Thursday, September 10, 2009

Calling police - case of R' Tropper


R' Tropper's recent filing of a complaint with the police has prompted the question by RaP as to what the circumstances are for going to the police. In response Roni [R' Tropper passionate defender] posted a number of sources which were then questioned by Mekubal. This was a discussion taking place on "R' Tropper claimed his life was threatened - the o...":

I am making this a separate post and will transfer the original comments except for ones similar to the following which were censored for obvious reasons.

RONI said...

DAAT Torah, vekol hashemos shenikreu loy1
in short YOU WERE A FRAUD, ARE A FRAUD AND WILL REMAIN A FRAUD! YOU COULD CENSOR THE TRUTH BUT I NOW KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE SAME PIECE OF GARBAGE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE YOU DECRY! YOU CONSOR THE PIECE THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STORY, THE BACKGROUND TO THE STORY, THE RIGHTEOUSSNESS OF RT THE RISHOOS OF BOMZER AND ALL THEIR PARTNERS, THE PATH OF FAKE GERUT AND ALL THE LIKE, YOU DON'T WANT TO WRITE ABOUT THE PART OF THE STORY BECUASE THEY MAY SUE YOU, NU NU BUT SO THEN DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT IT! YOU ARE THE SAME PIECE OF GARBAGE ANDLIAR AS ALL YOUR PARTNERS IN THE FAKE WORLD OF BLOGGERS THAT HATE TORAH OBSERVANT JEWS...SHOW YOU HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY ....IT DOES NOT EXIST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS

mekubal has left a new comment on your post "R' Tropper claimed his life was threatened - the o...":
Actually Roni,

He posted both sides of the story. The first part is found here R Tropper said his life threatened. Which is pretty much R' Tropper's side of the story.

Then when Guma decided to talk to the press he posted a link to that as well. There is no censorship, simply linking to the relevant news stories. That is what is called fair and balanced reporting. Now if you want to give back story to the argument feel free, I am sure that D"T will publish it. Especially if you write it politely.

However, the truth is that you are not dealing with the issues. You are simply falling back on Ad hominim attacks. Why you feel the need to do that I am not sure. There as been no direct attacks on R' Tropper. In fact from my perspective I just want to the discuss the halachic validity of his actions.

So here are two honest questions:

1) Can you(or he) demonstrate the halachic validity of his going to a secular court with Tom Kaplan to sue for control of the Lilian Jean Kaplan Foundation? There is a very clear issur first expounded in Gittin 88B and then through the Rishonim and Achronim.

Shulchan Aruch(Choshen Mishpat 26:1): , It is forbidden to bring a case before non Jewish dayanim and their courts(meaning a permanent seat for their ministers to hear cases) even if they rule by dinei Yisrael, even if they agreed to bring the case before them, this is forbidden. All who come to judge before them, are considered to be Reshaim it is as if they blaspheme against Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him.

Rama:
the Beis Din may put into nidui or cherem one who brings a case before a non-Jewish court until he withdraws the case (Maharik, shoresh 187). And any one who supported a Jew bringing a case to a non-Jewish court was also put into cherem (Rivash (Siman 102). And even if he does not bring the case to be tried before the non-Jewish court but rather to use the non-Jewish court to force his Baal din to come to him for the case in Beis Din by means of their issuing a court order for this, it is appropriate to stretch him out on the pole (Mordechai, Bava Kama, perek hagozel kama). And see Siman 388. One who already brought his case before a non-Jewish court and was obligated by them and afterwards brings his claim before Dayanei Yisrael, there are those that say that we don’t relate to the matter, meaning the Dayanei Yisrael to not hear the case (Maharik, shoresh 187), and there are those that say that the case is heard (Mordechai, Bava Kama, Siman 195), unless he caused a loss to his opposing litigant before the non-Jewish judges, in which case it is no longer heard by dayanei Yisrael (the ruling of the Maharam Mirsbork). And the first line of reasoning seems to me the main one.


2)Which halachic authority gave the Ok for his latest prosecution of Guma?

46 comments :

  1. Rivka said...

    If Tropper can go and insist to press charges with police why it is assur to go to the police if someone molest your child or maybe only choshuv rabbis are allowed to call the police but not simple Jews.
    ======================
    Who said it was prohibited to go to the police? [It is definitely permitted sometimes - the question is the parameters

    ReplyDelete
  2. Roni,

    I for one do not understand your anger and angst. Two stories were posted, both from news sources.

    No one ever said that R' Tropper said it was ossur to contact the police. R' Menashe Klein on the other hand has definitely said that it is assur.

    Several other Gedolim hold varying positions on whether and when, and under what circumstances one might contact the police. There is no fraud. It is a valid question to ask what halachic authority R' Tropper consulted with before contacting the police.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 421:13): Similarly when someone sees another Jew hitting someone and he is not able to stop the assailant without hitting him – he is able to hit the assailant in order to stop him from sinning. Rema: And this is also the case with anyone in your control. If you see him sinning – it is allowed to hit and punish him in order to stop him from sinning and it is not necessary to bring him to court.

    Shach (C.M. 388:60): Because of the harassment of an individual – It is specifically for the harassment of an individual [that one can not report it to the secular authorities]. (However see above C. M. 388:45 that someone who regularly hits another it is permitted to report the perpetrator to stop him from giving additional beatings). However an informant (moser) who gives another to the government commits the same crime as one who gives over a community. Nevertheless it is possible that the Rambam holds that once the deed is done than the informant can not be killed unless he does it regularly and thus it is assumed that he will do it again. The Rambam apparently holds that there is a difference between an informant against an individual and an informant against a community. That is because in the case of the community even if he is not presumed to do it again he can be turned over to the secular government.

    Rema (C.M. 388:7):… Some say that if a man has been hit by another - it is possible to file a complaint with the secular government - even though this causes the assailant great damage.

