! - so their is no violations of Halacha!

Originally the Plaintiffs asked Beis din to "GET RID OF RUBASHKIN" because Rubashkin is doing everything "Up Side Down" and in the end thats EXACTLY what the court will give them and that's all they will accomplish by seeing the books and by asking for 18 million etc - they will effectively send Rubashkin on "a permamnent Vacation" to stop the continued damage but not be able to recover red cent (he has no money anyway).

Benny said...
However in this case, Rabbi Osdoba says, the Standard Heter to go to Court should not apply because the Plaintiffs are asking in court for more than they had asked for when they called for a Din Torah.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Answer to Letter - One by One said...

Answer to Rabbi Osdoba's second point:

In Rabbi Osdoba's second point, he explains that he disagrees with Rabbi Schwei because the Heter to go to Court when one refuses beis din is to recover funds or to prevent a loss of funds, but in the Rubashkin case, it seems to Rabbi Osdoba that here all they had originally asked the Beis Din (Zabla) for was not a Taaneh of MONEY but to get RID of Rubashkin that he is not behaving like a normal Menthch etc.

The answer here is very simple, as I explained in my previous answer to Rabbi Osdoba First point:

The Problem of Rubashkin operating like a Lunatic, doing everything up side down not consulting anyone on anything, and every other crazy thing imaginable....is AUTOMATICALLY a MAJOR MONEY ISSUE !

Because the council depends on Funds and has current funds and needs future funs and when a Meshugener like Rubashkin runs everything Haywire with Total Hefkerus, all past current and future funds are in Jeopardy as Rabbi Osdoba pointed out himself in his own letter that Money is at stake here, BIG TIME!

So here Rabbi Osdoba is Modeh that the Rubashkin issue affects Money - IT really IS ABOUT MONEY!

The bottom line asked for in Beis Din, before going to court was effectively "to get rid of the Nut Behind the Wheel" - why? Of course he was, is and will course, otherwise, cause millions in damage if he is not removed from Power.

Of course Ruabshkin's removal = Money saved for the community - BIG TIME!

Benny said...
2) The Permission to go to court is only to be able to recover funds however in this case Rabbi Osdoba says the complaints against Rubashkin are only False Allegations merely to damage Rubashkin Physically and Monetarily.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous Answer to Letter - One by One said...

Answer to Rabbi Osdoba's 3d point:

In Rabbi Osdoba's 3d point he explains why he disagrees with Rabbi Schwei because he says that normally the heter to go to court is to "save money" or "prevent a loss" but here it's the opposite. causing a loss because if the governments finds out about Rubashkins wrong doing, we could loose everything.

Answer:

Rabbi Osdoba is right that when the books are opened, according to Rabbi Osdoba we will see so much criminal activity of Rubashkin that we could loose everything.

The difference of opinion between Rabbi Osdoba and Rabbi Schwei in this is that Rabbi Osdob'as opinion is that since we all agree that Rubashkin is Mismanaging the funds, so we should sweep it under the rug, to keep it a secret from the government so as not to expose rubashkin.

Whereas Rabbi Schwei's opinion is that sweeping the garbage under the rug will not make the problem go away. On the contrary Rubashkins mismanagement is getting worse by the day and that's why he must be removed from power NOW and the way to do it is getting ah old of the books which would automatically stop all future damage by Rubashkin.

Furthermore, their is a serious error, in the assessment of the entire situation to begin with.

Rabbi Osdoba's seems to feel that this is a Criminal Case and so it's Mesira against Rubashkin.

The actual facts are that this is a CIVIL case and the "government", isn't going to see how "crooked" Rubashkin is.

The only one who will SEE the books is Nash and Sperlin and the Netzigim.

There is ZERO danger here NONE AT ALL!

Fisher's case was much worse, he was Mamash Stealing Houses, for himself (Whereas Rubashkin is not stealing for HIMSELF - he just running it into the ground foolishly as Rubashkin did with every business he ever touched) - still Rabbi Osdoba approved RICO against Fisher!

Benny said...
3) The Only Time when Torah permits us to go to court is in order to protect and recover lost funds but in this case it is the opposite that by going to court all funds to CH are now in jeopardy of being lost.

