Tuesday, September 8, 2009

R' Tropper claimed his life was threatened - the other side of the story

Chedrei Chareidim

Kikar HaShabbat
VIN

13 comments :

  1. "Regardless of this statement, HaRav Tropper’s accusations have marred Aguiar’s image and the billionaire is unlikely to restore his reputation in the near future."

    Ummm, what about R. Tropper's reputation. We have one man saying he was physically asaulted and the other man saying it did not happen, but millions of dollars were "lost". Why is Aguiar reputation tarnished based on hearsay and R. Tropper is not?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Recipients and PublicitySeptember 9, 2009 at 4:52 AM

    "...Between the years 2003 and 2008 Guma Aguiar provided Mr. Tropper approximately $10 million to be distributed among rabbonim, kehilos, social organizations and medical institutions in Israel. The funds were transferred along with a precise list of all of the names of people and institutions the money was intended for and to which the sums were supposed to reach in precise detail. Based on an in-depth inquiry conducted last year it was found that most of the organizations the funds were supposed to reach did not receive the money earmarked for them..."

    Indeed.

    Let's not forget that Tropper and uncle Tom Kaplan tried to destroy the nephew's reputation last year with a slanderous case they brought against the nephew to remove him from controlling the Lillian Jean Kaplan Foundation that was giving out the ten million which is now being questioned, confirming that the nephew was given exclusive legal control over the Lillian Jean Kaplan Foundation, and now he has every right to question Tropper and expect answers where Tropper and EJF gave away Troppers money too. Tropper and Kaplan will need to account for a lot of things.

    One big observation: Why is it that Tropper the very guy who touts the power of super duper powerful ultra great batei din, when faced with his own woes, when faced with his own problems runs to secular courts in America and Israel to "protect" himself from the nephew whom he knows has billions to keep up his fight? Is that not hypocrisy to tell people that they must go to his selecetive batie din, but that he is free to go to secular courts when it suits him that is clearly against the Halacha as a first option.

    Who gave Tropper his "heter" to go to the Israeli police and to press charges and to plan a case against his nemesis? Doesn't he realize that now he will be exposed as these articles are now doing when they give the other side of the story. (There are always at least two sides to a story.)

    In America, Tropper went with Kaplan to a court in Florida to drag the nephew down, but instead they lost. No known recourse to any bais din there either what was the "heter" for that?, and now in Israel Tropper comes up with bobba-meise allegations and runs NOT to the many batei din in Jerusalem as he should and he sure knows them all, but rather presses charges with the Jerusalem police (the ones who are busy beating up Haredi protesters) planning to make a case of it in the secular Israeli court system and not in bais din first as could and should be expected of someone like Tropper who runs around the world screaming and yelling at anyone who can stand his boisterous speeches that only "his" ultra-approved batei din are ok for conversions. Is that not hypocrisy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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
  6. the Shach and Smah and Shulchan Aruch HaRav clearly allow a person to go to the police when he might be physically assaulted!

    Tropper,

    But after the police refused to investigate you still sent your attorney to appeal.

    Obviously that time you were at risk anymore (even if your version is true)

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113353.html

    Ha'aretz - Tel Aviv,Israel

    A Florida district court banned industrialist and Beitar Jerusalem soccer club patron Guma Aguiar from coming within 20 meters of prosecution witnesses in a trial between himself and his uncle Tom Kaplan. The ban follows a complaint by Rabbi Leib Tropper, who claimed this week that Aguiar assaulted him and threatened to throw him from the window of a Jerusalem hotel last April. Israel police were not able to explain why the assault investigation against Aguiar was closed two weeks later. Jerusalem district prosecution decided to reopen the investigation following an appeal filed Tropper's lawyer. (Yuval Goren)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Roni Said...
    ...the Shach and Smah and Shulchan Aruch HaRav clearly allow a person to go to the police when he might be physically assaulted!

    Sources please! Since the only people who hold by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, I will take the sources in the Shach and Sma.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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. The Shulchan Aruch states,
    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?

    ReplyDelete

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