    Shach (C.M. 388:45): And some say that a person who has been beaten.. The Darchei Moshe writes, "And this is also the view of the Maharam M'Rizburch who writes, 'When a person habitually hits others, it is permitted to amputate his hand through non﷓Jews or to cause him a financial loss or to rescue others by the loss of one of his limbs.' Look there where he discusses these laws at length. However the Maharam M'Risburch's views don't appear correct since even concerning a moser (informant) we don't cause a loss of his money and surely the case of someone who is beating another person." I don't understand what the Darchei Moshe is asserting. The Maharam M'Rizburch actually says the following, "It is a mitzva for anyone to tell the non﷓Jewish judge that a specific person was beating another person. And furthermore they should go while they are still angry so that the assailant should not continue his activities. And if the non﷓Jewish judge responds by taking all of the assailant's possessions, the one who reported the assault is exempt. Because otherwise no one would ever attempt to save a victim from an assailant. It is definite that if it is possible to save the victim by the loss of one of the assailant's limbs such was done by Rav Huna who amputated the assailants' hand - it should be done. However perhaps it is better to tell the non﷓Jewish judge and cause the loss of the assailant's money rather than the loss of one of his limbs." It would seem that there is no contradiction from the ruling of moser to that of the Maharam M'Rizburch. That is because the one who reported the assailant is concerned only with saving the victim from the assailant. However it is impossible to save the victim without telling the judge. It is only the consequence of telling the judge that the judge causes the assailant to lose money. Similarly it is obvious that if it would be possible to save the victim of the moser by causing a financial loss to the moser it would be permitted and it would be a mitzva. Furthermore the prohibition of causing a financial loss to the moser is only if it is done directly, but if it done indirectly it is permitted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. סמ"ע סימן שפח

    כז] ואפילו היה מצר לו ומצערו. בגמרא [גיטין ז' ע"א] יליף לה מדאמר דוד [תהילים ל"ט ב'] אמרתי אשמרה דרכי מחטוא בלשוני אשמרה לפי מחסום בעוד רשע לנגדי, דרצה לומר אף שרשע לנגדי ומצערני, ועוד אמר [שם ל"ז ז'] דום לה' והתחולל לו כו', דר"ל שידום ויסבול והשם יפילם לפניו חללים חללים:
    כח] מותר להרוג כו'. וכתב הריב"ש סי' רל"ו, מי שנתפס בעד גופו לדון אותו מפני שהוא מסור או שאמר דברים שמתחייב בנפשו, ורוצה ליתן (ערבות) [ערבים] מספיקין שלא יברח, אין מקבלין ממנו, דמה יעשה לערבים אם יברח הוא, עכ"ל. ד"מ י"ג:
    כט] בגופו או בממונו. דמסור אף דאינו מזיק ממון חבירו בידים גרע ממזיק, וילפי לה בגמרא [ב"ק קי"ז ע"א] מדכתיב [ישעיה נ"א כ'] בניך עלפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא מכמר, מה תוא זה כשנפל למכמר שוב אין מרחמין עליו, כן ממונם של ישראל, כיון שנפל ליד אומות העולם אין מרחמין עליו ומעלילין עליו עלילות כל כך עד שהרבה פעמים יבוא ע"י לידי סכנת נפשות, משו"ה יש להמסור דין רודף. מיהו לא גרע מרודף דאחר שעבר עבירה אין הורגין אותו בלא התראה ובדין ב"ד דוקא, כן המסור אחר שמסר, אם לא שהוחזק למסור וכדמסיק המחבר בסעיף י"א:
    ל] מפני צער דיחיד אסור למסרו. והיינו דוקא מפני צער (דעלמא) [בעלמא], אבל אם מסרו בממון וכ"ש אם יסרו במכות ועונשי הגוף מותר כמ"ש בסעיף ט' בהג"ה. ועיין ד"מ סעיף (ט') [י"א], ועיין בטור בסימן תכ"ה סעיף ב

    ReplyDelete
  5. two observations:

    1) All of these seem to me, according to my poor understanding, to be dealing with someone who has a Chazaka of being physically violent toward other people. Not one drunken incident. The Sma even notes that the physical beating has to endanger life. To which I do not think that snatching someone's glasses and verbally abusing them, while being restrained quite fits the bill of what is mentioned above. While the Shach and Sma make the case for the ability, the specific case they are dealing with seems to be an actual, and severe physical assualt, not a simple case of intimidation.

    2)It is also of account that R' Tropper, with his Florida court case trying to seize the Lilian Jean Kaplan Foundation has already acted as a moser to take this person to secular authorities to take from him money. Does that factor in at all?

    3) While we are in the ballpark of Choshen Mishpat, Siman 4, espeicialy the Rema seems to state the one is allowed to hit another Jew to protect or retrieve what is his. while it is a small stretch, considering that R' Tropper is trying to take what is his, by means of a secular court(which would be a form of theft) it could be reasoned that halachicly he is permitted to strike him in order to dissuade him from the lawsuit.

    4) Considering that it is permitted to moser a violent person. It is very sad that it is a question as to whether we can moser an abuser. To the point where a Gadol like R' Klein ossurs it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [D.T. I deleted several abusive comments from Roni in which he used ad hominem arguments against the other side. I am permitted this to give a more moderate example of what was deleted]

    DAAT Torah, vekol hashemos shenikreu loy1
    in short YOU WERE A FRAUD, ARE A FRAUD AND WILL REMAIN A FRAUD! YOU COULD CENSOR THE TRUTH BUT I NOW KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE SAME PIECE OF GARBAGE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE YOU DECRY! YOU CONSOR THE PIECE THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STORY, THE BACKGROUND TO THE STORY, THE RIGHTEOUSSNESS OF RT THE RISHOOS OF BOMZER AND ALL THEIR PARTNERS, THE PATH OF FAKE GERUT AND ALL THE LIKE, YOU DON'T WANT TO WRITE ABOUT THE PART OF THE STORY BECUASE THEY MAY SUE YOU, NU NU BUT SO THEN DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT IT! YOU ARE THE SAME PIECE OF GARBAGE ANDLIAR AS ALL YOUR PARTNERS IN THE FAKE WORLD OF BLOGGERS THAT HATE TORAH OBSERVANT JEWS...SHOW YOU HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY ....IT DOES NOT EXIST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Minchas Yitzchok (8:148) discusses reporting someone who drives wildly or without a license. He goes through the sources permitted going to the police.

