Monday, October 5, 2009

Rabbi Tropper and the halachic process


I am moving this topic from the comments of "Eternal Jewish Family rescues women captives with ...": to its own post Please reference the comments on the original posting.

Roni wrote:

REb Yid, after a simple question, you refer me to what?

The question is:

a) where does it say that Bais Din Kavua from Jupiter can force someone from MArs to appear in front of them when in MArs there is another beis din kavua?

b) And bichlal, what is going on here? This is not about a *din torah* between two parties where all the halachos of choshem mishpat apply; we are dealing with an issue of issur veheter, where one Rabbi follows his rabbonim and where does it say *anywhere* in any of the sources you wrote that "bais din kavua" has got *anything* to do with this?

You wrote a lot of mareh mekomoss which i am not privy to them. If you produce them online we will benefir to see if they relate to any of the two above questions!

So far, the source of Shulchan Oruch that is clear for me to check HAS GOT NOTHING (but nothing) to do with the two questions raised above.

I'll quote them for the benefit of the onlookers:

Then there is what is meforash in the Shulchan Aruch Ch"M 7:6.

מי שתובעין אותו לדון לפני דיין שקטן ממנו, אין הדיין יכול לכופו לילך לפניו, אלא מכנפי מאן דאיכא התם מחכימי ח ט) ומעיינים בינייהו.

a) Where does he talk a- beis din kavua versus beis din kavua?

b) and it does not apply at all to issur beheter pssokim!


Roni wrote:
Let me rephrase the whole matter of bais din kavua in three questions:

1) does Bais din Kavua of one place have a power in a different continent?

2) Especially, if at the different there is another Bais Din KAvua?

3) And most important than all questions: Where does it begin to say that "bais din kavua" has *any* relevance regarding questionspertaining to "issur veheter" (yoreh deah) as opposed to diney torah of choshen mishpat?

Any reference would be apprecited if the text can be linked!

The Choshen Mishpat 7:6 reference does not BEGIN to deal with any of the above!

Mekubal wrote

Issur V'Heter was actually a sefer that extracted from the Shulchan Aruch only the laws of Kashrut(food). Thus the laws of Kashrut found within Yorah Deah have colloquially begun to be called Issur V'Heter.

As far as the issues that a B"D has the right to rule on See Siman 1 of Choshen Mishpat. There you will find it explicitly spelled out, that marriages, divorces and conversions are within their purview.

R' Tropper is from the US, there is no B"D kavua in the US as has been stated in the iggros Moshe, Iggros Moshe Choshen Mishpat Vol iI end of siman 3).

The reference that I pointed you to in the Shulchan Aruch dealt with whether a Talmid Chochom, has the right to refuse a summons to appear before a B"D. If you had bothered to read the meforshim, especially the SM"A, you would have found that he does not even if he must travel a great distance.

What I find with you Roni is that whenever you begin to lose an argument halachically you begin to do two things. First is that you start to make personal attacks. Secondly you start an elaborate smoke and mirror show.

Sorry but I do not have digitized copies of these texts, and I have no intention to taking the time to type them in.

In the end R' Tropper is faced with a letter from a B"D telling him to cease and desist until such time as he can provide haskamot. This means two things.

1)First that his conversions are not universally accepted as any group that is part of the Eida, i.e. Satmar, Toldot Aharon, Bratslav, Belz and a few others, will see that this is geirut done in direct contradiction to the ruling of their B"D, and thus invalid.

2) It puts R' Tropper into an unenviable position of appearing to ignore a summons by a B"D. Which in itself considering that he is a Rosh Yeshiva ect. creates a Chillul HaShem and a serious issue of Marit Ayin as certainly people will come to think that if he pays no heed to the B"D neither do they need to.

97 comments :

  1. Choshen Mishpat Siman 11.1

    To summon a litigant to Beis Din, Beis Din sends a messenger to notify the person on what day he should come. If the person does not come he is summoned a second time. If again he does not come he is summoned a third time. If he does not answer that summons, they wait for him the whole day, and if he does not come they place him in niduy, effective on the following day. These words apply to litigants who live in faraway, small villages, so although they sometimes come to town, they are again far away when they go home. By contrast, if a litigant is usually in town, only one day
    is set for his litigation. If he does not answer the summons and fails to come the entire day, they immediately place him in niduy and it goes into effect the next day.
    Rama: If the Beis Din goes elsewhere, the litigant must go to them. If he does not do so, they place him into niduy (Beis Yosef)... If someone says that directives of Beis Din or a chacham do not faze him or concern him, then even if he comes to Beis Din after receiving a summons, he is placed into niduy. Because he stated that his arrival was not due to the directive, he is considered to have behaved in a
    lawless fashion. See Yoreh Deah, Siman 334. If he says to the Beis Din, “I will not have my case
    judged by you,” and he wants to go before a different Beis Din, see further on, Siman 14. If someone is
    unable to comply with a summons, for he needs to travel afar, he is obligated to notify the Beis Din,
    provide his excuse and request an alternative date for his ltigation. If he fails to do so he is placed in niduy, despite his inability to comply with the summons (Maharik, Shoresh 11).


    As long as EJF and R' Tropper want to hold their conferences in Jerusalem, and have EJF Batei Dinim in Jerusalem, then they are subject, without doubt, to Jerusalem's B"D.

    However, it appears apparent from the sources, that one must obey a fixed and established B"D, which the Eidah is, and that on account of it being a B"D Kavua, one cannot disregard it, or decide to seek the opinion of another B"D.

    You must see how all of this places R' Tropper into a fairly difficult position.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the ability of a B"D to rule on conversion issues see specifically the Sma Choshen Mishpat 1 S"K3.

    There the Sma rules that these are matters of great importance and thus within the purview of a B"D.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You wrote a lot of mareh mekomoss which i am not privy to them. If you produce them online we will benefir to see if they relate to any of the two above questions!


    My mistake. I assumed that since you were so adamant about what was not written, that you certainly owned the seforim that dealt with the issues as they are standard fair for anyone who has the learning to understand and deal in these matters. They are after all required for every dayyanus program.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Before I will begin I must say that I'm astonished as to how one can think than he can make such attacks at a person and talk about things tha the does NOT begin to show any understanding. He then brings many mareh mekomot as if to impress the reader that he is saying something when he is saying NOTHING ZILCH! as we will try to demnstrate briefly.

    I asked him three pointed questions and he replied with no substance at all with some veiled insults. And all this attemting to support the fake war this man has against another man for years and comparing all the above (which amount to ZERO) to bringing goyim into klal yisroel.

    the questions were:" ) does Bais din Kavua of one place have a power in a different continent?

    2) Especially, if at the different there is another Bais Din KAvua?

    3) And most important than all questions: Where does it begin to say that "bais din kavua" has *any* relevance regarding questionspertaining to "issur veheter" (yoreh deah) as opposed to diney torah of choshen mishpat?

    Any reference would be apprecited if the text can be linked!

    The Choshen Mishpat 7:6 reference does not BEGIN to deal with any of the above!"

    to which he replied with what?

    a hogwash of reference sthat does not speak AT ALL to the issues asked!

    The only relevant point was to the second question which also does not satisfy as an answer to the question as we will show...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "As far as the issues that a B"D has the right to rule on See Siman 1 of Choshen Mishpat. There you will find it explicitly spelled out, that marriages, divorces and conversions are within their purview".


    I can't believe what I see in this guy's response: "marriages" where exactly is this lashon? do you need a BD to make a "marriage"? Do you need a BD to make "divorces"? Where do you find this in siman 1?

    Conersions is obviously part of the purview of BD (as all our discussion revolves around HB not being wualified for a Bd for gerut) because the torah calls it MISHPAT! but aside from that? where do you find that *any* matter of niddah, bassar bechalav, or the chalot of kiddushin or get reuqires BD????

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Issur V'Heter was actually a sefer that extracted from the Shulchan Aruch only the laws of Kashrut(food). Thus the laws of Kashrut found within Yorah Deah have colloquially begun to be called Issur V'Heter".

    But the ben torah street parlance, "issur veheter" refers to laws like bassar bechalav, niddah and the like!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "R' Tropper is from the US, there is no B"D kavua in the US as has been stated in the iggros Moshe, Iggros Moshe Choshen Mishpat Vol iI end of siman 3)".

    Roni: This is the only relevant mareh makom. But does not help you too much "halachikally" in abeis medrash(as opposed to this place). For his rationale certainly entails that madoch a BD in the USa who was appointed by members of the place, does not have binding force over the people of it's place, HOW MUCH MORE SO, A BD (eVEN KAVUA) FROM NEW ZEALAND HAS NO POWER TO FORCE SOMEONE FROM ALSKA TO LISTEN TO THEM EVEN DIN TORAH

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The reference that I pointed you to in the Shulchan Aruch dealt with whether a Talmid Chochom, has the right to refuse a summons to appear before a B"D. If you had bothered to read the meforshim, especially the SM"A, you would have found that he does not even if he must travel a great distance".

    NUMBER ONE A REMINDER: If you want to play by the insulting games' i'm am ready to use them equally to play like they do in jupiter land. But don' turn around and tell me that i should not insult you when you insult me, when I have made a legitimate point and you haven't starte to address it.

    "If you had bothered to read the meforshim,"
    is a insulting and condescending remark. If you want to contniue the discussion in this term let me know and i'll play in your turf (im ikesh tispatol).

    Now, i am quite knowlagable about most the issues you raise. But inorder to discuss them and show that they have NO CONNECTION to the discussion i like to start from scratch and show you that it does not BEGIN to have any connection to the discussion at hand.

    As to the point: I never asked you regarding *talmid chochom
    's obligation to answer to a *din Torah* (which MEANS SOMEONE CALLS TO A MONETARY DISPUTE GENERALLY OR A DISPUTE WHERE THE OTHER PARTY IS A CLAIMANT); and if he has to go to a lower b"D than him; that was not ONE of the questions that I presented to you! I asked you: Does a person who lives in new zealand have to go a Bd from Alaska or vice versa (even if the caller is a b"d kavua)? SIman 7 does not apeak about it!

    And btw, which sma in siman 7 speaks of him traveling to a great distance to *any* BD? even a Kavua? especially if there might an equal Bd in the place that the nitva resides?

    But bekitzur: siman 7 talks about the ways in which talmid chacham should go to *din torah*: a)it does NOT talk about going to another place and it's parameters, 2) it does not BEGIN to haev any connection to the third question, as it does not relate to shaalot of issur veheter and yoreh deoh, only to *disputes* ben adam lechaveroy where there is a *din torah* and *mishpat*!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Sorry but I do not have digitized copies of these texts, and I have no intention to taking the time to type them in".

    So, they are not a source AT ALL to our discussion, the first and third questions: a) whih deal with the particular obligation of a person to listen to rabbis from another continent, c) and most IMPORTANTLY RELATE TO *DIN TORAH* NOT QUESTIONS ABOUT *ISSUR VEHETER*!

    If you want to attack someone you better bring proof that you are right. AS it stands you are dead wrong!

    nowehre in SIman 1 in *all* the issues discussed at thesiman and in sema does it mention that the issues under discussion entail listening to rabbi from israel in issues related to hilchos shabbos, yom tov, kashrut and issur veheter and even the etzem kiddushin vegerushin which does NOT REQUIRE in practice (i'm aware of discussion regarding gittin but kiddushin certainly does not require beit din) an so issues that relate to whether or not an issur might come out from a certain situation is a matter of ISSUR AND NOT MISHPAT! THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE B"D AND IS NOT UNDER ANY HALACHOT OF cHOSHEN MISHPAT!

    ReplyDelete
  10. mekubval writes: "In the end R' Tropper is faced with a letter from a B"D telling him to cease and desist until such time as he can provide haskamot. This means two things.

    1)First that his conversions are not universally accepted as any group that is part of the Eida, i.e. Satmar, Toldot Aharon, Bratslav, Belz and a few others, will see that this is geirut done in direct contradiction to the ruling of their B"D, and thus invalid".