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous an alter said...

ah

reading this is shows the love of chasidim one for another. a geshmak to read.

i am sure the rebbe is proud of us all.

and as usual you wont post it so go figure

 
At June 18, 2006, Blogger zalman and rivky said...

to annoymous,

If brook is a murderer and murdered a few people as you say, don't you think the fbi would have known about it. You are a complete fool, you heard what one person said and elaborated into a story, before you spread shmuous get yourself together and have correct info in front of you

 
At June 18, 2006, Anonymous michus said...

when is court tommorow?

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous אני קאך זיך בקראונהייטס said...

Alter,

Yes your right. This web site shows the greatest Ahavas Ysiroel which we Chassidim have for one another.

Those who have no Ahavas Yosroel, could care less about what happens in the Rebbe's Shchuna. They care only about themselves and when they see Rubashkin, running the community funds into the ground, they say "Just Look the Other way - Pretend you didn't see anything - sweep Rubashkin's Corruption under the Rug - Stick you head in the sand and hope the nightmare will disappear, without anyone doing anything, to stop Rubashkin's terrible destruction of C.H.

It was not the Rebbe's job to be a "Garbage Cleaner". Yet when the Rebbe entered 770 and found a Cigarette Bud on the flour, he picked it up HIMSELF!

The same is with "Human Garbage". The Rebbe reprimanded publicly by Farbrengens, and taught us to do the same - as the Rebbe cried out to is - "WHY ARE WE SILENT"? "Vein Potze Peh Umetzaftzef" - be it Mihu Yehudy, Giyur Kehalacha, Schach, Satmar, Fisher or Barry and even his own Mazkirim and our fellow Chassidim...the Rebbe cleaned up the Human Mess, created wherever it was to be found and he taught us to do the same.

The Rebbe obviously had Ahavas Yisroel and THIS BEHAVIOR = Ahavas Yisroel!

I suppose, Alter feels he has more Ahavas Yisroel than the Rebbe!

Read the line at the bottom of the home Page of this web site - the quote of the Rebbe:

אני קאך זיך בקראונהייטס ע"ע - למרות הקרירות כקרח הנורא דאנ"ש שי' בזה
כ"ק אדמו"ר מה"מ


People who are True Lubavitchers and True Chassidim of the Rebbe, they KOCH ZICH IN CROWN HEIGHTS - the others "smoke cigar" and "ignore crown heights" and talk themselves into - that their "indifference = Ahavas Yosroel"!

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous C.H. Resident said...

I have just heard over the Crown Heights Hotline, that this website is embarrasing the Rav.

I, totally disagree!

I think the letter speaks for itself!

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous crying wolf 3 times per day said...

C.H. Resident,

I disagree with C.H. Newsline for several reasons.

1) First of all, The CH Newsline is primarily for outsiders of CH who don't need to know our internal politics. The people who call the CH newsline want to hear news and not politics.

This web site is not just for "any news" - this web site is for all those who live here and care about making the Rebbe's Schuna a better place.

2) The CH Newsline used to be a peaceful place. It's ok to have "a little excitement" once in while, but "crying wolf" every day is self defeating.

Lately their is a Machoah of some sort every day on the newsline and often several machoah's in a single day, for and against each other or against one Rav and then in the opposite direction against the other and about all sorts of things, even about Air Conditioning in Shull.

Someone who "cries wolf" every day, never mind several times each day, people stop paying attention to their "Siren".

3) If the CH Newsline wants be Moche, to blow off some steam, it can make a Machoah on this web site. At least if anyone will accept his Musar, the audience who may be "guilty" is listening, here.

But Talking to someone in California or Borough Park, isn't going to help CH, because they don't care about CH and they aren't going to do anything about it (to correct anything) anyway, so what's the point.

When the Rebbe criticized Fisher, or the Mazkirim etc he did so on a Shabbos farbrengen, where no one else was listening from the outside because it involved our own people, ONLY.

When the Rebbe Criticized Mihu Yehudy, Gyur Kehalacha, Shliemus haartez, Satmar, and Barry sale of sforim to the entire world he did it on a weekday farbrengen on the Radio because it involved everyone everywhere.