    Minchas Yitzchok (8:148): Is it permitted to report to the police reckless drivers who are a danger to other motorists and pedestrians? Concerning the question regarding motorists who drive their vehicles in a manner which endangers all those who are on the road with them by means of the means different scenarios that are described in his letter. Is it permitted to report them to the police? This will typically result in a monetary punishment or the cancellation of their driver’s license for a fixed period or incarceration in jail and it serves as a deterrent to actions which endanger others. Answer: Even though halacha prohibits causing a Jew to be given bodily or financially to the secular justice system, nevertheless a Jew who endangers other people is not included in this prohibition. This is explicitly stated by the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:12): “All those who disturb the community and cause it distress it is permitted to give them over to the secular government to be punished whether by beating, imprisonment or fines…” It is obvious that all those who drive carelessly and in a wild manner, endanger the lives of all those are near them. We in fact have been commanded to avoid danger and to prevent it from happening. Perhaps by taking actions against these drivers it will prevent danger and reduce the number of accidents. There is a difficulty however. The Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:9) states that it is prohibited to hand over a person to the secular government whether physically or financially even if he is wicked and even if he disturbs and distresses… And then the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) states, “And thus all those who disturb and distress the society it is permitted to hand them over to the secular government to be beaten or imprisoned or fined..” [...] Also in our case he should not be reported without beis din first warning him. Therefore those who are involved in this mitzva of life saving should first go to beis din and to present their claims before them…

    ReplyDelete
  8. Four questions still stand in my mind,

    1) How does control of the Lilian Jean Kaplan Foundation fit the above scenario or any that would allow Jews to seek Din before a secular court?

    2) Does the one time incident between R' Tropper and Guma fit the above description of being a physical danger to the community or is he just a danger to R' Tropper?

    3) Does the ability to get a restraining order, violation of which would mean imprisonment and other things, which thus serves as a deterrent mitigate the aspect of danger to the point that he can no longer moser him b'heteira?

    4) Does the fact that R' Tropper already sought Din against(or even possibly mosered him) him in a secular court(the Lilian Jean Kaplan Foundation), which has until now been strictly an attempt to take away something of his by means of secular authorites, which fits the above prohibition that I brought from the Sh"A, mitigate and serve as a heter or his one time actions in attempting to intimidate R' Tropper?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Sma on the Seif that the Minchas Yitzchok brings(388:12)S"K 30 refrences back to what is written in Seif 9 in the Rama, as well as in the Darchei Moshe and the Tur,

    The Rema there states,
    And certainly in things without specific intent, but if they handed him over because here he is able to kill them with law when there is fear that he will come back and hand us over or if a person is not able to save himself another way but if he is able to save himself another way it is as if the two are handing over each other and everyone who causes his friend to suffer loss he is more responsible to pay the loser the complete damage.

    Having read the words of the Tur and the Darchei Moshe, as well as what the Mechaber says immediately before the above quoted Rema it appears to me that is forbidden to hand a person over on account of causing pain to a single individual. The Rema seems to add to that two things, one if the community is scared that he will moser the entire community even if he hasn't actually done anything against them yet, or if the individual has absolutely no other way to save himself from this wicked individual.

    All told I am having a very difficult time seeing the halachic justification in R' Tropper's actions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shemiras Shabbos(41:26): A person witnessing a quarrel which is liable to degenerate into a fight and lead to bloodshed is allowed to alert the police (even by telephone on Shabbos) The same applies upon the occurrence of any even which is liable to bring about danger to human life.

    He cites his source as Tzitz Eliezer (4:4).

    ReplyDelete
  11. In addition: it is important to make this point here, THERE ARE THOSE WHO FIERCELY TAKE UPON THEMSELVES TO DEFEND GUMA AND DEFAME TROPPER FOR REASONS THAT THEY THEMSELVES WANT TO TAKE MORE $$$NAN ZONAH MONEY FROM HIM, SO IT BECOMES FOR THEM A MILCHEMET MITZVAH TO HELP GUMA! SO THEIR CALL THAT TROPPER IS FOR THE THE MONEY, IS PART OF THEIR FAKE AND HYPOCHRISY! THEY ARE THERE FOR THE MONEY FROM THIS MAN AND ANY INTAKE OF MNONEY FROM THIS MAN AT THIS TIME AIDS AND ABBETS THE INTERMARIAGE OF A JEW WITH GOYA AND AIDING AND ABETTING FAKE GERUT AND CHILUL SHEM SHAMAYIM BY SELLING YIDDISHKEYT FOR $$$

    You (Dt) are not yet guilty of this, for you are not doing it meahavas guma but mess trop! (kol zman you concor the TRUTH ABOUT THE STORY AND AID IN THE SHEKER YOU ARE THE GARBAGE LIKE ALL OF THEM)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dt,

    Your cop out will not help you to make mpore holy or saint than all garbage OBSERVANT JEWS HATER BLOGGERS! Who cares if the "news stories" ommit parts of the stories that distort the whole meaning of the sory to give you justification to help the LIES against the man with comments that distort the whole story? The man of "transparency" and justice uses and abuses the LIES of the media and makes himself a tzadik? you are no tzadik!

    Are you bichlal for real, when you twist it now to want a "halachik" justification for tropper to defend himself against a physical threat to throw him doen from the ninth floor and KIll him?? the whole rason that there is a heter to call police is because of the concern that the person will hit him again how much more so when the person threatened to KILL HIM??

    I'm not interestd in "debating" you kol zman you are like all rishey yisroel who use the blogs to motzi sheker against people...you are the same garbage as all of them! I'll reierate the FACTS that pertain to the real issue behind the story:

    THE WHOLE STORY BEHIND THE STORY IS THE FACT THAT ROPPER REFUSED TO MARRY OF HIS ... AND ... CONVERTED THE ... AND GOT E$$$NAN ZONAH MONEY AND THEN he TOOK REVENGE AT HIM THROUGH THE DISSACIATION AND ALL THE STORY THAT UNFOLDS NOW AND WILL CONITNUE TO UNFOLD AND YOU ARE A PARTNER TO THE INTAKE OF ANOTHER ... BY ENHANCING THE SDIDE WHO TRIES TO HIDE THIS PART OF THE STORY

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tropper,
    Why someone would believe your version of events, after all you have hezkas shakran after the lies you told abour rav Slifkin books, posted deceptive comments about rav Sternbach (you did take off) after you forged anti Rabbi Bomzer letter why someone take your word against. Guma who at least is baal tzedaka.

    For years you abused yesomim almanois and converts, now you picked on a bigger kid you cannot bully and IY'H you are going down and blaming rabbi Bomzer would not help.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Unless Roni will respond with a rational halachik argument as to why:

    1) R' Tropper was able to help Tom Kaplan moser Guma in a court fight for the Lilian Jean Kaplan Foundation

    AND

    2) Able to moser him to the police in insisting that he be prosecuted after already obtaining a restraining order(which ought be protection enough)

    then my final observation must be that in both cases, as seems apparent from the sources, R' Trooper operated outside of halachik bounds, and contrary to the Shulchan Aruch.