    ROni: you are DANGEROUS INDIVIDUAL!
    Now you deserve the jupiter treatment. you are shoteh vegas ruach! Where do you come of saying that a gerut performed aginst a ruling of a beis din "is invalid"? You certainly have an axe to grind! just as the other partners from jupiter!

    Even where there was a *takanah* at a place not to make gerim in the particular place, and that was done with the power of a takkanh BY THE RABBIS OF THE PLACE (LIKE ARGENTINA) there was a shakloh vetaryoh if the gerut is invalid. But, when a RAbbi from a) ANOTHER CONTINENT who has no jurisdiction over them in issur veheter matters and cannot impose takkanot on them calls them to "Desist", they have no standing whatsover in this matter to state that these gerut is "invalid"! 2) especially when they did NOT word their letter in a lashon that implies that the gerut would not be chal bediavad' and was not even formulated as a takannah! You drank a lot of krumme kool aid to come up with such wild svoross. But kosher gerim do not need to suffer from your tropperphobia!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mekubal writes: "2) It puts R' Tropper into an unenviable position of appearing to ignore a summons by a B"D. Which in itself considering that he is a Rosh Yeshiva ect. creates a Chillul HaShem and a serious issue of Marit Ayin as certainly people will come to think that if he pays no heed to the B"D neither do they need to"

    ROni: BOBEH MAYSSOS ( AFTER ALL YOUR DANGEROUS WRITING of SHEKER AND HOTZOAT LAAZ ON A KOSHER GERUT YOU DESERVE IT) and am horatzoot! there is "summons of a b"d" which realts to a call to a *din torah* by ANOTHER PARTY! not to a certain Rabbinical organization imposing it's views upon another rabbinical organization or an organization that has it's OWN RABBIS!.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "What I find with you Roni is that whenever you begin to lose an argument halachically you begin to do two things. First is that you start to make personal attacks. Secondly you start an elaborate smoke and mirror show".

    This is where I must state unequivocally that you are not qualified bichlal to deal with these issues in a way that gives any standing to attack someone for years.

    You begin by stating that SHEKER ( as YOUR BLOG IS FULL WITH SHEKER AND HOTZOAT DIBOH) that I start to lose an argument halachiaklly". So far in the past eyar I think it is fair to say that I almost never lost to you an argument halachikally. If you would bring this to antalmud chochom outside of your sheker blog and ask him: who "won" the argument i would say that i won 9 to 1 and this does not entail any "Bragging" for you are not not a bar plugteh bichlal in these matters. So speak as if you are man deomar when you are NOT!

    At the end of all your chollents you want to come with your krumme proposition that not turning to a BD in matters of issur veheter (a term that is known to any bar bvey rav dchad yomah it's meanign that it does not refer to the sefer issur veheter but issues relating to issur veheter) is EQUAL TO BRINGING GOYIM INTO KLAL YISROEL! veidach zil gmor!

    ReplyDelete
  13. meKUBAL COMES UP WITH ANOTHER NON SEQUITOR
    "Choshen Mishpat Siman 11.1

    To summon a litigant to Beis Din, Beis Din sends a messenger to notify the person on what day he should come. If the person does not come he is summoned a second time. If again he does not come he is summoned a third time. If he does not answer that summons, they wait for him the whole day, and if he does not come they place him in niduy, effective on the following day. These words apply to litigants who live in faraway, small villages, so although they sometimes come to town, they are again far away when they go home. By contrast, if a litigant is usually in town, only one day
    is set for his litigation. If he does not answer the summons and fails to come the entire day, they immediately place him in niduy and it goes into effect the next day.
    Rama: If the Beis Din goes elsewhere, the litigant must go to them. If he does not do so, they place him into niduy (Beis Yosef)... If someone says that directives of Beis Din or a chacham do not faze him or concern him, then even if he comes to Beis Din after receiving a summons, he is placed into niduy. Because he stated that his arrival was not due to the directive, he is considered to have behaved in a
    lawless fashion. See Yoreh Deah, Siman 334".

    Roni: until here there is NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER! a) notthing about a b"d from another continent calling him to b"d. b) and nothing about an issue of Issur veheter that ahs any relevance to our discussion! AS the siman begins it discusses about "din": which means DISPUTE! BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE!


    Then it continues: " If he says to the Beis Din, “I will not have my case
    judged by you,” and he wants to go before a different Beis Din, see further on, Siman 14. If someone is
    unable to comply with a summons, for he needs to travel afar, he is obligated to notify the Beis Din,
    provide his excuse and request an alternative date for his ltigation. If he fails to do so he is placed in niduy, despite his inability to comply with the summons (Maharik, Shoresh 11)."

    Roni: This is the only thing that may have any relation to the discussion being that it exempts Rabbi Trooper EVEN F IT WOULD HAVE BEARING IN OUR CASE (IE. EVEN IF WOULD BE A "DIN TORAh") WHICH IS NOT!

    ReplyDelete
  14. MEKUBAL "As long as EJF and R' Tropper want to hold their conferences in Jerusalem, and have EJF Batei Dinim in Jerusalem, then they are subject, without doubt, to Jerusalem's B"D."

    rONI: WHICH PLANET CAN MAKE SUCH STATEMents? If I make a conference *one time* or even *two times* in one place, does that give a right for the B"d of that place to call me from a different place where I have a B"d there? ??? Which planet yields such svoros keress? Even If I were to make a thousand conferences in jupiter, if I lived in Venus, the B"D of jupiter could not summon me to their B"D1

    At best, they could have ahave a power *only* regarding *the* conferences* itself, but not beorat *beit din* lamishpat but kvod rabboy of that place in hilchos yoreh deoh! But even regarding that there might be many other rabbonim in that place, who are not under the moroh deassroh of the EIdah and follwoing other gdolim and rabbonim or making a conference about any matter where *other rabbonim* OF THAT PLACE DID NOT OBJECT TO, DOES NOT MAKE THEM GOING AGAINST THE RABBIS OF THAT PLACE IN HILCHOS YOREH DEOH!

    Sorry, you are SHELOY MIDOROH DEUNOH LEGAMRI!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "However, it appears apparent from the sources, that one must obey a fixed and established B"D, which the Eidah is, and that on account of it being a B"D Kavua, one cannot disregard it, or decide to seek the opinion of another B"D".

    rONI: iT APPEARS FROM THE SOURCES THAT YOU ARE STAM HACKING A TCHYNICK TRYING TO LEGITIMIZE A WAR ON A PERSON! You have no standing on any leg. A person in NEw zealand does NOT HAVE TO OBEY A b"D OF JERUSALEM EVEN IF IT WERE KAVUA THERE, AL ACHAS KAMAH VEKAMAH IN MATTERS OF ISSUR VEHETER!

    and for you to come with all this cockamamie svoros to euate all of the above to BRINGING GOYIM INTO KLAL YISROEL SHOWS THAT YOU ARE EITHER FROM JUPITER OR HAVE AN HIGH LEVEL OF SINAH TO THE MAN OR BOTH!

    ReplyDelete
  16. MEKUBAL WRITES: "For the ability of a B"D to rule on conversion issues see specifically the Sma Choshen Mishpat 1 S"K3".

    tHIS RELATE TO THE ETSEM CONVERSION! WHICH IS CALLED MISHPOT! NOT TO ANY TANGENTIAL ISSUES THAT RELATE TO ISSURIM! ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT EVEN CLASSES TO GIYUR NEED THREE BATEY DINIM TEACHING THEM YIDDISHKEYT BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH GERUT??? THE SMA REFERS TO THE ETZEM GERUT: MILOH TVILA KABBALAT MITZVOT NOT DISCUSSION ABOUT THEM OR ISSURIM THAT COME OUT OF THESE ISSUES!

    MEkubal" There the Sma rules that these are matters of great importance and thus within the purview of a B"D."

    Roni: Unbeleivable, how much you go on to justify a simple terrible mistake! All the semas there relate to issuespertaining to DIn and Mishpat, between TWO PARTIESLIKE TWO PARTIES GETTING DIVORCED (NOT THE ETZEM DIVORCE!), -AND GERUT IS MISHPAT BECAUSE THE TORAH LABELED THE ETSEM GERUT MISHPAT) BUT IT DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT HILCHOS SHABBAT, KASHRUT, TAHARAT HAMISHPACHA THAT THEY ARE COVERED UNDER THIS HALOCHO!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Once again we see from the above, that Roni is incapable of having a rational conversation and that when he has lost an argument halachically he resorts to ad hominim attacks and insults.

    In his zeal to prove himself, he has also demonstrated his absolute ignorance of the subject at hand.

    He states,
    But bekitzur: siman 7 talks about the ways in which talmid chacham should go to *din torah*: a)it does NOT talk about going to another place and it's parameters, 2) it does not BEGIN to haev any connection to the third question, as it does not relate to shaalot of issur veheter and yoreh deoh, only to *disputes* ben adam lechaveroy where there is a *din torah* and *mishpat*!

    However this simply is not the case. B'Kitzur Siman 7 of Choshen Mishpat deals with who is and is not fit to be a Dayyan. Within that broader rubric comes the issue of(in seif 4) of whether a Talmid Chakham(such as R'Tropper) need submit to a Dayyan and his decisions.

    Roni would like us to believe that none of this has any bearing on the case before us, however that is not the case, as the above mentioned Rama state:
    If someone says that directives of Beis Din or a chacham do not faze him or concern him, then even if he comes to Beis Din after receiving a summons, he is placed into niduy. Because he stated that his arrival was not due to the directive
    Which is exactly what R' Tropper is being accused of doing.

    Finally he seems to think that the Rama stating
    If he says to the Beis Din, “I will not have my case
    judged by you,” and he wants to go before a different Beis Din, see further on, Siman 14.
    , somehow exempts Tropper. If he can bring a source from Siman 14 to show how this has any bearing on R' Tropper's case then let him, but it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Furthermore he brings his dog and pony smoke and mirror show with this Issur V'Heter nonsense.

    First of all he would like us to assume that issur v'heter is any halakha outside of Choshen Mishpat. When in truth when a Ben Torah says "issur v'heter" they are at most only ever referencing the laws contained in first 111 simanim of Yoreh Deah of the Shulchan Aruch. Though typically they are only talking of the simanim from 69-111. These are the laws dealing specifically with Kashrut, such as melicha, basar b'chalav ect. For instance if a person said they recieved semicha in Issur V'Heter, they are talking the latter set of laws(siman 69-111). This can be confirmed indepedantly through the Chief Rabbinate's office who grant semicha in Issur V'Heter, and will gladly tell you that this only refers to this laws.
    Secondly he states that a B"D does not involve itself with issur v'heter matters. While as I have earlier stated that the meforshim in Siman 1 disagree with him, and state that any matter of great communal importance, even if it does not involve one person against another is a mattter of a B"D, a simple look at the ma'aseh is enough. BaDaTz hekhsherim. Batei Dinim in Israel and also New York have always involved themselves in these matters as is proven from them granting of kosher supervision.

    Furthermore Roni states,
    I can't believe what I see in this guy's response: "marriages" where exactly is this lashon? do you need a BD to make a "marriage"? Do you need a BD to make "divorces"? Where do you find this in siman 1?
    While things are done a bit loosely in Chutz L'aaretz, here in Israel you absolutely need a B"D to perform a marriage. The B"D must certify that the couple are eligible to be married within. This is also the case of any Torah community in the US.
    The question of whether one needs a B"D for divorces(a Get) is absurd. For a Get to be valid it must be done by a B"D.