This web site is a very tight special interest group and it does not speak to the "world".

If your are here, it's because you BELONG HERE! No one is here by "accident" or "inadvertently".

Your not here because you want to know the ch newsline "news from Israel" or the "weather" or about a car accident between 2 non-Jews on Fulton St. - for that we have chinfo, shmais and col.

What the CH newsline is doing is taking people, from Yehupetz, who Dial Up the NewsLine because they want to hear a Yiddish Vort from The Rebbe or News from Israel and they are stuffing down their throat, CH Politics, instead.

Whereas this web site is specifically designated to serve ONLY the people who reach out for this information. Anyone who dislikes the subject doesn't have to come to this web site.

But on the Newsline, your FORCED to listen to to CH politics, even if you want the usual peaceful story of the Rebbe or a Vort from a 770 Farbrengen or just News from Israel.

I think the next Machoah the newsline makes, should be against it's self:-)

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous Boymelgreen DISGRACE's the Mara Deasra said...

I have one question:

Perhaps one of Rubashkin's supporters can help me understand:

I read rabbi Osdoba's letter with great interest and respect and I understand from Rabbi Osdoba's letter that his Psak Din applies not only to Rabbi Serebransky but to anyone who goes to court without Reshus From Rabbi Osdoba's Beis Din (Even if you have Reshus from Rabbi Schweis beis Din, or any other Beis Din, it isn't good enough).

According to Rabbi Osdoba, then it follows, that recently when Krinsky and ShemTov took the Shull to court, then Krinsky and ShemTov are in the same category where Rabbi Osdoba would apply DIN RODEF to them too.

Has anyone seen any letter from Rabbi Osdoba criticizing even the least Little bit, Krinsky and Shemtov, for taking the Rebbe's Gaboim of the Rebbe's Shull and Bochrim to court?

Perhaps their was some letter from Rabbi Osdoba and I didn't see it?

Anyway, Torah Achas Lekulana, so I am sure that Rabbi Osdoba's Psak Din applies equally to ANYONE who does the same thing, including Krinsky and Shemtov taking 770, the Rebbe's Gaboim and the Rebbe's Shull and Bochrim, to court.

Therefore this means that

1) according to Rabbi Osdoba, Krinsky and ShemTov don't have a Chelek Leolam Haba because they took 770, the Rebbe's Gaboim and the Rebbe's Shull and Bochrim, to court.

2) according to Rabbi Osdoba Krinsky and ShemTov Have a DIN RODEF because they took 770, the Rebbe's Gaboim and the Rebbe's Shull and Bochrim, to court.

3) according to Rabbi Osdoba Krinsky and Shemtov are POSUL L'EIDUS and L'SHVUAH, because they took 770, the Rebbe's Gaboim and the Rebbe's Shull and Bochrim, to court.

4) according to Rabbi Osdoba Krinsky and ShemTov have a DIN MUMER (Like an Apikores), because they took 770, the Rebbe's Gaboim and the Rebbe's Shull and Bochrim, to court.

5) according to Rabbi Osdoba Krinsky and ShemTov's SHECHITA is POSUL! because they took 770, the Rebbe's Gaboim and the Rebbe's Shull and Bochrim, to court.


I understand all of that and I can accept the above as Rabbi Osdoba's Psak Din.

I am only left with one tiny, little question which perhaps someone could help me understand a little bit better...

If ShemTov has the Din of all of the above, how is it possible that Rabbi Osdoba was seated right next to such a an "honorary" person and how can it be that he shook his hand at the HEAD TABLE, bifney kol am v'edia, while being photographed for the entire world's press to see?

ShemTov is MUMER (that's al derech like an APIKORES) and his Schita is Posul, he is Posul even for Eidus and where is he seated?

In the absolute most honorary place at the head table RIGHT NEXT TO the Rav? ? ?

This is how Boimelgreen has Derech Eretz for the Rav? ? ?