    Without doubt the reason Roni insists on resorting to inflamatory comments, insults and ad hominim attacks is because this is an issue that is outside of his ability to twist sources and claim "ma'aseh Rav" support. We are no longer speaking of whether R' Trooper has crossed a line and gone a little overboard in his kiruv attempts. We are now talking about whether or not R' Trooper has ChV"Sh acted like a Rasha or not.

    In my mind what must be determined is whether R' Trooper had some sort of heter for the initial moser of Guma in the Lilian Jean Kaplan lawsuit. The reason this is paramount is because if he did not, there is a very strong possibility that Guma, even if he did what R' Trooper claims, may have been well within his rights halachikly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Rabbi DT,
    Ronis abusive language is really bringing down the level of this blog. I would advise that you state clearly to him, either he writes in a civalised manner in which the torah permits arguments,or his comments will not be posted. He cant accuse you of bias since he has a clear warning. I know his comments bring up some interesting debates, but things can be done in a more Toradig fashion. Remember chazal tell us the torah chose extra words so as not to write a "bad " word "habehemoh asher eyni tehorah". Mr Roni if he wants to associate himself to any type of talmid chochom (likes he claims to do) should adhere to this basic rule, which comes before anything else."derech eratz kodmoh latorah"

    ReplyDelete
  16. David said...

    Dear Rabbi DT,
    Ronis abusive language is really bringing down the level of this blog. I would advise that you state clearly to him, either he writes in a civalised manner in which the torah permits arguments,or his comments will not be posted
    ===============
    I have deleted a number of his postings. In his lucid moments he has some intersting comments. But you are right, if he doesn't regain his rationality then he will be blocked.

    ReplyDelete
  17. הֲיַהֲפֹךְ כּוּשִׁי עוֹרוֹ, וְנָמֵר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו
    Jeremiah 13:23

    Roni is Tropper!

    My family and me unfortunately know Tropper for many years and that the way he behaves, here he even does not try to play someone else, he just play himself under a different name and foolishly believe that no one will recognize him.

    Anyone who had a contact with Tropper will recognize him immediately even if he adopt the name Roni which is the male version of his daughter Rina.

    ReplyDelete
  18. there is nothing "rational" to discuss here.

    1)To MR: that Guma has a ... is well known to all. That she went through a ... covnersion is known to all. That he dissacociated from Rt because of this is also known to all. That bomzer (with the chabad rabbi) is known to all. That ... got big money is also known.

    2) TO DT: You can (with all your names) "ban" me what you want. *You* will remain what you were, are! You are not a bastion for truth. Indeed you are a representativeof sheker. The motivation is not important now; what is important that you represent falsehood.

    3) It is laughable that you the one who hails about the permission to call the police in the case of abuse, are all of sudden calling RT a rasha for calling the police after he got a threat that the man told him he is going to throw him from the ninth floor! Let Dt tell us that a "Restraining order" should be enough for someone who is abused by a relative and that the abused is prohibited to go to the police?

    4) Before Dt maligns a person and demands "halachik" justification let him tell us where did Rabbi T helped tom kaplan "moser" guma let him record the facts that state that he actually did help help him to call guma first to court. (This is before finding out if he reshut from rabbonim or the like' and before asking him whether that halacha applies to call someone who marries a ... to his house and the house of klal yisroel would now want to listen to any rabbonim if they would rule against him, let the motzi sheker, the host of the blog give us the proof that RT aided in any shape that Tom call him at court and then we can proceed this "Rational" discussion of someone who is bent to destroy Rt's character and at the way he could not care less if he aids someone who defrauded klal yisroel by bringing a ...,

    5) TO david (and whoever name that is): Why do you rail about name calling and"Derech eretz" and why don't you care about the motzi sheker about an individual that Dt is doing? Do you not care for the truth being preverted so that a person can be maligned? And do you care for the "derech eretz" of name calling a motzi shem rah and do not care about someone aiding someone who defrauded klal yisroel by bringing a ... and beleive his side of the story and does not mention the part of the story tthat IS KNOWN TO ALL that makes Rt look good? OR is "Derech eretz" not include defending a person who is right?

    6)Back to Dt: I always said that you have the level of learning of a messivta bachur. But now you corssed all lines: Tell me, you are suggesting that if Rt aided (which you have so far not given any proof) someone else to bering his case in a goyishe court then Guma would have had the RIGHT TO KILL HIM???? aRE YOU FF YOUR ROCKERS???? ARE YOU AND DER KRUMMER FROM JUPITER NORMAL????

    ReplyDelete
  19. Actually Roni I agree that R Tropper had the right to call the police. Mekubal who you mistakenly insist is me is the one who is working the other way.

    This particular issue is critically important because the exact same analyis is used by poskim in abuse cases as to whether you can call the police without getting permission from a rabbbi and I would like to hear the reasoning of those who are permissive in this issue.

    If you and R' Tropper can get over your insecurities and paranoid feelings you will see that I am offering you a golden opportunity for explaining that which many frum people are puzzled about.

    Everytime you write irrational angry comments in capital letters you undermine your standing as well as that of R'Tropper - who tyically responds exactly as you do.

    I was contacted recently by one of R' Tropper's former students who lamented that R'Tropper is his own worse enemy. He said he had fond memories of many Torah insights he heard from R' Tropper but he was devastated by the constant personal attacks on him when he was suspected of not respecting R Tropper. He said and I will apply this to you - R' Tropper can not handle any criticism (or perceived criticism) and this severely damages relations with people who are genuinely supportive and he simply drives them away.

    Therefore your acute memory serves you well. I do favor the option of calling the police and personally see nothing wrong in R' Tropper doing so. But there are clearly major gedolim who do find a problem. probably including the poskim associated with EJF.