    I would like to extend a thank you to Roni for fully demonstrating his ignorance of Torah, and the relevant sources. It he graced us with a full 13 posts of attempted smoke and mirrors and ignoring the clear sources put before him. Yet through them all he was certain to demonstrate his abundant rudeness which was only outdone by his abundant ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Roni wrote:

    You begin by stating that SHEKER ( as YOUR BLOG IS FULL WITH SHEKER AND HOTZOAT DIBOH) that I start to lose an argument halachiaklly". So far in the past eyar I think it is fair to say that I almost never lost to you an argument halachikally. If you would bring this to antalmud chochom outside of your sheker blog and ask him: who "won" the argument i would say that i won 9 to 1 and this does not entail any "Bragging" for you are not not a bar plugteh bichlal in these matters. So speak as if you are man deomar when you are NOT!
    ====================
    Strange the facts seem to be just the opposite. Your incredibly wrong understanding of Rav Eliashiv's teshuva? Your citing Rav Reuven's collection of sources as proof that R' Tropper had widespread rabbinic support - when the views Rav Reuven collected did not relate to the topic? Your assertion of the meaning of the Igros Moshe when what you are saying is an interpretation which is problematic and is disputed by Rabbi Fuerst? Your repeated insistence that proselytization is not so terrible because there is no explicit source when you well known that R' Tropper would be laughed out of town if he explicity acknowledge that he was deliberately proselytizing. Your insistence that R' Tropper's approach is valid when he has absolutely no written approval and the Bedatz explicitly condemned what he is doing.


    And yet you don't understand why your schloarship is not treated with greater respect - aside from your boorish midos?!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I haven't really been following this discussion, and I don't have any real opinion on the topic, but I will say that the comments written by Roni hurt my brain.

    They are written in a careless manner, with innumerable typos and misspellings, and the use of extremely unclear language. It is simply not worth the effort to try to decipher his points. This is asides from the excessively aggressive language he uses.

    For all I know, Roni may actually be the correct, but no one will ever know from his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Once again we see from the above, that Roni is incapable of having a rational conversation and that when he has lost an argument halachically he resorts to ad hominim attacks and insults".

    Ad hominem no substance!

    I'll repeat the question to see the chollent created at this blog:

    This is what I wrote intially: " 1) does Bais din Kavua of one place have a power in a different continent?

    2) Especially, if at the different there is another Bais Din KAvua?

    3) And most important than all questions: Where does it begin to say that "bais din kavua" has *any* relevance regarding questionspertaining to "issur veheter" (yoreh deah) as opposed to diney torah of choshen mishpat?

    Any reference would be apprecited if the text can be linked!

    The Choshen Mishpat 7:6 reference does not BEGIN to deal with any of the above!"

    so i eagerly await, how this guy thinks that CM 7 has *any8 connection here. This guy continues to persist that it answers the question. We will go over to tell him flat out who is "ignorant" and who is am hooretz and who does not answer *any* question:
    To be continued

    ReplyDelete
  22. "However this simply is not the case. B'Kitzur Siman 7 of Choshen Mishpat deals with who is and is not fit to be a Dayyan. Within that broader rubric comes the issue of(in seif 4) of whether a Talmid Chakham(such as R'Tropper) need submit to a Dayyan and his decisions."

    Chochom from jupiter: This was *NOT* the question (whether Rav Steernbuch or Rav Wosner would have to respond to a *din torah* or not and how); the question was: 1) does Siman 7 say *anything* whehter a Rabbi in Zealand can call someone in Jerusalem if the Rabbi in NZ is a Bes Din KAvua? b) Most importantly: does it say in siman 7 whether he can coerce him to listen to him in mattes of hilchos Kashrut?

    NADA ZILCH! MEkubal you are an embarrasssment for your case!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "that is not the case, as the above mentioned Rama state:
    If someone says that directives of Beis Din or a chacham do not faze him or concern him, then even if he comes to Beis Din after receiving a summons, he is placed into niduy. Because he stated that his arrival was not due to the directive
    Which is exactly what R' Tropper is being accused of doing."

    Reb Mekubal, that siman deals with a *din Torah*; not about theobligation to listen to the Rabbi in Hilchos Kashrut. 2) Likewise that Siman deals with a BD who has jurisdiction to call the the nitva which is not the case by Rav Tropper!

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Finally he seems to think that the Rama stating
    If he says to the Beis Din, “I will not have my case
    judged by you,” and he wants to go before a different Beis Din, see further on, Siman 14., somehow exempts Tropper. If he can bring a source from Siman 14 to show how this has any bearing on R' Tropper's case then let him, but it doesn't exist'.

    As said, this whole siman 7 has no bearing whatsoever in our discussion: a) Siman 7 deals with a BD who has jurisdiction to call the nitva to a Din Torah (a sit fits the laws of siman 3 and siman 14), b) Siman 7 deals with a *din torah* not a call to a rabbi to heed to his directives in hilchot kashrut!

    Now siman 14 adds other halachot that actually would allow any nitva to claim in many caases that he would like to deal in his city. Just as an example:
    שולחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן יד

    שנים שנתעצמו בדין, זה אומר: נידון כאן, וזה אומר: ב נעלה לב"ד הגדול, ג א) כופין אותו ודן בעירו.

    But this is a distraction by Mekubal and the aliases. There is no connection whatsoever betwen these halachot and theissue under discussion: we are not dealing with a *din torah* with two parties; we are dealing with a question of a divergence of opinion in hilchot of yoreh deoh and issur veheter where one rabbi does not need to heed the call of the other rabbi if he feels that his rabbis permit him his approach and the whole issue of Choshen Mishpat is completely irrrelvant!

    ReplyDelete
  25. the am hooretz from jupiter continues:

    "...First of all he would like us to assume that issur v'heter is any halakha outside of Choshen Mishpat".

    This is common knowledge to any ben torah from a messivta program, like for instance "iussura mimona loh yalfinan" and much more.

    And he comes swinging with a big pilpul about the simanim learned in "issur veheter" as if it makes his case one once stronger! what a shame that this guy thinks that he has any legitimacy to fight Rav Tropper!

    "issur v'heter" they are at most only ever referencing the laws contained in first 111 simanim of Yoreh Deah of the Shulchan Aruch. Though typically they are only talking of the simanim from 69-111. These are the laws dealing specifically with Kashrut, such as melicha, basar b'chalav ect. For instance if a person said they recieved semicha in Issur V'Heter, they are talking the latter set of laws(siman 69-111). This can be confirmed indepedantly through the Chief Rabbinate's office who grant semicha in Issur V'Heter, and will gladly tell you that this only refers to this laws'.

    Roni: gevaldike point made in the world of jupiter, whether or not "ssiur veheter" refers to which simanim leearned in "semicha" program and that bolsters his point any stronger against Rabbi Tropper!

    Chochom, which ever way "issur veheter" is referred to it means and belongs to an area that has different halochos and parameters than mamonot! and simanim in CM do not cover them! They only deal with *diney torah* betwen two parties. this is elematary to any messivta bachur!

    ReplyDelete
  26. How much am horaztzoos n one paragraph?

    "Secondly he states that a B"D does not involve itself with issur v'heter matters".


    chochom from jupiter: A B"d involve themselves in *all* areas of halacoho. But they carry two different hats. Although coloquially they are called by the same name; they have different powers. All halachos of choshen mishpat need "mishpat" the name of Beis din. Laws of Issur vehter (all halachot included in let us say "eid echad neeman beISSURIM" ) do not need THE POWER OF bEIT DIN. they could be operated by one person, one dayan. A Beis Din by definition requires three (except for the halchot of "yachid mumcheh"). Likewise, laws of kashrut and any issur veheter does not need the body of b"d that is required by the hiclhot choshen mishpat!


    So when you write: " While as I have earlier stated that the meforshim in Siman 1 disagree with him, and state that any matter of great communal importance, even if it does not involve one person against another is a mattter of a B"D, a simple look at the ma'aseh is enough".


    Chochom, the ignorant in Jupiter are embarrassed from your ignorance! The communal matters there are like the matters mentioned clearly in siman 1 which involve two parties, like a husband and wife where the wife wants a get or her ketubah. Likewise is the meaning of "communal needs" in tHAT CONTEXT!

    MEkubal writes: " BaDaTz hekhsherim. Batei Dinim in Israel and also New York have always involved themselves in these matters as is proven from them granting of kosher supervision'.

    Roni: Chochom, let me tell you something very very simple: THe BaDAtz hechsherim is a body of rabbis who deal with ensuring klal yisroel is observing a high standard of kashrut! That does not give them *in that context* the capacity of B"D *needed* for Choshen MIshpat issues! You will see, that in Yoreh Deoh the "moreh horaah" is not necessarily called B"d. YEs, soemtimes thety are called upon to ensure that issur veheter is observed but that dooes NOT carry the capacity of "beis din" of "mishpat" that is spoken about in Choshen MIshpat!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Furthermore Roni states,
    I can't believe what I see in this guy's response: "marriages" where exactly is this lashon? do you need a BD to make a "marriage"? Do you need a BD to make "divorces"? Where do you find this in siman 1?


    Mekkbal replied: "While things are done a bit loosely in Chutz L'aaretz, here in Israel you absolutely need a B"D to perform a marriage. The B"D must certify that the couple are eligible to be married within. This is also the case of any Torah community in the US'.

    Roni: Chacham from J, we are discussing the meaning of Beit din in *halacha to understand what halachot are included under the laws of Choshen Mishpat that speaks of "beit din" or "dayan". What is is the practice today, as a takana; and what is used conventionally today commonly does not mean that this is the *halachik* meaning of the term and does not mean they changed today the haalchik parameters that is discussed in shulchan aruch.

    LEt me assure you: Kiddushin in Halacha does not require a "beit Din. If there were two witnesses present during the ceremony it becomes a big problem. Look in all responsa about questions where a boy and a girl made a wedding ceremony and said and he gave her a ring and said to her "hareh at mekudeshet" and there is a whole discussion if it was valid and there were no dayanim and beit din present.


    "The question of whether one needs a B"D for divorces(a Get) is absurd. For a Get to be valid it must be done by a B"D".

    ROni: Where is it say in shulchan aruch? If there was no beit din, and all the requirements were kosher (two eidim and sofer, many achronim rule that esssentially it is kosher as the gemara expresses itself
    וכי כל המגרש בבי"ד הוא מגרש,

    Truthfully, all these things are simple mattes known to any messivta boy. I am surprised that you think that these show ignorance. you are missing elementary knowledge in basic torah she baal peh (let alone to be able to attack a rabbi).

    ReplyDelete
  28. Furthermore Roni states,
    I can't believe what I see in this guy's response: "marriages" where exactly is this lashon? do you need a BD to make a "marriage"? Do you need a BD to make "divorces"? Where do you find this in siman 1?


    Mekkbal replied: "While things are done a bit loosely in Chutz L'aaretz, here in Israel you absolutely need a B"D to perform a marriage. The B"D must certify that the couple are eligible to be married within. This is also the case of any Torah community in the US'.

    Roni: Chacham from J, we are discussing the meaning of Beit din in *halacha to understand what halachot are included under the laws of Choshen Mishpat that speaks of "beit din" or "dayan". What is is the practice today, as a takana; and what is used conventionally today commonly does not mean that this is the *halachik* meaning of the term and does not mean they changed today the haalchik parameters that is discussed in shulchan aruch.

    LEt me assure you: Kiddushin in Halacha does not require a "beit Din. If there were two witnesses present during the ceremony it becomes a big problem. Look in all responsa about questions where a boy and a girl made a wedding ceremony and said and he gave her a ring and said to her "hareh at mekudeshet" and there is a whole discussion if it was valid and there were no dayanim and beit din present.


    "The question of whether one needs a B"D for divorces(a Get) is absurd. For a Get to be valid it must be done by a B"D".

    ROni: Where is it say in shulchan aruch? If there was no beit din, and all the requirements were kosher (two eidim and sofer, many achronim rule that esssentially it is kosher as the gemara expresses itself
    וכי כל המגרש בבי"ד הוא מגרש,

    Truthfully, all these things are simple mattes known to any messivta boy. I am surprised that you think that these show ignorance. you are missing elementary knowledge in basic torah she baal peh (let alone to be able to attack a rabbi).

    ReplyDelete
  29. The chochom from jupiter decided to use his credentials and comes with bombastic statemnts as if when they are uttered by him it makes him right! REb yid in most theissues you mentioned you are a bor veam horetz! starting from your insistence in misreading Im EH 2/4 to read that Rev Moshe prohibits gerut leshemishut to remove an issur chamur! and so on an don in every narishkeyt that you said and now your present shtuss stubborness (of insisting that CM 7 has any connection to the discussions) is just the icing on the cake that you never passed the level of a messivta bachur!