(Now watch this: ....next "Daily, Machaah" on the ch newsline will be against Boymelgreen and against Oholey Torah, for insulting the Rav at the Head Table:-)

How can Ohoely Torah and Boymelgreen, DISGRACE the Mara Deasra like THAT ? ? ?

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous Yoel said...

When Rabbi Levy from OK was about to take Rabbi Osdoba to court...

Rabbi Osdoba run by taxy to Rabbi Levy's office to apologize..

And he said over there that he didn't write the letter (he only signed it)

Every body knows that Brook wrote THAT letter.

My question is:

Who wrote THIS letter? I am sure that Brook didn't write it?

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous an alter said...

oiy vey

since you guys are so smart (at least alot smarter then me ) when it comes to what the rebbe wanted you are after all from ziknayi hachasidim and i must admit i am not. and you seem to know more farbregens and sichos then me. maybe you can answer this question

the rebbe spoke many times by farbregens about the machloikes in crown heights albeit bremes he didnt actually mention names. he also spoke about other machloikes in lubavitch but i will ask the specific question lets say the case with fisher the rebbe spoke by farbrengens ( iwould say screamed but i am not sure that is bekooidso iw ill just say spoke) after the farbrengen most people knew whom the rebbe meant but the fisheristin always managed to say no the rebbe meant someone else.

my question is why didnt the rebbe just call in fisher and the other into his romm and lay down the law saying this is exactly what i want? why did he have to suffer all the agmas nefefsh that he did regarding this? (and the same with all the other machloikes in lubavitch between lubavitchers)

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous אני קאך זיך בקראונהייטס said...

The Rebbe actually DID always try to reprimand and "fix" the situation quietly first, of course, and he told us this by the Farbrengens too.

Then, the Rebbe would further explain, that the only reason he went public with it, is only after all "quite" and all "diplomatic channels" Failed!

For example, a week after the Gaboim, insulted the Rabbonim by not giving the Alyos Properly (just like Lush gave the Aliyah to False Rabbonim this year), the Rebbe "gave it to them", criticizing the Gaboim for being guilty of an "Arkesa D'Mesane" etc.

The Rebbe explained then:

The Rebbe had correspondence with the Gaboim throughout the week and they responded in a ridiculous disrespectful manner, to the Rebbe, (that their ridiculous excuse was that one of the 3 Rabbonim was a Levi) and so, when all else failed, the Rebbe had no choice but to go Public.

This was presumably in order to force them publicly to comply with what is right especially since all Chassidim were outraged and obviously "made sure" that "those people" who had to do, the "right thing", would do it properly.

Another example you gave was Fisher:

The Rebbe was "begging him" and "fighting with him" for the longest time "quietly", until the situation became so critical and so unbearable that the Rebbe had to go public by Farbrengen and even then the Rebbe said that "A Yungerman is standing here (by farbrengen in front of the Rebbe's face) and he hears me "crying my heart out" and HE IS LAUGHING, right IN MY FACE!

This "Tzadik" is the one Rubashkin made "peace" with, (actually an "Arab type, Peace Deal" which means you "give everything away" and "get absolutely NOTHING in return" except for a piece of paper) while Fisher continues to this day, to do the same as he always did, unchanged - absolutely NOTHING changed, now!

To this day Fisher still laughs in the Rebbe's face TODAY, saying that he fought with the Rebbe for more than 20 years and "HE WON", against the Rebbe (because of Rubashkin's current, "sellout", to Fisher)

an alter said...
my question is why didn't the rebbe just call in fisher and the other into his romm and lay down the law saying this is exactly what i want? why did he have to suffer all the agmas nefefsh that he did regarding this? (and the same with all the other machloikes in lubavitch between lubavitchers)

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous Answer to CH Newsline said...

Ch newsline complained why reader comments on Daashakohol had raised the legitimate concern about what the Judge would say when he heard that Rabbi Osdoba applied the "DIN RODEF" to several members of Anash.

The newsline mistakenly took that to be disrespectful. With all do respect to the newsline, he is sadly mistaken.

Nothing is further from the truth!

Everyone respects our Mara Deasra, Harav Hagoen Rav Osdoba Shelita.