    Therefore it would be helpful to hear that Rav Reuven Feinstein or Rav Eliashiv told R' Tropper that in cases like this he could call the police without getting permission from a posek.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Roni wrote:

    YOU CONSOR THE PIECE THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STORY, THE BACKGROUND TO THE STORY, THE RIGHTEOUSSNESS OF RT THE RISHOOS OF BOMZER AND ALL THEIR PARTNERS, THE PATH OF FAKE GERUT AND ALL THE LIKE, YOU DON'T WANT TO WRITE ABOUT THE PART OF THE STORY BECUASE THEY MAY SUE YOU, NU NU BUT SO THEN DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT IT! YOU ARE THE SAME PIECE OF GARBAGE ANDLIAR AS ALL YOUR PARTNERS IN THE FAKE WORLD OF BLOGGERS THAT HATE TORAH OBSERVANT JEWS...SHOW YOU HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY ....IT DOES NOT EXIST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS
    ===============
    Roni while I was wiping the spit off my face from your spirited defense of R' Tropper. I reflected on what you were trying to say and what got you so uncharacteristically upset. I was shocked by the realization of what you are apparently saying.

    You are saying that R' Tropper's and your vituperative assertions of improper behavior against Guma justifies R' Troppers behavior. That by deleted this background information I am denying R' Tropper an excuse. But how is this possible? Guma is charging that R' Tropper has embezzeled millions of dollars that he had earmared for specific charities. Something Guma had told me months ago. How is your claim that Guma has not acted properly regarding various religious obligations justify R' Tropper's purported behavior?

    Why doesn't R' Tropper or you just deny the charges? Are you in fact not denying the charges but saying that they were justified?!

    When someone spreads a charge that another person committed a serious criminal offense which if proven carries a serious jail sentence - it certainly makes sense to at least deny the charges. Do you realize what you are saying or at least strongly implying?

    I would suggest you rewrite your post and start out with an outright denial of the charges. I would also suggest that it is to your advantage not to make it a fixed practice to gratuitously offend and alienate people.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dt, I wll not let you off the hook to show how dishonest you are!

    DT writes: "Actually Roni I agree that R Tropper had the right to call the police."

    Roni: So why do you make a whole post about it and ask after a long treatise (ala RAP) "2 ) Which halachik authority have the OK for his latest prosecution of gUma"?

    Who wrote this: MEkubal (whoever he is) or DASS TORAH?

    Then Dt writes: "

    This particular issue is critically important because the exact same analyis is used by poskim in abuse cases as to whether you can call the police without getting permission from a rabbbi and I would like to hear the reasoning of those who are permissive in this issue".

    Roni: So, why do you write this after a whole nussach where you quote theissue of going to goysiihe courts iinsinuating somehow ( a chollent between going to court and calling police) that beetzem this is a assur? Why didn't you write in the post, that logically there may be room for a heter, you just want to know which is the heter? Why didyou post a lnog treatise by Mekubal if you know that his position is not the correct one? (veod kamoh vkamoh tmihot vedal)

    Dt writes:"If you and R' Tropper can get over your insecurities and paranoid feelings you will see that I am offering you a golden opportunity for explaining that which many frum people are puzzled about."

    ROni: youare not offering any golden opportunity to anything; you are MOTZI SHEKER AGAINST RAV TROPPER. YOU CLAIM THAT YOU POST WRITTEN STORIES. BUT WHEN YOU KNOW THAT PART OF THE PUZZLE IS MISSING AND YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER PART TO THE STORY THAT CHANGES THE STORY AND YOU THAT THE STORY AS WRITTEN IS A LIE WHY DO YOU PERPETUATE THE LIE? YOU DON'T WANT NOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERMIT GOING TO POLICE AGAINST MOLESTERS; YOU ALLOW COMMENTS THAT INSINUATE THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO KILL RAV TROPPERR IS HE DOES NOT GIVE YOU ON YOUR BLOG A RESPONSE THAT SATISIFIES YOU!
    TO BE CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  22. dT WROTE:"Everytime you write irrational angry comments in capital letters you undermine your standing as well as that of R'Tropper - who tyically responds exactly as you do".

    RONI: AND EVERYTIME YOU WRITE A SHEKER AND DISTORT THE EMESS YOU UNDERMINE ANY CREDIBILITY THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD THAT YOU ARE LESHEM SHOMAYIM!

    DT: "I was contacted recently by one of R' Tropper's former students who lamented that R'Tropper is his own worse enemy. He said he had fond memories of many Torah insights he heard from R' Tropper but he was devastated by the constant personal attacks on him when he was suspected of not respecting R Tropper."

    rONI: AND I WAS CONTACCTED RECENTLY BY ONE FO YOUR SUPPORTERS THAT SAID THAT EVERYTIME YOU WRITE ABOUT CHILD MOLESTING HE SEEMS TO BE INSPIRED THAT YOU MEAN LESHEM SHOMAYIM, BUT ONCE YOU ARE ON A PATH TO LIE ABOUT RABBI TROPPER WITH THE IRRATIONALITIES TO GO ALONG IT HE SEES THAT YOU ARE A FRAUD!
    HE SAID THAT DT IS HIS WORSE ENEMY!

    DT::"Therefore your acute memory serves you well. I do favor the option of calling the police and personally see nothing wrong in R' Tropper doing so. But there are clearly major gedolim who do find a problem. probably including the poskim associated with EJF."

    rONI: SO DON'T BE HYPOCHRITICAL AND DISHONEST AND WRITE SO celarly on YOUR DISHONEST BLOG!

    DT: "Therefore it would be helpful to hear that Rav Reuven Feinstein or Rav Eliashiv told R' Tropper that in cases like this he could call the police without getting permission from a posek".

    RONI: FIRST OF ALL, YOU THAT WRITE JSUT THINGS LIKE OFF THE CUFF, HOW DO YOU BICHLAL KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE WENT TOPOLICE WITHOUT FIRST CONTACTING A POSSEK? YOU WRITE STUFF AS A MATTER OF FACT AND ARE MOTZI SHEKER! I MYSELF DO NOT KNOW IF HE WENT TO A POSSEK POSEK FIRST OR NOT...BUT YOU *WRITE* THIS STUFF AND PRINT IT. ONM WHAT BASIS DO YOU ASSERT THINGS WITHOUT VERYFYING FIRST?

    ReplyDelete
  23. and now i won't let you off another hook:

    You write a whole post (the center post is *YOURS*) : ABOUT GOING TO COURTS:

    1) I HAVE ASKED YOU TO PLEASE HELP ME VERIFY THAT RAV TROOPER WENT TO COURT?

    PLEASE CITE ME THE FACTS WHERE THIS IS REPORTED!

    2) NOW AFTER YOU PRINTED A LONG TREATISE OF HALACHO: PLEASE CITE A SOURCE THAT STATES THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO A GOYISHE COURT AGAINST MUMAR WITHOUT RESHUT BEIS DIN!