    Roni wrote: "You begin by stating that SHEKER ( as YOUR BLOG IS FULL WITH SHEKER AND HOTZOAT DIBOH) that I start to lose an argument halachiaklly". So far in the past eyar I think it is fair to say that I almost never lost to you an argument halachikally. If you would bring this to antalmud chochom outside of your sheker blog and ask him: who "won" the argument i would say that i won 9 to 1 and this does not entail any "Bragging" for you are not not a bar plugteh bichlal in these matters. So speak as if you are man deomar when you are NOT!
    ====================


    Dt wrote: Strange the facts seem to be just the opposite. Your incredibly wrong understanding of Rav Eliashiv's teshuva?":

    Roni: the facts shoewed BLACK ON WHITE that you misrepresented the teshuva where RAv Elyashiv allows something assur (teaching torah to gentiles) to arouse in the person the will to be megayer!

    DT: "Your citing Rav Reuven's collection of sources as proof that R' Tropper had widespread rabbinic support -":

    Roni: Here too you were mostly wrong! For it showed that Rav Sternbuch's position is a DAAT YACHID for he assers even when Rav Reuven quotes so many that are matir!

    DT:" when the views Rav Reuven collected did not relate to the topic?"

    ROni: It related to the points that *all* your assertions of Rav Sternbuch;s position that converting an intermarried couple is ALWAYS assur and one should push them away is REJECTED BY RAV REUVEN AND ALL RABBIS MENTIONED IN THAT TESHUVA!

    Dt:" Your assertion of the meaning of the Igros Moshe when what you are saying is an interpretation which is problematic and is disputed by Rabbi Fuerst?"

    roni: Care to elaborate which IM you are referring to? And this is that it is disputed by Rav fuerst does not make his reading anymore legitimate than mine in the reading of a text that is self explanatory. And I will not forget manyof your misreadings of Im primarily your misreading in EH 2/4 where you twisted his ruling to use his pssak for forbidding converting someone married to a kohen to be meant for gerut leshem ishut when in the same teshuva he says clearly THE OPPOSITE!


    dT:"Your repeated insistence that proselytization is not so terrible ":


    rONI: hERE I WILL PROTEST AGAINST THAT YOU ARE A SHKARON! I did not say say it is not "terrible" or wrong! I was asking you where it is recorded in halacha that it is *ASSUR* so that it cannot be override to prevent an issur chamur! This was the discussion! and your Messivta knowledge could not produce ONE PROOF for your contention that this is *ASSUR*.

    dT:" Your insistence that R' Tropper's approach is valid when he has absolutely no written approval and the Bedatz explicitly condemned what he is doing'.

    roNI: the chochom thinks he said anything! He has ACTUAL APPROVAL FROM RAV REUVEN ANDMANY MORE RABBIS WHO ARE MEMBERS IN HIS ORGANIZATION! AND (besides badatz) NO OTHER RABBI CONDMENED HIM! (DT blog does not count even as messifta "badatz")


    SO after your treatise you can also add, the ignorance of equating "proseltyzing" with bringing goyim into klal yisroel! that is why you equate Cukierkorn to tropper! and now you insits in your am hortz that RT is in violation of Siman 7 in Choshen mishpat when the issue under discussion has got nothing to do with Choshem mishpat!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear LazerA,

    I'm sorry that my comments hurt your brain. I must say though, that I'm more perplexed by the fact that people feelings are not hurt when an individual goes out of his way to attack one individual for every neshimah and breadth the man makes!

    I will try to explain the latest issue (where you can read at the actual post): Dt claims that someone who does not respond to a particular Beis Din who called his attention on a practice that the person follows another Rov is under niduy for violating the laws of Choshen Mishpat Siman 1 and 7. and he went further to imply that this is equally problematic as someone who brings goyim into klal yisroel.

    I am claiming that the laws of Choshen Mishpat have got nothing to do with forcing someone to listen to oneparticular BD in matters of issurim when the person has his own rabbis and gedolim.

    I am going to conclude with that which I started: I am very hurt how a person makes a whole blog to attack a person. If the attacker would really feel the need and the pain of the misdeeds that occur in the world of conversion, he would dwell on more pressing problems than the problems he raised. there are terrible problems where rabbis and dayanim convert without any kabbalat hamitzvot whatsoever and the attacker does not case about them. Not only that, when shown how the problem is an epidemy and especially by certain individuals he shoves it under rug. It is so especially, when the issue shown to him would undermine the viciousness and maliciousness of his position where there would be justification for the person whom he is attacking for doing what he is doing.

    So, seeing the injustice of lies and libels agsinst one individual is the reason I write so aggressively to defend the person who is being maligned here and at the same time to alert the public of the real DANGERS ABOUT FAKE CONVERSION BY FAKE DAYANIM!
    A gutten moed
    roni

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'll also not leave this other comment blank:

    "aside from your boorish midos?!"

    I'll repeat you again: "boorish midos" is less severe than SHEKER VEHOTZOOAS DIBOH that you engage in! And on top of that, the boorish middot vested in Rap's comments, regardless of who the guy is, you are responsible for wjhat he writes just as much, for you produce it to the public! In addition, what you did in the begining of the year is not to be forgotten. You had a whole post of smearing an individual together with Rav Tropper, an individual who does good but you allowed his name to be smeared with venom! and while you took it off for a brief while you brought it back! don't talk about someone's middot when your are dirty with sheker and diboh against good jews.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Recipients and PublicityOctober 6, 2009 at 5:22 AM

    This looks like Rabbi Tropper talking himself when poster Roni says "If I make a conference *one time* or even *two times* in one place, does that give a right for the B"d of that place to call me from a different place where I have a B"d there? ??? Which planet yields such svoros keress? Even If I were to make a thousand conferences in jupiter, if I lived in Venus, the B"D of jupiter could not summon me to their B"D1"

    That's it's Tropper's style, and it is, and it's what makes it so turgid and torrid, results in conclusions spoken by LazerA: "the comments written by Roni hurt my brain... They are written in a careless manner, with innumerable typos and misspellings, and the use of extremely unclear language. It is simply not worth the effort to try to decipher his points. This is asides from the excessively aggressive language he uses."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Actually I said that he was in violation of CM 11:1, where it says that even if summoned from a faraway place, he must come, or make his excuse and arrange a proper date.

    That one must obey a B"D is poshut, that one must answer a summons such as the letter given by the BaDaTz is also poshut.

    Also Roni seems to want to insist that there is a B"D kavua in the US however, as I have already pointed out Iggros Moshe Vol 1 Siman 3 makes it very clear that there are not.

    Implicit in Roni's statements are two very dangerous concepts that go far to undermine the foundations of all Torah.

    1) Is to suggest that a B"D does not have authority, when our sages teach that every B"D is to be considered as the B"D of Moshe and Aharon.

    2) Is to suggest that the Tuvei HaIr do not have the ability to decide what is permissible to take place within their own city.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Roni said, "I am very hurt how a person makes a whole blog to attack a person.

    However this is simply not the case, as a simple look at the headlines on the first two pages will demonstrate.
    1)Death & psychotherapy - Learning & teaching
    2)What Psychologists don't know
    3)Poisonous meat: The E Coli problem
    4)Rabbi Tropper and the halachic process
    5)Abuse: Senior Baltimore rabbi
    6)Shabbos elevators: Rav Meir Triebitz's Teshuva
    7)Eternal Jewish Family's updated web site
    8)Hashgocha Protis - reconcilation with Chazal
    9)Rav Sternbuch: Simcha of Succos
    10)Justice - Harvard Prof Michael Sandel #1
    11)Steipler: "Better to be punished in this world"
    12)Quest for logical certainty in mathematics
    13)Incest - Interview with Marilyn Van Debur
    14)Conflicts & tensions of the formerly religious
    15)Abuse in Beit Shemesh - Jonathan Rosenblum

    16)Harvard online class in morality
    17)Neuroscience - metaphoric thinking & phantom limb
    18)Rav Moshe Sternbuch:Yom Kippur - getting favorable din
    19)Eternal Jewish Family rescues women captives with assistance of Lev L'Achim
    20)Reb Aryeh Levine - Movie of his life
    21)Obama - Songs of praise taught in public school
    22)Anusim & Chabad - Latin American Jews
    23)Animal rights activists posken against Kapparot
    24)Marshmallows & Importance of self-control
    25)Climbing a mountain - without legs
    26)Women's greater freedom & unhappiness
    27)Rav Sternbuch Preparing for Rosh Hashana
    28)Rosh HaShanna & a year of blogging
    29)G-d's reason for abuse and rape?

    So out of twenty-nine posts there are three that deal with R' Tropper, that is only 10.34%. One of which (#19above) portrayed them in a positive light. Which leaves on 6.24% negative towards him.

    Compare this with abuse issues which makes up 13.793% of the content.
    Or non-Jewish science subjects which is 27.586%
    Or Jewish issues not dealing with Tropper or abuse which also amount to 34.482%
    Or general human interest which is 13.79%.
    Statistically R’ Tropper is the least discussed topic on this blog. Granted you may want to make a claim as to comments. However, on average only 10-15% of a blog readership will ever read the comments, they are called the blogs loyalists. Furthermore I would argue that if you simply did not insist on making an issue out of every single thing, like some holy defender of all that is Tropper, you would not see even a third of the comments about those pieces. Your own antagonism spurs people to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  35. One last thing.

    Commentor Shoshi was banned for being rude, despite her often insightful remarks crouched in that rudeness.

    Roni is rude, without the insight. He generally refuses to discuss the issues or bring proofs other than to say that those he is presented with are wrong.

    I therefore motion to have Roni banned until such time as he will cease and desist from all insults, SCREAMING and the like, and actually begin to address the issues like the Ben Torah/Talmid Chakham he claims to be.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Recipients and PublicityOctober 6, 2009 at 1:50 PM

    Roni/Tropper is so smug that he thinks that it is he alone that comes here "seeing the injustice of lies and libels agsinst one individual is the reason I write so aggressively to defend the person who is being maligned here and at the same time to alert the public of the real DANGERS ABOUT FAKE CONVERSION BY FAKE DAYANIM!" but Roni/Tropper misses the obvious that it is Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah who is the one who allows him to come on to this blog and say as much as he wants often in the meanest way that wins him no friends, a courtesy that Rabbi Tropper would never dream of extending on his own blog, even when he attacked (on hi/Tropper's blog) all the Agudah Mid-Western rabbis saying that none of them qualifies as a posek.

    Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn is to be commended for trying to be fair to all sides often at great risk to himself as we all saw in the episode relating to the nephew when he faced legal threats and was forced to take down what was really openly public information, something that Roni/Tropper has not asked to be done.

    So obviously, as Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah has pointed out in the past, Roni/Tropper sees that the criticism of Rabbi Tropper and EJF is a reality, such as the broadsides from the BADATS and Rav Shternbuch, and EJF/Tropper having tried in the past to use other tactics of argumentation on this blog, Roni/Tropper arrived on the scene of this blog and began his manic offensive of using direct personal attacks against anonymous posters who did not create the issues, gross insults, humungous and amusing red herring arguments and sokescreens, passing on a forged English letter in the hope of knocking out Bomzer (which curiously enough, Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah still retains as a post on this blog, that works in Roni/Tropper's favor) and essentially Roni/Tropper has been freely allowed on this blog to have his say without restrictions and the enormous freedom to make his voice and point of view heard and known over and over again, with multiple pilpulim and "lomdus" that goes way beyond conventional limmud haTorah allowing Roni/Tropper to sound and come across as a "dayan" or at least a full-fledged "to'en" (and in the process convincing many that poster "Roni" was none other than Tropper himself using a thinly veiled online sock puppet) on behalf of the EJF/Tropper steamboat.

    So instead of attacking and demeaning his de facto web host, Roni/Tropper should be praising to high heaven and thanking the generosity and open-mindedness of Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah who has allowed so much pro-EJF/TRopper verbiage, often vicious and self-defeating, to come from poster Roni/Tropper.