While we all greatly respect the Rav, it's our sincere concern for the Rav's wellbeing to make sure that the Judge in the USA may interpret "DIN RODEF", to mean the same, as it was interpreted, in Israel.

In Israel, the Israeli Courts, Arrested Rabbonim in Israel who gave such a similar Psak Din, because courts understood that such a Psak Din could cause one to do what Yigal Amir had done!

In Israel, everyone knows that all Rabbonim are always very guarded before they say anything along these lines, because this can cause them to be thrown into Jail in a split second.

Now if that is not a legitimate concern for our Rav's wellbeing, then what is?

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous Answer to CH Newsline said...

After his arrest, Amir proclaimed that the killing of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was justified, even commanded, by the rulings of Din Mosser and Din Rodef, as described in the Jewish religious law, or halacha.

Since the execution of the Mosser or the Rodef is aimed at saving the lives of other Jews, there is no need for a trial, Amir said.

(above, quoted from the Haaretz News Paper)

---

Although anyone can possibly misinterpret what Rabbi Osdoba meant, yet no one could say that it is entirely impossible for anyone to possibly, VERY EASILY, understand Rabbi Osdoba Psak Din of "Din Rodef", in this case, to mean it literally, exactly as Yigal Amir, understood the meaning of "Din Rodef".

Further more, It's perfectly reasonable to assume, that if Rabbi Osdoba meant that his words, should not be taken literally, he would have said so!

Especially when dealing with such a serious matter as potential Murder and Execution, of the innocent, then certainly "IF" someone didn't meant it literally they would certainly make sure to point it out, since it most certainly, could very easily, be interpreted precisely as Yigal Amir understood it!

We all know that their are Plenty of Religious "Meshugaim", Fanatics, the likes of Baranes and Yigal Amir who would certainly take Rabbi Osdoba's words, Literally, at face value, in a second!

The Fact that both Segal and Rabbi Osdoba made sure not to prevent the Religious Fanatics from taking their words literally, is certainly indicative that this was exactly their intent, that everyone should interpret it "as they see fit", which would leave the Rabbonim "off the hook" should something happen, i.e. should someone actually do what Yigal Amir, actually did.

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous Quote from Israel's Maariv News said...

...the Rabbi of the Old City of Jerusalem, Avigdor Neventzal, who said that whoever gives up land that is part of Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel) should be subjected to “din rodef" - a religious license to kill a fellow Jew.

According to Labor MK Yuli Tamir, “The next political assasination is on the way”. Tamir called on the police to clamp down on those who incite.
“Din rodef” was issued against the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

MK Avshalom Vilan (Yahad), said, “The writing is on the wall and we can all remember what happened the last time a ‘din rodef’ was issued”. “The judicial system failed after it did not charge rabbis who incited against Rabin. These rabbis are ticking bombs that will continue ticking until the law enforcement authority charges them”, Yahad MK Zehava Galon noted.

 
At June 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It’s apparent that someone can’t read.

1) The letter dose NOT Pasken that anyone has a “Din Rodef’, on the contrary, it says “even though we do NOT implement din Rodef in today’s day and age”, meaning that today there is no ‘Din Rodef’ in general.

2) When a Rov says someone committed an Issur Skilah, it dose NOT mean that the Rov Paskend that this person should be stoned. The Rov is mealy categorizing the type of crime saying that under certain conditions this crime is punishable by death. Similarly when a Rov says “And one who dose so, Transgresses the harsh prohibition explained in Shulchan Aruch which states …..” and continues to quote the shulchan Aruch verbatim, he is not poskening, but categorizing the issur.

3) The letter was not written in a Loshon of a Psak din.

4) In the letter, R”O did not randomly pick punishments and names to call his opponents. When a Jew illegally drags another Jew into court, these are the names and punishments AUTOMATICALLY ascribe to him by the Shulchan Aruch. What R”O did was say, that in his opinion, in this case, dragging a Jew to court is illegal. Blame the severity of the names and punishments on the Shulchan Aruch, not R"O.

Obviously R”S feels that in this case, you are allowed to go to court, therefore the names and punishments, in his opinion, don’t apply

 

Post a Comment

<< Home