    ReplyDelete
  24. AND TO SUMMARISE:


    LEHOTZEE MHADISHONESTIM AND SHAKRANIM AND MOTZIEY DIBAH:

    OF COURSE THE POINTTHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT GUMA'S STORY THAT RT STOLE MONEY IS A LIE! the question is: why does rt need to deny every single sneeze by guma when they have NO NEEMANOOS WHATSEOVER IN GENERAL AND IN THIS STORY IN PARTICULAR?! AND WHY DOES DT PRINT THIS STORY KNOWING THAT THEREIS ANOTHER PART TO THIS STORY THAT LEAVES GUMA WITHOUT ANY NEEMOANOOS AND THEREBY MALINGING RT? AND SINCE HE PERSISTS IN THAT WAY (OF BEING A MOTZI DIBAH AGAINST RT) HE LOSES ALL CREDIBILITY IN ANY OF WHAT DOES

    ReplyDelete
  25. Roni said:

    yo allow a post that insinuates that somene may kill RT until Roni gives an answer to him!

    DT wrote: In other words anytime a question is raised as to why an action is not considered mesira it is the same as saying "unless you justify your actions you are to be killed"

    Interesting twisted logic. That was obviously not what Mekubal was saying.
    =============
    Roni wrote:

    *I* have to tell you that *i* have to deny that ... haas no neemannooos?? in his story in general and this story in particualr? I want you to dent that you don't beat you wife! As long as you don't deny my accusations, i'll be convinced that you beat you wife!

    DT wrote:

    Are you saying that R' Tropper doesn't see a need to deny any charges against him unless it is by talmid chachom?!

    This is not a case of children playing. Guma is serious in demanding that R' Tropper answer these charges of embezzelment and he clearly has the resources to bring about a trial. The gemora in Berachos about Chana says that if person is suspected of wrong doing he needs to deny the charges.

    R' Tropper needs to take the fact that he has been accused of a major crime a bit more seriously.
    This charge should be easily clarified since it depends on clear documentation of a charitable fund. Did R' Tropper receive the money? Did the designated charities receive the money? He should also keep in mind that Guma won the first round in this issue.

    It doesn't really matter whether R' Tropper likes Guma. It doesn't matter whether Guma wears Rabbeinu Tam tefilin not does it matter whether R' Tropper feels he has violated halacha. Guma has rabbis who support him. In a secular court of law Guma clearly has the upper hand.

    Nor does it really matter whether Mekubal is asking why this isn't a case of mesira.

    Mishlei (16:18) Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. R' Tropper needs to take the situation a bit more seriously

    ReplyDelete
  26. For the record I never said that R' Tropper could not or should not call the police the first time. Here is how I see the break down of events.

    1) R' Tropper and Tom Kaplan took Guma to court, seemingly b'issur. Unless they can offer a halachik justification. Simply calling Guma a mumar doesn't work, as the above cited Sh"A states clearly that even if they are rashaim we do not take them to secular court.

    2) There is an altercation between the two, in which out of fear, possibly for his life, R' Tropper calls the police. In my opinion most probably b'heteira.

    3) R' Tropper then gets a restraining order against Guma in a secular court. While I think he should have started this process in a B"D, especially as the incident happened in Israel where the B"D has real power, I would still say given the various circumstances, this was probably b'heteira.

    4) The Jerusalem police drop charges against Guma for lack of evidence.

    5) R' Tropper than takes the issue to a secular court to force the police to reopen the investigation. To my mind, without reshut from a B"D this is b'issur.

    That is how I see the breakdown of the above situations. According to my understanding.

    I also wonder, if their are those(not that I would hold by them, though this is my curiousity as I see this mostly as an intellectual excercise) who would say that given the issue mentioned in #1 if Guma did not halachically have a right to attempt to intimidate R' Tropper. But this is a side point.

    I personally see the Lilian Jean Kaplan Foundation lawsuit as being b'issur, though I would be glad to listen to a reasoned response as to why that is not the case.

    I am also of the opinion that all things considered, going to a secular court to force the police to reopen the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Roni said:

    yo allow a post that insinuates that somene may kill RT until Roni gives an answer to him!

    DT wrote: In other words anytime a question is raised as to why an action is not considered mesira it is the same as saying "unless you justify your actions you are to be killed"

    Interesting twisted logic. That was obviously not what Mekubal was saying.
    ====


    No you don't read what Mekubal (or you) writes in your blog. his is what he wrote:

    "The reason this is paramount is because if he did not, there is a very strong possibility that Guma, even if he did what R' Trooper claims, may have been well within his rights halachikly".

    He says that if I don't respond to the two questions Guma may have had a right in what he did: WHICH WAS THREATEN TO KILL HIM1

    Listen, you thing you are mighty high and think that you may state as fact some allegations by a... but you are not beyond reproach for all that, but to allow a message that legitimzies threatning to kill SHOWS HOW LOW IN DISHONESTU YOU FELL FOR YOUR SINAH A T PERSON! YOU ARE A FRAUD! ADMIT THAT YOU ERRRED TERRIBLY!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Roni wrote:

    *I* have to tell you that *i* have to deny that ... haas no neemannooos?? in his story in general and this story in particualr? I want you to dent that you don't beat you wife! As long as you don't deny my accusations, i'll be convinced that you beat you wife!

    DT wrote:

    Are you saying that R' Tropper doesn't see a need to deny any charges against him unless it is by talmid chachom?!

    rONI: NO, I'M SAYING THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS no 8nemaamanoos* is not beleived in making a allegation that should take out someone from his chazakaH! you hear, krummer from jupoter, I did *not* say that only a talmid chacham is beleived in an allegation; I said someone with no neemanoos, especially when in this particular case he is faulty he has no neemanoos to begin with!

    DT:"
    This is not a case of children playing. Guma is serious in demanding that R' Tropper answer these charges of embezzelment and he clearly has the resources to bring about a trial."

    Roni: Very good, so he will bring it at the trial and we will know then, but as of now there is nothing but a allegation by ...! And this allegation lacks credibility from the get go.

    " The gemora in Berachos about Chana says that if person is suspected of wrong doing he needs to deny the charges".

    If it a serious allegation. If it comes from ... where is it say that one has to spend his time to deny every allegation that Guma and Dt has against RT?

    DT:"R' Tropper needs to take the fact that he has been accused of a major crime a bit more seriously."