    Then again, hakoras hatov, being mekabel mussar & tochacha, and being a doresh es ha'emes and being mevakesh es ha'emes are not things that comes easily to money-hungry and power-driven pathological egomaniacs.

    ReplyDelete
  37. RAP,


    I will repeat briefly:

    all my crimes of typos and mispelling and aggressibe language etc. do not amount to one ounce of diboh and sheker that you produce!

    ReplyDelete
  38. After so many chollents, we continue from CM 1 to 7 to 14 (where NOT ONE supports *anything* asked of Mekubal and aliases), he now cites a new siman CM 11 as if it will change anything:

    "Actually I said that he was in violation of CM 11:1, where it says that even if summoned from a faraway place, he must come, or make his excuse and arrange a proper date..":

    Care to show me where it says in that siman "evenif summoned from a faraway place, hemust come..."? It actually does not say that at all! Furthermore it implies clearly that are talking about someone who comes lives in the vicinity of the BD.

    And actually siman 14 states that where there is a Bd in the place of the nitva, the nitva can state that he will not go to the tovea's distant place.

    And most importantly: SIman 11 talks about a "din" a litigation between two parties, NOT a call by a chochom about issurim!

    Mekubal "That one must obey a B"D is poshut,"

    Roni: Not in issurim when one has a different Chochom or Moreh horooh whose horoos he follows.

    Mekubal"that one must answer a summons such as the letter given by the BaDaTz is also poshut".

    Roni: the "summons" gien by BaDAtz refers to a summon to come to adin torah; not to a letter of machaa about matters of issurrim. That may fall under a different issue where the person may have reasons not to be obliged to follow one possek when he has another possek whom he follows.

    mekubal:Also Roni seems to want to insist that there is a B"D kavua in the US however, as I have already pointed out Iggros Moshe Vol 1 Siman 3 makes it very clear that there are not".

    ROni: And i replied that according to him, the BaDAtz in Erets Yisroel is *certainly* does not carry the power of BD kavua to people who did not appoint them to be their b"d (and perhaps many batey dinim in erets yisroel may not the status of BD kavua even to their consituents according to this pssakof Rav Moshe).
    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  39. After so many chollents, we continue from CM 1 to 7 to 14 (where NOT ONE supports *anything* asked of Mekubal and aliases), he now cites a new siman CM 11 as if it will change anything:

    "Actually I said that he was in violation of CM 11:1, where it says that even if summoned from a faraway place, he must come, or make his excuse and arrange a proper date..":

    Care to show me where it says in that siman "evenif summoned from a faraway place, hemust come..."? It actually does not say that at all! Furthermore it implies clearly that are talking about someone who comes lives in the vicinity of the BD.

    And actually siman 14 states that where there is a Bd in the place of the nitva, the nitva can state that he will not go to the tovea's distant place.

    And most importantly: SIman 11 talks about a "din" a litigation between two parties, NOT a call by a chochom about issurim!

    Mekubal "That one must obey a B"D is poshut,"

    Roni: Not in issurim when one has a different Chochom or Moreh horooh whose horoos he follows.

    Mekubal"that one must answer a summons such as the letter given by the BaDaTz is also poshut".

    Roni: the "summons" gien by BaDAtz refers to a summon to come to adin torah; not to a letter of machaa about matters of issurrim. That may fall under a different issue where the person may have reasons not to be obliged to follow one possek when he has another possek whom he follows.

    mekubal:Also Roni seems to want to insist that there is a B"D kavua in the US however, as I have already pointed out Iggros Moshe Vol 1 Siman 3 makes it very clear that there are not".

    ROni: And i replied that according to him, the BaDAtz in Erets Yisroel is *certainly* does not carry the power of BD kavua to people who did not appoint them to be their b"d (and perhaps many batey dinim in erets yisroel may not the status of BD kavua even to their consituents according to this pssakof Rav Moshe).
    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  40. continued
    MEkubal writes in his hyperbole intended to incite against one person: "Implicit in Roni's statements are two very dangerous concepts that go far to undermine the foundations of all Torah.

    1) Is to suggest that a B"D does not have authority, when our sages teach that every B"D is to be considered as the B"D of Moshe and Aharon".

    Roni: This person is LYING I never said a B"D does not have authority. I said that he does not have automatic authority to coeerce someone else to follow matters of issur veheter when one has his own Rov. The terms "b"d" in Halacha are referred to issues of choshen mishpat. There is of course the power of a Rov nad Moreh Horooh but they certainly do not have the power over someone who is not from their "makom".


    MEkubal tries now to sneak in another chollent issue that was not under discussion at all: "2) Is to suggest that the Tuvei HaIr do not have the ability to decide what is permissible to take place within their own city".

    "tuvey hair" man dechar shmey? Who was talking about "Tuvei hair"? Whatever this guy thinks "tuvey hair" (whatever that means today) do not have the power outside of their place.

    The most dangerous thing happening here is people twisting torah and halacha with statements of ignorance in order to smear one person and to cover under the rug REAL CONCERNS (like bringing REAL GOYIM into klal yisroel).

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mekubal vedeimeh,

    Nice try. But it does not wash. If you look at a common denominator of your posts sinceit's inception you go out of the way to attack EJF and R' Tropper.

    You might have some other intentions in mind and you might talk about some other issues. But mostly amidst the issues you *discuss* (as opposed to cut andpaste parts of articles that appear in internet) one of the strognest issue is EJF and R' Tropper. And in the majority of majority of cases it is to find the negative of the case; commonly twisting the facts on the ground and many a times you go on with a head post to attack the man and most of the time you have one commenter (RAP) whois a prime motzi diboh and venom against him and anyone associated with him! At times you even allow in the comments open derision of Roshey Yeshivot and Rabbonim that are associated with him. REcently on Assere yemey teshuva you allowed a post to persist where the person wrote with so much venom about another rabbi who does tremendous good in a foreign contury, where there were no observant jews after years of communism and the person succeeded in bringing so many jews back and you had these venomous comments filled sheker and diboh and shmootz against the man. It so happened that the only crime that deserved such sinoh vediboh vesheker is the man's association to R' Tropper.

    Your *passion* in your blog is kept when attacking R' Tropper and anyone who comes next to him!

    To be fair though, there is another issue that you are passionate about and I am in agreement with you in that passion when talking about molestation and the unfortunate cover up and the need to alert thepublic to the real ways to protect the child.

    And then there is another topic that overlaps both of these topics that you are passionate about: Science and Rabbis and halach. There too, one sees where although you attempt to be balanced and fair, you tilt slightly towards the hyperbole to attack haredi Rabbis and try to show a more moderate position. There I am mere observer, where i have mixeed feelings to both sides.

    But your passion that shows itself (not by the number of "cut and paste" headliness, but by the tenor and passion that comes through the posts) is surpassed by your passion to attack r' Tropper. Although i'll be fair, that your passion about molestation and abuse comes close to your passion to attack R' Tropper.


    I'll only comment on your "Furthermore I would argue that if you simply did not insist on making an issue out of every single thing, like some holy defender of all that is Tropper, you would not see even a third of the comments about those pieces. Your own antagonism spurs people to comment".

    NOT COMPLETELY true. Even when you go before i appeared on this side of the world, you had this issue and the comments were extremely negative and nasty towards the man and the issue. and you reserved the passion and dissertation to attacking him and what he stands for.

    And i'll repeat again to show how you are tilted to attack the man: you had in asseret yemey teshuva a post with the most venomous and sinoh at him and at a Rabbi who does kiruv in a far distant place and succeeded in bringing many jews back to the fold and you allowed your site to post dirt and smut and sheker and diboh against him!

    ReplyDelete
  42. RAP,

    You are the last person to speak about any "hakporas hatov", andmanic attacks and offensive comments when you are the champion of MOTZI DIBOH VESHEKER! you are a shakron par excellence and draw hatred to the highest proportions against another jew!



    I'll not commend Rabbi Eidensohn for allowing my comments here! For this is the very least that he can do, when he writes so negatively about a person, when he allows you to spew hate and diboh and sheker (as for instance the sheker info used about the nephew and in many ccases he refused to allow the correction of those info) and incitement by you against a person. So he is not to be commended for allowing someone to come in the defenseof the man when he is the prime sourrce and SHUTAF to all negative things that are said about a man!

    RAP, after long treatises and your hijacking "badatz" and Rav Sternbuch for your own biased needs to attack a person; neither him not you have shown how one Rabbi must listen to another Rabbi when he has MANY RABBIS aligned with him. You could not demonstrate your case that Rav Tropper does not have Rav REuven on his side without resorting your mechutzaf to attack Rav Reuven (with DT's permission for these posts to remain public!). Your need to attack Rav REuven and many other rabbis shows how your case has almost no legs to stand on to support your venomous rampage at Rav Tropper.

    i'll NOT let pass another LIE and sheker that you and your partners are used to spread and to misinform the public:

    There was NO FORGED LETTER. The letter was signed by 9 rabbis, 7 of which had the REAL COURAGE (of "loy taguru mipney rap and Co") to attack him on Halachik grounds of bringing goyim into klal yisroel.

    I'll close agian: You better look at yourself in the mirror and see how much diboh and sheker and venom you have spread against one man and at people associated with the man.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Roni,

    If you knew the first thing about the Halakhot that we are discussing here, you would understand who Tuvei HaIr are.

    Secondary to that if you would actually bother to read other people's comments you would have known from the beginning(the very first comment in this thread) that we have been discussing CM11. Futhermore you would see where it is poshut that one must respond to the B"D. Furthermore, if you would bother to crack a sefer, and actually read the words of the meforshim, you would understand that this is not simply talking about a Din Torah.

    Instead however you wish to only go on the attack.

    What you fail to realize is that everything that you have said to this point is equally a defense for Bomzer. The B"D that wrote the letter of which you claim to have offered up the English version(though you did admit in the original thread when confronted that it was forged), that B"D has no more power to decry R' Bomzer who is following his own Rabbanim. In fact his supposedly "lenient" standards are those of the RCA(and those upheld by the majority of their Rabbanim), and those that R' Ovadiah Yosef(whose stand against pointless chumrot is legendary) insists be followed in Geirut.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Roni once again, I do not own this blog. I promise you, I am a completely different individual. I will prove it to you. Tomorrow the two of us plan on attending the same event. I will have a picture taken of the two of us so that you can see we are separate individuals.

    Does it bother you to think that there may be various individuals that have issues with what R' Tropper does, and quite possibly for different reasons?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dear Dt,

    One more thing: Even in issues of Gerut, if your main concern would be the problems in gerut itself, you would also put some of the energy into more pressing issues in the industry of gerut the gerut performed by many rabbis who do not contain any kabbalat hamitzvot. that is a much more pressing problem that what R. Tropper does (Even leshitas Rav Sternbuch) and yet those issues are almost neve discussed (when they are, they are mostly to my input).

    Hamikroh hazeh omer dorsheinu"!

    Gutten Moed,

    Roni

    ReplyDelete
  46. MEkubal:"If you knew the first thing about the Halakhot that we are discussing here, you would understand who Tuvei HaIr are".

    ROni: ad homnonem insults won't take you anywhere. These halachot do not have *anything* to do with issurim in another place where the "tuvey hair" may reside! you are mamesh entangling yourself daily with more ignorant comments.

    MekubAL:"Secondary to that if you would actually bother to read other people's comments you would have known from the beginning(the very first comment in this thread) that we have been discussing CM11'.

    ROni: Nice try. The CM appeared at first in of the comments., They are *not* in the main post.

    And again I ask you again (not only to restate your (ah) statements, butt show) where it says in 11 that it realtes to a B"d having the power to coerce someone in another continent where they have other b"d ?

    Mekubal" Futhermore you would see where it is poshut that one must respond to the B"D".

    Roni: This relates to *choshen mishpat* issues not to issurim! (they are covered under a different set of halachot).

    MEkubal"Furthermore, if you would bother to crack a sefer, and actually read the words of the meforshim, you would understand that this is not simply talking about a Din Torah".

    Roni: if you would bother to start from scratch you would see that you do not know what you are talking about!

    Instead however you wish to only go on the attack.