    Roni: And Dt should take very seriously that he committed the avera of motzi dibah of a person as ifi it is factual, by someone who ....!

    where is it say that Chanh had to stand every day and deny every allegation that her enemies made every single day? she was a visitor by ELi and she raised suspicions, she had an obligation to deny them, but to stand every day at DAAT Sheker Blogspot to deny every sheker that Dt and ... raise, where?
    continue

    ReplyDelete
  29. DTS: "This charge should be easily clarified since it depends on clear documentation of a charitable fund. Did R' Tropper receive the money? Did the designated charities receive the money? He should also keep in mind that Guma won the first round in this issue".

    roni: Exactly, if and when it will be raised in a serious setting it will be disproven as the ... does not have a credicility and and as he was recently charged by thepolice for other unrelated crime (having some drugs in his possession). But until then RT does not need to answer to every sneeze an dsheker that you give out against him every time ... sneeze!

    DT:"It doesn't really matter whether R' Tropper likes Guma. It doesn't matter whether Guma wears Rabbeinu Tam tefilin not does it matter whether R' Tropper feels he has violated halacha."

    Roni: whether he puts rabbenu Tam does not matter, but whether he is a ... matters! He does not have any credibility (and in fact you and mekubal erred that also regarding going to court against a ... hwere posskim state that you can call him to civil court without a heter beis din as he does not listen to BD!),

    DT:"Guma has rabbis who support him."

    Roni: Here you give yourself awaY! GIVE THE NAME OF A rABBI (WHO DOES ...THAT SAYS THAT ...!

    "In a secular court of law Guma clearly has the upper hand".

    tHIS WILL REMAIN TO BE SEEN. While the court may have ruled that Guma ... yet many things may come up that won't look good to the benfactors of guma! ...

    DT:"Nor does it really matter whether Mekubal is asking why this isn't a case of mesira'.

    ROni: NO IT MATTERS THAT YOU MAKE A WHOLEPOST ABOUT IT DEMANDING THAT TROPPER ANSWER TO YOUR SNEEZE AND STUPID REURESTS, THA SHOWS HOW MUCH ISNAH YOU HAVE FOR THAT MAN, THAT IT MAKES YOU A DISHONEST FRAUD! AND ALLOWS rT TO ANSWER THAT HE DOES NOT NEED TO ANSWER TO EVERY SNEEZE MADE BY YOU ...!

    dt:"Mishlei (16:18) Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. R' Tropper needs to take the situation a bit more seriously"

    rONI: Speak for yourself! Stop thinking you are the messenger of G-d to take dwown RT and to exude diboh and sheker against the man! you will have a lot to answer Rosh Hashnah and thereafter. you will also have to ansawer that you strengthen a ... and much much more!


    Posted by roni to Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity at September 11, 2009 7:00 PM

    ReplyDelete
  30. To stress another obvious point:

    Guma does not have ... (not like der k said because he does not put rabbenu tam or is not talmid chochom, as he alsways makes this chollents and confuses the issues, but) :

    1) because in general he does not have ...

    2) And primarily: because he is a soneh of Rabbi Tropper since Rabbi Tropper ...



    Posted by roni to Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity at September 11, 2009 7:49 PM

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mekubal (etc.) "For the record I never said that R' Tropper could not or should not call the police the first time".

    I'll not leave you off the hook for you r dangerous statement

    "In my mind what must be determined is whether R' Trooper had some sort of heter for the initial moser of Guma in the Lilian Jean Kaplan lawsuit. The reason this is paramount is because if he did not, there is a very strong possibility that Guma, even if he did what R' Trooper claims, may have been well within his rights halachikly"

    Roni: You intimidate that if you don't have a reason for his heter then "there is a trong possibility that Guma even if did what R claims, may have been well within rights halachkally",

    which means that he had right to threaten to KILL HIM! you are a dangerous man! and inciter to kill an innocent man!

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Recipients and PublicitySeptember 13, 2009 at 8:12 AM

    "rONI: NO, I'M SAYING THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS no 8nemaamanoos* is not beleived in making a allegation that should take out someone from his chazakaH! you hear, krummer from jupoter,"

    I feel honored that now Rabbi Eidensohn/da'as torah has joined me as "krummer from jupoter"!

    Thanks for being an equal opportunity insulter Roni/Tropper, as Barack Hussein Obama notoriously said to Joe the Plumber: "spread the wealth"!

    ReplyDelete
  33. DT

    You shouldn't allow postings from the apikores, maisis umaidiach site, theunorthodox Jew.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mekubal writes: " Here is how I see the break down of events.


    1) R' Tropper and Tom Kaplan took Guma to court, seemingly b'issur. Unless they can offer a halachik justification. Simply calling Guma a ... doesn't work, as the above cited Sh"A states clearly that even if they are rashaim we do not take them to secular court".


    ROni: As stated many times you are all a bunch of AMOTZIEY DIBOH VESHEKER A FEW DAYS BEFORE ROSH HASHANAH AND DEFEND A PERSON ... KLAL YISROEL,

    Please tell me:1) where it is recorded that RT took Guma to court?

    2)And why does calling guma a "..." not count? I HAVE SORUCE THAT IT DOES COUNT! AND IT DOES NOT EVEN NEED RESHUT BEIS DIN!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why do you think and decide on your own that he no right to restart the case if he had a right to start it in the first place? You ahve sources for your chikddushim to allow you to be motzi diboh on ani nnocentperson and defend a ...?

    ReplyDelete
  36. to LL COOl

    Motzo min ess minoy,

    THe shegetz at UOj joins the other ... defending the ...!

    Kol Hakavod For RT to refuse to accept the ... as jew and receive the shmootz that these ochrey yisroel who bad mouth all gedoley yisroel are pouring at him!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Recipients and PublicitySeptember 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM

    Well, it certainly is nice to see that we have not lost poster Roni/Tropper and that he is back to himself in full fighting trim. Welcome back Roni, hope you had a nice vacation.

    But with all his upper-case words that he has been asked dozens of times to stop on this blog, a very simple request, he remains seemingly anaware or ignorant of the fact that in Internet communications and etiquitte using upper case letters (like "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ") is considerd "SHOUTING" or "YELLING" and is regarded as RUDE.

    It defeats your message, like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to type most of your words in UPPER CASE CAPITAL LETTERS because of what it says about YOU as the one doing it all the time, in spite of requests to stop it and type like a normal regular human being would.