    Mekubal"What you fail to realize is that everything that you have said to this point is equally a defense for Bomzer. The B"D that wrote the letter of which you claim to have offered up the English version(though you did admit in the original thread when confronted that it was forged), that B"D has no more power to decry R' Bomzer who is following his own Rabbanim".

    Roni: Chochom from jupiter, pleaselisten carefully: Rabbis have the power in issurim of tochacha and machaa! they have the power to denounce what issur some else does! this is obvious and poshut and I would not decry the fact that Rav Sternbuch would have the same right to do so against Rav Tropper! And if would have the power to fight Rav Tropper he would be able to do so showing how the texts support him and then Rav Tropper would be able with his rabbis to show how Rav Sternbuch is right. So the 9 Rabbis who signed the letter (no matter how much you guys will tist and tuern: THEY SIGNED A LETTER, 7 OF THEM REPUDIATING HARSHLY RABBI BOMZER) have the right in issur veheter to make a machaa and tochacha and lefrusheh missureh. What is being said here that DT and your (aliases) insisence that RT is inv violation of not lisntenting to B"d is ALUDICROUS AND IGNORANCE! capiche?

    And no, I'll not let the LIE that Rav Bomzer's has backing of leninecies by Rav Ovadyah. you do not know what you are talking about! Rav Ovadya IS not leninet regarding lack of ANY KABBALAT HAMITZVOT. I read his teshuvot. HIs leneincies actually EXTEND TO RAV TRROPPER'S ACITIVITES! which does not lack kabbalt hamitzvot the very basic ones.R' Bomzer gerut (and for money) are NULL AND VOID even according to Rav Ovadayah when done without any kabbalat mitzvot. There is no "leniency" in his pssokim in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  47. mekubal said...

    Roni once again, I do not own this blog. I promise you, I am a completely different individual. I will prove it to you.
    -------------
    Mekubal do you really think that Roni would take that as proof? One of the many "endearing" characteristics that Roni shares with R Tropper is a deep seated suspicion of a conspiracy against him.
    Perhaps the opposite tack should be tacken. Maybe it is best that I confess that I am the only commentator on this blog except for Roni - who knows that he is not me.

    Actually I am suffering from multiple personality disorder and Roni is simply trying to restore me to reality.

    Than again it could be than I am also Roni. Dear me this is getting to sound like Alice in Wonderland or a Kotzker Rebbe maaseh.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Roni

    I have offered up my sources. You come with absolutely nothing to state that they do not say, what they are saying, or that it does not apply, or... or... or...

    But you bring no source. You have brought no proof against Bomzer other than a letter that you admitted was forged.

    You can twist and turn the truth all that you like. However in the end we are left with a R' Tropper who has shown his utter disdain for Torah in the following ways:

    1)He refuses to answer a B"D

    2)He is moser another Jew in secular court, and I am not referring to the alleged assault on his person, I am referring to him helping Tom Kaplan file suit against another individual for control of a certain non-profit and currently for control of the profits of a certain energy company.

    3)We can add to that his utterly boorish remarks made at his own conference that Rabbis that wear cologne or light colored suits have somehow disqualified themselves from being Dayyanim.

    All of this from a man who on his own blog demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to accurately read a Daf as RaP was so kind as to bring the source here.

    He also makes the false claim that his conversions are universally accepted when it is plain for all to see if the BaDaTz says that he is not permitted to do them, than anyone associated with the Eidah, nearly a million Jews world wide, will not accept them.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mekubal,

    You wrote: "I have offered up my sources. You come with absolutely nothing to state that they do not say, what they are saying, or that it does not apply, or... or... or...":

    Roni: you are really unbelivable. the more youwrite the more I see how many axes there are here. You are the one who compared brining goyim into klal yisroel to RT not answering Bd and you went even further to claim (a dangerous claim) that their gerim are suspect *BECAUSEOF THIS*. You are the one who needs to bring proof to be "motzi" from the pashtut that one does not become passul leeydoot and ledayanut or passul at all for lack of answering to call of a Rabbi to stop doing a certain practice in in issurim when he follows another BD!

    I need no proof and source for this elemtary issue.

    However: "But you bring no source. You have brought no proof against Bomzer other than a letter that you admitted was forged'.

    Roni: This blog really is infected with a virus that casues people to say lies! You ARE LYING. I NEVER EVER ADMITTED IT WAS FORGED! IT IS A TRUE LETTER AND THE RABBIS DENOUNCE AND WARN RABBI BOMER FOR HIS FAKE GERUT1

    IF you want to defend him, be my guest, try to defend him on his merits, but DO NOT LIE AND DO NOT GET INFECTED WITH THE VIRUS OF DT THAT has people constantly lying!

    AGAIN, THE LETTER WAS NOT FORGED!

    ReplyDelete
  50. mekubal then writes: "You can twist and turn the truth all that you like. However in the end we are left with a R' Tropper who has shown his utter disdain for Torah in the following ways:"

    Roni: The hyperbole illness of this blog has overtaken you. There is no utter disdain in any way. There is only a campign to lie and libel an individual!

    mEKUBAL: "1)He refuses to answer a B"D"

    ROni: You guys are great in lying and repeating lies as if they become true. He did not refuse to answer a *Beis Din*. There was no *halachik* BD that he had to respond to in terms of that halacha.

    MEkubal"2)He is moser another Jew in secular court, and I am not referring to the alleged assault on his person, I am referring to him helping Tom Kaplan file suit against another individual for control of a certain non-profit and currently for control of the profits of a certain energy company'.

    ROni:a) You have not shown in any shape or form that he helped him. You make allegations and state them as facts.

    b) Even if he were (which i'm not familiar if he did) he might have had permission from a BD (espcially that the person who brought him in court is a mumar that does not listen to BD).

    MEkubal:"3)We can add to that his utterly boorish remarks made at his own conference that Rabbis that wear cologne or light colored suits have somehow disqualified themselves from being Dayyanim".

    Roni: Now you convinced me! Making remarks like this (if he would be theone said, and if he said it in this context, which i doubt) makes him "disdainful for torah! And most especially it makes him comaprable to Bomzer (who brought HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF GOYIM INTO KLAL YISROEL AND I DO NOT ADMIT THAT THE LETTER WAS FORGED AND NO LIES THAT YOU MAKE ANDWILL MAKE WITH ANY OF YOUR ALIASES OR TEACHEWRS OR CALUAGUES OR UNDER IONFLUEENCE OF ANY FRIENDS CONVERTED BY THE PASSUL DAYAN)! tORAH CHADASHH FROM THE JUPITER WORLD! THANK YOU FOR THE PURIM TORAH IN MIDDLE OF SUKKOT!

    ReplyDelete
  51. "All of this from a man who on his own blog demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to accurately read a Daf as RaP was so kind as to bring the source here".


    I do not know what you are talking about, but i thing i'm sure neither Rap's abilities or your or both of yours together or your coupled with the host's abilities match up to be able to read a mishneh properly. you will make 100 chollents in onemishnah andcome up with so many purim torah
    's that will make anyone not stop laughing for your comedy show.

    And Badatz did not say that they will not accept Rt's conversions.

    YOU ARE LYING ON AND ON AND ON...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Tropper,

    Your *passion* in your blog is kept when attacking R' Tropper and anyone who comes next to him!

    There was no attacking on people close to Tropper, there is the mariyt ayain (or not) of people around him who receive money from him

    Science and Rabbis and halach... where i have mixeed feelings to both sides.

    So why did you organize the ban on Rabbi Slifkin books ?

    Even when you go before i appeared on this side of the world, you had this issue and the comments were extremely negative and nasty towards the man and the issue

    Nothing compared to hatred you spawn upon Rabbi Bomzer, You really like to say about him 'Esnan Zona', you really like to use that word….

    There was NO FORGED LETTER. The letter was signed by 9 rabbis, 7 of which had the REAL COURAGE (of "loy taguru mipney rap and Co") to attack him on Halachik grounds of bringing goyim into klal yisroel

    Show us the original , not the one YOU translated !

    ... by many rabbis who do not contain any kabbalat hamitzvot.

    When you talk about kabbalat hamitzvot you mean YOUR frumkeit, like revoking conversions of a woman who sometime wore pants or neglected to cover her hair.
    http://www.jewcy.com/tags/leib_tropper

    You could not demonstrate your case that Rav Tropper does not have Rav REuven on his side without resorting your mechutzaf to attack Rav Reuven

    The question with all the respect was if r’ Reuven Feinstein or his yeshiva received financial help from EJF.

    ...one of the strognest issue is EJF and R' Tropper….commonly twisting the facts on the ground

    Is not what you have done here or even worst?… when you spread rumors about a convert that she still believes in Christ and the RCA still converted her.
    http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5769/TZV69aconvert.htm

    And from the above link what do you have against rav Lookstein? the mechitza in KJ ? or rav Lookstein's beard is not up to your high standards.


    Check Yourself Before You Wreck yourself Tropper

    ReplyDelete
  53. ROni:a) You have not shown in any shape or form that he helped him. You make allegations and state them as facts.

    This is a flat out lie!!! I have posted links of the court documents, and the newspapers that covered the trial. His ownstatement to the Jerusalem police as to why the alleged assault was made against was on account of his involvement with the trial.

    You are demonstrating, once again, that you are willing to lie to defend the man.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "All of this from a man who on his own blog demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to accurately read a Daf as RaP was so kind as to bring the source here".


    I do not know what you are talking about, but i thing i'm sure neither Rap's abilities or your or both of yours together or your coupled with the host's abilities match up to be able to read a mishneh properly. you will make 100 chollents in onemishnah andcome up with so many purim torah
    's that will make anyone not stop laughing for your comedy show.


    I will gladly jog your memory,
    Rabbi Tropper Responds:

    This is a machlokes rishonim regarding the explanation of the Gemora in Kidushin 68. Rashi’s opinion is that the child even though a Jew requires Geirus (Jewish conversion). Other Rishonim disagree.


    Where you admitted, surprisingly, as it was a rare shade of honesty,
    normally i myself would have said that he be more careful in saying that this is not lear cut in rashi.

    Yes he bumbled the Daf. He somehow missed the previous two Rashis on the same Amud that state the exact opposite. All of the Meforshim point out the contradiction(as well as to three other Rashi's in the Perek), and thus come down to, as Rashi stated, this is a Girsa difference. He was not stating his opinion, he was simply giving a different Girsa. In that respect R' Tropper seriously bumbled the Daf. Figuring out Shittat Rashi is a beginner's move, and he flunked it. Even you admitted that he misstated the Rashi.

    So please don't lie about it now. The grand scheme of propaganda, that if one tells a lie long enough and often enough, people will begin to think its true, will not work here. There are too many people to call you on your lies.

    ReplyDelete
  55. In terms of the personal and political background here, I strongly identify with Daas Torah and Mekubal. I do not approve of the EJF, nor do I think Roni's style/content are appropriate to a respectable conversation. I admire Mekubal's scholarship and his straightforward honesty.

    However, regarding the actual issue at hand in this specific thread, namely that of modern-day batei din and their supposed sovereignty, I find Mekubal's position to be completely untenable. Our batei-din today are completely unlike anything that Hazal or the rishonim and aharonim ever contemplated.

    For them, batei din derived their authority and sovereignty from the diaspora populations that appointed them and gave them power. This situation continued to be more or less stable until modern times, but it certainly has not been true for the past century.

    Today, no city has anything even remotely resembling a beit din that derives its sovereignty from the local population, neither directly (through elections) nor through mechanisms analogous to the tuvei ha-ir. The very thought is absurd! When Rav Moshe zt"l said that their are no batei din kevuim in America, this is what he meant.

    But even in Israel the situation is the same. How can any private beit din (such as the Edah Hareidit) claim sovereignty over people or communities in a city like modern Jerusalem, over a population most of which takes no part in appointing the dayyanim, and which never contemplated giving them such authority?

    Even for government batei din the situation is the same. It is at least arguable that such bodies, by virtue of ruling according to laws that have been accepted by the population at large, have not just secular legal sovereignty but even halakhic status (that is a classic Mizrahi argument). But even granting that this is so, they have no more authority than the law grants them. And the law grants them no authority over anything besides technical matters of personal status.

    Their legal authority does not include summoning people with whom they disagree. Otherwise they would even be able to summon Reform rabbis and take them to task for performing non-Orthodox conversions. There is no beit din in the world today with sovereignty over people at large, and with the authority to summon them because of their opinions or their actions.

    Nor even do most of the halakhot about the status of batei din in the Shulhan Arukh have anything to do with summoning people for reasons like this. For monetary disputes, for supervising a get, yes. But to summon a rabbinic group for pursuing halakhic policy that a beit din considers wrong? Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  56. mekubal wrote:"This is a flat out lie!!! I have posted links of the court documents, and the newspapers that covered the trial. His ownstatement to the Jerusalem police as to why the alleged assault was made against was on account of his involvement with the trial'.


    I asked you many times to produce the "documents?" that state that Rav Tropper was helping! SSo far you haven't and any statement to the contrary, is so far A LIE! togethe with all the other lies of this place.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mkubal:"will gladly jog your memory,
    Rabbi Tropper Responds:

    This is a machlokes rishonim regarding the explanation of the Gemora in Kidushin 68. Rashi’s opinion is that the child even though a Jew requires Geirus (Jewish conversion). Other Rishonim disagree."


    mekubal wrote: "Where you admitted, surprisingly, as it was a rare shade of honesty,
    normally i myself would have said that he be more careful in saying that this is not lear cut in rashi".

    Cghochom, you and your Freida go on a limb on something totally insignificant, something that stems from sinah.

    REb chochom from jupiter, Rav Tropper was not careful in being 100% accurate (though he did not make LIES as you and your colleagues), because this is a very small insignifant point. For in practice he mentioned that we do not require conversion and actually reject the practiceof converting them. ASo his mareh makom was not 100% accurate. But he repeated what is mentioned in seforim that deal with this, that some rishonim and a rashi may indicate that it is required. you and the owner of the blog and other ignorants did notknow from the whole issue and thought to catch a fish with a klotz kasha for you did not know about the whole background, just "hack a tchaynick" like most poosts against RT so you were shown the background where the Maharasha is medayek from a particular rashi that there need to be new conversion. So RT had the terrible avera of not letting everyone know that the mahrasha states that there might anotner Rashi and other have a diffferent girssa. but that does not mean that he "mumbled" the daf as you contend. that means that he was not accurate 100% in writing this on his blog (As opposed to you and other AH who are not aware about this and other issues andmake huge chollents and spew a lot of air in order to defame the man).

    listen here, there is a clear strreak of pewrsonal sinah that combines you to other sonim of RT on this blog. I suggest you go to an Md to give you a special dose of Tropperphobia and go to a mussar mashgiach to guide you regarding truth and lies!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hi MT(R)

    Sholom alechem moadim lesimcha! long time we didn't hear from you. I was already worried if everything is OK with you, since you didn't join the tropper bashing club today. But BH you reasured me about it. I just hope that you go with your colleagues and get a storng dose of tropper phobia as it will do good to all of you!

    with regards to thepoints:
    Tropper,

    roni: "Your *passion* in your blog is kept when attacking R' Tropper and anyone who comes next to him!"

    MTR: "There was no attacking on people close to Tropper, there is the mariyt ayain (or not) of people around him who receive money from him"

    Roni: this is called at best dan lekaf chovah and at worse MAKING UP LIES AND MOTZI DIBAH VESHEKER AGAINST INNCOCENT PEOPLE!

    roni:"Even when you go before i appeared on this side of the world, you had this issue and the comments were extremely negative and nasty towards the man and the issue"

    mr: "Nothing compared to hatred you spawn upon Rabbi Bomzer, You really like to say about him 'Esnan Zona', you really like to use that word…."

    Roni: it was AS BAD before i counter balanced it with the TRUTH bout the dayan of flatbush!

    roni:"There was NO FORGED LETTER. The letter was signed by 9 rabbis, 7 of which had the REAL COURAGE (of "loy taguru mipney rap and Co") to attack him on Halachik grounds of bringing goyim into klal yisroel"

    MR: "Show us the original , not the one YOU translated !"

    Roni: PUT IT IN YOUR AND OTHER HEAD: THE ORIGINAL IS THE ONE THAT WAS POSTED ON THIS BLOG!

    ... by many rabbis who do not contain any kabbalat hamitzvot.

    MR: "When you talk about kabbalat hamitzvot you mean YOUR frumkeit, like revoking conversions of a woman who sometime wore pants or neglected to cover her hair.
    http://www.jewcy.com/tags/leib_tropper"

    roNI: NO I MEAN THOSE WHO DO NOT keep one shabbat, they drive andgo to work and smoke and cook on shbbat, eat pork, never go to mikvah etc.this is what the flatbush dayan converted to the nephew and hundrends and thousands others!

    roni:You could not demonstrate your case that Rav Tropper does not have Rav REuven on his side without resorting your mechutzaf to attack Rav Reuven

    mr: "The question with all the respect was if r’ Reuven Feinstein or his yeshiva received financial help from EJF."

    ROni: shame on you for suggesting that RAv REuven paskened a Halacha because of financial gains! This belongs to the flatbush rabbbi and other who convert for $$$

    .Good moed and a quick recovery!

    ReplyDelete
  59. True Batei Din,

    You summarized R' Moshe Z"L's points very well. Though I must say that I disagree with you on how a governmental B"D in Israel derives its power, and thus its status as a B"D Kavua(the same with many Batei Dinim in Europe today). Also considering the length of the existance of the Eida(long before the secular state), I would also argue over its status.

    I also never stated that a B"D had the ability to order an entire Rabbinic body, but rather a single individual, that wished to operate within its city(which by the way R' Tropper does operate in Jerusalem, and EJF conversion done in Jerusalem are not recognized by the Rabbinate of Israel).

    However on account of the ability to argue from the point of Kim Li, and the strength and stature of R' Moshe's overall argument I must concede the point.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Maharasha is medayek from a particular rashi that there need to be new conversion. So RT had the terrible avera of not letting everyone know that the mahrasha states that there might anotner Rashi and other have a diffferent girssa.

    The Maharrasha says no such thing. Quite the contrary in fact and he also points out the contradiction of the Rashi. You can try any crazy move you want, he bumbled the daf. He made a beginner mistake in not being able to identify what was shittas Rashi.

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  62. EJF in Calgary alberta are currantly being Mecharav the Ex Hillel representative who has a non jewish girlfried and her kids. Not a situation of intermarried couple - boyfriend- girlfriend situation Who says EJF are not preaching to the goyim

    ReplyDelete
  63. After writing my response to True Batei Din, I read the Jewcy article posted by Monsey Tzadik. Striking to me was this:
    "Sarah and Avraham live hundreds of miles from Tropper, who is based in the ultra-Orthodox enclave of Monsey, New York. How did Tropper find out about Sarah’s clothing? Easy: Her husband told him.

    A “baal teshuva,” Avraham was as new to ultra-Orthodoxy as Sarah was to Judaism. Like many people who become Orthodox as adults, he had questions. Orthodox Jewish law mandates how to put on and tie one’s shoes; when, how, and even if to have sex; what and when to eat, and hundreds of other daily minutiae. Was it a major transgression for Sarah occasionally not to cover her hair? What about wearing pants?

    Avraham didn’t know, so he asked Tropper, who said that her behavior showed a flagrant disregard for Judaism, and that she was taking Jewish law lightly. He questioned Sarah’s original intent in converting, and contacted her for an explanation. Shocked that her husband had gone behind her back, Sarah refused to talk, and Tropper revoked her conversion.

    In an email to Avraham, Tropper wrote, “We must keep our word. [Sarah] ACCEPTED on herself to OBSERVE ALL of the torah & rabbinical commanments [sic]. She never did. You know that & you told me that.”
    "

    Now for a Kim Li to work Tropper needs to actually hold that way. Here however, he appears to show in typical fashion, that he believes that a B"D is all powerful, even being able to revoke someone's conversion for what Roni would call "issur v'heter" issues.

    Yes whether a woman can wear women's pants is a matter for one's local Rav to decide. I fail to understand how R' Tropper feels that he can reach hundreds of miles away to interfere with someone's life, but a B"D of true Talmidei Chakhamim in Jerusalem cannot do the same to him when he decides to set up shop in their backyard.

    If he rejects R' Moshe's ruling, and feels that even in the US Batei Dinim have such all inclusive power, how can he claim that the Eidah does not posses the same?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Recipients and PublicityOctober 7, 2009 at 1:33 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Recipients and PublicityOctober 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM

    More about Ivanka Trump's conversion and engagement and the Kushner family:

    And confirmed again: "Ivanka Trump Becomes a Member of the Tribe—Converts to Orthdox Judaism (JWeekly.com. July 18, 2009)

    On July 16, the engagement of Ivanka Trump, 27, to New York Observer newspaper publisher Jared Kushner, 28, was announced. Kushner comes from a prominent New Jersey Orthodox Jewish family most active in real estate. His father, Charles Kushner, is a major philanthropist whose projects includes the Jewish Educational Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey and the Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy and the Rae Kushner Yeshiva High School in Livingston, N.J.. The schools are named after Charles’ late parents, both Holocaust survivors.

    Ivanka, as most people know, is the daughter of real-estate mogul Donald Trump and his ex-wife, Ivana Trump. (Neither of whom are Jewish). Beautiful and smart, Ivanka is currently Vice President of Real Estate Development and Acquisitions at the Trump Organization.

    On July 17, after the engagement was announced, New York magazine was able to release details of a recent interview with the couple. Here is an excerpt:

    Ivanka and Jared appear, genuinely, to be very much in love. [Ivanka says] "Jared is my best friend for many reasons, largely because I've allowed him to see who I truly am and he still loves me. I don't feel like I have any defensive He's so kind as a human being, I look up to him," she said. "He's a bit of a hero of mine. His ability to remain focused — he lacks an anxiety that's natural for someone his age handed so much responsibility. Sometimes I catch myself looking at him and being thankful that I have grown to a level of personal maturity that I would value so much the qualities he has."

    "We met through mutual friends," [Ivanka] told me. "We started dating pretty quickly after we met. It still felt like a slow process — a courtship, if you will." Jared's Orthodox Jewish background presented a challenge to the relationship, but Ivanka has worked hard to show Jared's parents that she embraces Judaism. This week, she completed her conversion, after studying under Rabbi Hillel Lookstein at [Modern Orthodox] Congregation Kellillath Jeshrun on the Upper East Side. (Before this, they could not be officially engaged.) This spring, for instance, Ivanka attended a benefit for the Mikvah, the traditional Jewish bath, in Jared's hometown of Livingston, New Jersey, with his mom, Seyrl, and his two sisters, Nicole and Dara.”... Full Interview: Ivanka Trump on New Fiancé Jared Kushner: ‘He’ll Be a Great Father’ (NY Magazine. 7/17/09)"

    ReplyDelete
  66. Tropper or no, isn't anyone disturbed at the fact that an extremely prominent Modern Orthodox rabbi performed a rush "conversion" for a celebrity to enable her to marry a wealthy Jewish philanthropist?

    Does anyone seriously think that this was a valid conversion?

    ReplyDelete
  67. wHOEVER WROTE THIS:

    "However, The reason r’ Tropper and the EJF work to marginalize him is
    because they tried to get Ivanka Trump to convert with them, they pursued
    Ivanka and her boyfriend very hard but in the end Ivanka Trump and her boyfriend decided to go with rabbi Lookstein".


    IS A PIECE OF MOTZI SHEM RAH, SHOTEH VEGAS RUACH VEROSHO! PRODUCE ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR THIS GARBAGE!

    DT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS! HIDE BEHIND YOUR PSEUDONAMES BUT YOU ARE A ROSHO MERUSHO IF YOU DO EITHER: A) PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THIS, B) OR ERASE THIS (aS YOU DID ERASE OTHER COMMENTS WHICH WERE AL PI TORAH!)

    RONI

    ReplyDelete
  68. lAZERa,

    you wrote this: "Tropper or no.."