    This all brings into question if poster Roni/Tropper has ever heard of the dictum "derech eretz kadma leTorah" while he spouts off on Talmudic principles etc that only he agrees with?, like on Tropper's blog where he spends most of his time there talking to himself, while here the idea is to have an open non-threatening dialogue between various people, rather than cursing at and verbally abusing anyone who stands up to your bullying tactics.

    When will poster Roni/Tropper really grow up and stop not just his annoying usage of UPPER CASE LETTERS of insulting with the worst curse words in the "Torah lexicon" for ANYONE who does not to see anything the Tropper-or-the-highway way?

    You know Roni, you should consider that Rabbi Tropper is supposed to be an example of a famous reaching out to secular Jews (and gentiles) rabbi and it is hard to imagine that he has appointed such an obnoxious and rabid spokesman like you to defend him by attacking people in ways that would frighten anyone to think that you are a representative of someone who is supposed to mekarev and megayer people which as anyone involved knows takes so much compassion, sensitivity, understanding, empathy, patience, willingness to hear the other side, respect and courtesy, and much more that poster Roni simply does not display at any time, while he thinks that just because he spouts passges from the Talmud or talks in high and mighty terms that that is all that counts and that all must fall and bow to his tyranical and sickening tirades.

    How stupid and short-sited and self-destructive could anyone be?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Roni Said
    Please tell me:1) where it is recorded that RT took Guma to court?
    Other than the two newspaper articles that D"T originally linked? Which if they are lying R'Tropper should immediately file suit for libel.

    Finally as these things are a matter of Public Record, all of the court documents relating to the case can be searched and viewed on the Broward county website.

    I must say that I find your line of argument rather comical. First you state that his involvement cannot be proven(despite numerous sources) then you say that even if it can, you have some mysterious source, that contradicts the Shulchan Aruch that says its permissible.

    Roni why don't you just say, "Rabbi Tropper made a mistake, he should not have gone to court with Tom Kaplan, should not still be going to court with Tom Kaplan, however, he does not deserve to have his life threatened on account of it."? See that is a reasonable answer.

    Or just provide a halachic justification for him to moser Guma. State this mystery source that you claim to have. Let us see if it hold water.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why do you think and decide on your own that he no right to restart the case if he had a right to start it in the first place?
    --------------------------------------

    Because it looks that Tropper is looking for revenge not for protection.

    Or maybe he has to do Kaplan's bidding in order to get more money

    ReplyDelete
  40. The post in UnorthodoxJew has a lot of background information about the Tropper-Guma case and also about Tropper own checked history.

    It made me think why we do not see all those rabbis rell Tropper and Kaplan to finance conferences about real issues like agunot, child abuse, domestic violence or even parnassa.

    It also made wonder how come all those rabbis let themselves associated wit someone with such a reputation. I do not know if the allegations are true or not but some of them are easy to prove or disprove and nevertheless there is no smoke without fire.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Roni,
    Please use spell check for your English words. Some of your logic is actually good but your repeated spelling mistakes coupled with constant use of caps with krum yiddish/ hebrew and your blatantly ad hominim attacks hurts the flow of this comments thread.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rama: the Beis Din may put into nidui or cherem one who brings a case before a non-Jewish court until he withdraws the case (

    its all IRRELEVANT

    batei din will not issue a cherem, and no one will listen to it anyway!

    (one bet din even told me they are afraid of getting sued!)

    ReplyDelete
  43. MiMedinat HaYam said...

    Rama: the Beis Din may put into nidui or cherem one who brings a case before a non-Jewish court until he withdraws the case (

    its all IRRELEVANT

    batei din will not issue a cherem, and no one will listen to it anyway!

    (one bet din even told me they are afraid of getting sued!)


    While this may or may not be the situation in US, It is NOT the situation in Israel, where Batei Dinim have actual legal authority.

    Even in the US however, there are many Batei Dinim that will issue a Cherem. As well as issue Reshut to take a recalcitrant litigant to secular court. However the process must start in a Beit Din.

    I once asked R' Birnbaum Z"L why he kept so many Chumrot, considering that he taught his students to hold strictly by the Shulchan Aruch. He said that a Rav can expect his students to be comfortable at a level of observance slightly lower than his own, thus a Rav must be exceptionally makpid in every area. Thus I would expect a chashuv Rosh Yeshiva such as R' Tropper, to take a higher standard and stay out of secular court completely. If nothing else I would expect him to follow the Shulchan Aruch and at least have originated proceedings in a B"D, not to hold by some mysterious source that gives a heter to moser a person, simply because he is a mumar. If a Rosh Yeshiva relies on every available leniency when it suits him, what can he expect his students to do?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Recipients and PublicitySeptember 14, 2009 at 12:22 PM

    mekubel: For the record, Rabbi Tropper is not a rosh yeshiva in the conventional sense. He is the self-described rosh yeshiva of his own very small Yeshiva Kol Ya'akov that caters to newly-minted ba'alei teshuvah.

    No one considers the self-described roshei yeshiva of any ba'al teshuva yeshiva, be it Ohr Somayach, Aish HaTorah or any others, to be the same as roshei yeshiva of what are universally called "mainstream yeshivas" like the Lakewood Yeshiva, Mirrer Yeshiva, Ponevez Yeshiva and so on.

    It is in a way a "professional courtesy" and the turning of the blind eye from the established mainstream regular yeshivas that they do not kick up a fuss when a rabbi decides to open a yeshiva for ba'alei teshuva and "automtically" gives himself the title of a "rosh yeshiva" while no one would dream of calling the Principal or Menahel of a Jewish Day School or Mesivta that has the same or even a much higher level of Torah and Talmudic learening than all ba'al teshuva yeshivas, as a "rosh yeshiva" but they do it and the world just yawns and ignores them.

    So while Rabbi Tropper may refer to himself as a self-described rosh yeshiva and will never let anyone forget it as he demands to be called by that illustreous title and puts it into his press releases for the world to know about it, it does not in any way therefore somehow automatically mean that he is in fact a regular a rosh yeshiva like Rav Shmuel Birnbaum or the roshei yeshiva of the Mir, Brisk, Chevron and the like.

    But your point is well taken, that given that Rabbi Tropper equated himself to the greatest of roshei yeshiva and a number of them treat him as such given his great Talmudic knowledge and skills, he should indeed know better and he has much more to answer for in a case like this as you correctly indicate.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Has Roni gone quiet, or are his posts just not being published?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.