    It is a shame that you give credence to piece of drivel and MOTZI SHEM RAH! RAV TROPPER AND RAV EISENSTEIN WOULD BE THE LAST PEOPLE WHO WOULD THIS AVERA AND CHARADE! RAV TROPPER ACTUALLY REFUSED TO "CONVERT" ANOTHER WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL EVNE THOUGH THIS COST HIM A LOT OF MONEY, BUT THE FALTBUSH DAYANAND OTHER PARTNERS OF THE ESSNAN ZUONAH FUND (COLLEAGUES OF RAP!) MADE THIS CHARADE AND FAKE GERUT!

    AGAIN, TO IMPLY THAT RAV TROPPER HAD ANY HAND IN "PURSUING" THIS UGLY GERUT IS A HOTZZOT SHEM RAH!

    ReplyDelete
  69. dt,

    to clarify:

    if you do not either produce evidence about hotzaat diboh or erase the diboh you are a rosho merusho, whether you write this, or hide under someone else's name or have your student write it for you (and censor the posts that speak about the amhooratzoos and rishoot of these posts), or there is a real other writer, but *you* are the owner of this hotzooat diboh vesheker and you are the WORSE THAN THEM : BECAUSE *YOU* DISSEMINATE THEM!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Roni you really are obnoxious. I agree with your concern but not your language. I agree with your point that the issue of R' Tropper's desire or interest to be involved in such conversions has not be established in any way - I deleted the original comment.

    Blogger has been acting strange this afternoon - so it took a while to take care of it.

    Please get it through your thick skull that you are doing R Tropper no favors by your abusive language and I am moving in Mekubal's direction regarding banning your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  71. To center the conversation.

    Why is it a problem to say that R' Tropper sought or even encouraged Ivanka to undergo a valid conversion through his system?

    I don't see that as a motzei shem ra at all, that is what EJF does.

    I do agree that saying the reason that R' Tropper is against R' Lookstein is on account of the way that turned out.

    There is reason enough to be against R' Lookstein for that piece of filth movie that he allowed to be filmed in his Synagogue. Or any of the large number of other things that go on there, that have gotten it written up in times past as "hip" or "progressive".

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Why is it a problem to say that R' Tropper sought or even encouraged Ivanka to undergo a valid conversion through his system?"

    1) Because in general it is not valid! It is wrong to seek conversion for someone who is not married yet, in order for them to able to get married. In general it lacks kabbalat hamitzvot.

    2) especially, when the person seeking or being sought is wealthy with lots of money it has the impression (true most times) that it was done with the corruptible power of money.

    3) And to top it off, the way the story was being portrayed it seems to imply that the Rabbi was seeking them because of money!

    All of these are false charges and until they were removed they were there with the intention to libel the man.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Roni you really are obnoxious. I agree with your concern but not your language".

    Motzi shem rah is much worse thanmy language.

    "I agree with your point that the issue of R' Tropper's desire or interest to be involved in such conversions has not be established in any way ":

    More than this: In the many years that EJf exists it has been established that they do not perform conversions to boyfriends or girlfriends in order to get married.

    "- I deleted the original comment.
    Blogger has been acting strange this afternoon - so it took a while to take care of it".

    1) Why did you not warn RAP that these things are not acceptable?

    2) did you warn him that he might get banned?

    3) you owe R Tropper a public apology for even an oness happened at this time: 1) it is not your first time, 2) sof sof, your blog was a vehicle to defame a person.

    "Please get it through your thick skull "

    you have no understanding in these matters and coming from you it is a praise.

    "that you are doing R Tropper no favors by your abusive language"

    I am exposing his enemies for what they are!

    "and I am moving in Mekubal's direction regarding banning your comments".

    Which will demonstrate to all that you are unable to deal with issues of hotzooat diboh, sheker and milchemet sheker against one person without any basis and have a few guys coming up with lies and shmootz to defame a man.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Roni you really are obnoxious. I agree with your concern but not your language".

    Motzi shem rah is much worse thanmy language.

    "I agree with your point that the issue of R' Tropper's desire or interest to be involved in such conversions has not be established in any way ":

    More than this: In the many years that EJf exists it has been established that they do not perform conversions to boyfriends or girlfriends in order to get married.

    "- I deleted the original comment.
    Blogger has been acting strange this afternoon - so it took a while to take care of it".

    1) Why did you not warn RAP that these things are not acceptable?

    2) did you warn him that he might get banned?

    3) you owe R Tropper a public apology for even an oness happened at this time: 1) it is not your first time, 2) sof sof, your blog was a vehicle to defame a person.

    "Please get it through your thick skull "

    you have no understanding in these matters and coming from you it is a praise.

    "that you are doing R Tropper no favors by your abusive language"

    I am exposing his enemies for what they are!

    "and I am moving in Mekubal's direction regarding banning your comments".

    Which will demonstrate to all that you are unable to deal with issues of hotzooat diboh, sheker and milchemet sheker against one person without any basis and have a few guys coming up with lies and shmootz to defame a man.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "EJF in Calgary alberta are currantly being Mecharav the Ex Hillel representative who has a non jewish girlfried and her kids. Not a situation of intermarried couple - boyfriend- girlfriend situation Who says EJF are not preaching to the goyim"

    AS far as I gathered *EJF* was megayer in Calgary *only* one person WHO WAS ALREADY MARRIED (as in your case "and her kids")! They do *not* engage in being megayer someone who is not married yet. They are here for years and this is their practice. It is public and common knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  76. To start off Roni, I will freely admit to you that the way the story was originally portrayed, was a Motze Shem Ra.

    After that you said,
    "Why is it a problem to say that R' Tropper sought or even encouraged Ivanka to undergo a valid conversion through his system?"

    1) Because in general it is not valid! It is wrong to seek conversion for someone who is not married yet, in order for them to able to get married. In general it lacks kabbalat hamitzvot.

    I will agree with you that it would have been wrong for R' Tropper to go up to Ivanka and say, "Hey you wanna marry this Jewish guy, let me help you convert."

    However, after it became clear that she was seeking conversion, where is there a problem? When it is her seeking to convert is there an issue? When it becomes clear that she intends to convert, there is no good reason to not encourage her to do so in the best manner possible, which R' Tropper does say that EJF is.

    Furthermore once it became clear that she was confused about what was and was not a true conversion, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Torah community to attempt to help her make good choices.

    You say it lacks Kabbalat mitzvot, however I know that R' Eliashiv and R' Eisenstein don't hold that way. Not for a person to start the process l'shem ishut. It is only a problem if they finish the process l'shem ishut. I am not in a position to discuss this directly with R' Eliashiv, however I have discussed it with R' Eisenstein, and also with R' Yosef. Both told me that it is up to the B"D, at the end of the process to find and decide if, at the end of the process it is being done for proper reasons.


    2) especially, when the person seeking or being sought is wealthy with lots of money it has the impression (true most times) that it was done with the corruptible power of money.


    Are you suggesting that we don't convert rich people?
    Does R' Tropper refuse rich people?
    Whatever happened to the precept that the poor and the wealthy are supposed to be equal in our eyes.

    Again I agree with you that the way the story was brought was completely unacceptable. However, aside from the various suppositions, I don't see a problem with saying that R' Tropper offered his help to someone who needed it, even if her last name was Trump. Aside from baseless allegations, all you really have is a story of R' Tropper offering his help to someone, and them turning it down because they want a quickie conversion with no comittment. I bet it happens a hundred times a year.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Because in general it is not valid! It is wrong to seek conversion for someone who is not married yet, in order for them to able to get married.

    Tropper,

    You actually said that shtus in front of hundres of rabbis that it is better for the couples to get married first and then ask for conversion because then it is not leshem ishus but you ask for it not be publicized.

    I cannot believe that nobody took you to task with that like your other shtus you said that Jews who have sex with shiksas are on higher madrega than Jewish guys who are married to Jewish girls but do not go to the mikva.

    Your sick reasoning was that having sex with goya the punishment is malkus and having sex with nidah is cares.

    That nobody challenged you for that is one way to show us yeridas hadoros.

    And in any case, Did you or any of your employee reached out to Ivnaka or Jared trying to convince them to go with the EJF.

    Did you ever converted couple who was not yet married ?

    ReplyDelete
  78. DT wrote "and I am moving in Mekubal's direction regarding banning your comments".

    Roni said:

    Which will demonstrate to all that you are unable to deal with issues of hotzooat diboh, sheker and milchemet sheker against one person without any basis and have a few guys coming up with lies and shmootz to defame a man.
    ----------------
    Roni you have the same difficulty comprehending dialogue as R' Tropper.

    Just like R' Tropper you believe if you keep saying the same thing over and over again that that is called communication.

    You both insist that you are right and it is the other guy's problem that he doesn't agree.

    Sorry but it doesn't work that way in the real world.

    If you want us to accept your view you need to prove it and present it in a reasonable manner - and not scream it over and over and over again in capital letters using mispelled words.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Because in general it is not valid! It is wrong to seek conversion for someone who is not married yet, in order for them to able to get married.

    MR said: "Tropper,

    You actually said that shtus in front of hundres of rabbis that it is better for the couples to get married first and then ask for conversion because then it is not leshem ishus but you ask for it not be publicized'.


    Roni: the chochom has two problems: 1) he contradicts himself, otoh he complains that Tropper "proselytizes" otoh you imply that it is proper to seek them to convert in order to get married.

    2)amongst The posskim that deal with the issur to convert leshem ishut, many of them (Rav OVadayah brings some of them) hold that once they are married it is not called "leshem ishut"; prior to their marriage it is called "leshem ishut" and carries the issur derabanan.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "And in any case, Did you or any of your employee reached out to Ivnaka or Jared trying to convince them to go with the EJF".

    Didyou or any of your friends beat your neighbor today?

    ReplyDelete
  81. I don't believe you that R tropper said what you said that he actually said.

    But you who wrote this?
    וגם אין לצדד להתיר איסורא זוטא כדי שלא לעבור ע"ה איסור חמור, וכמו שאמרו בעירובין ל"ב, וכמש"כ המהרשד"ם לצדד בכה"ג וכמש"כ ג"כ בשו"ת מוהר"ח צאנז, וה"נ נאמר דנעבור לכתחלה איד"ר =איסור דרבנן= כדי שלא יעבור על איסור דבא על הנכרית דע"י נשואין הוי בפרהסיא ואסור מה"ת,

    דהא בנ"ד דיש לחוש בזה בודאי שלא תשמור פתחי נדה וטבילה ויהי' בועל נדה בכרת ...., ובנכרית אין איסור נדה


    If you need help for the true meaning I'm here!

    ReplyDelete
  82. After that you said,
    "Why is it a problem to say that R' Tropper sought or even encouraged Ivanka to undergo a valid conversion through his system?"

    1) Because in general it is not valid! It is wrong to seek conversion for someone who is not married yet, in order for them to able to get married. In general it lacks kabbalat hamitzvot.

    mekubal:"I will agree with you that it would have been wrong for R' Tropper to go up to Ivanka and say, "Hey you wanna marry this Jewish guy, let me help you convert."

    However, after it became clear that she was seeking conversion, where is there a problem? When it is her seeking to convert is there an issue?"

    Roni: In general, there is an issur derbanan to be megayer leshem ishut, ie. even if the person is seeking to convert, but we know in advance that she is seeking it only because of ishut we are prohibited to be megayer even if *she* is seeking.

    A special dispensation is given by the posskim "lefi reot eyeney hadayan" when he is convinced that this for the benefit of them to live that way and the dayan is convinced that they will keep torah and mitzvot.

    The problem recorded in the past hundred and so years is, as Rav Moshe and many other write extensively:

    That in our society where most convert leshem ishut, and there is no peer pressure for the convert to keep torah and mitzvot (especially when the jewish partner does not keep torah and mitzvot) and it is clear that they are only doing it "Externally" there is an "umdenah demuchach" that she is not really seeking to keep the mitzvot in which case there is an inherent problem with the essential gerut (where it may not be chal bediavad).

    This bothered Rav Moshe to the point that he raises this over and over in his teshvuot. He wwrites in one of his responsa that he questioned how the gerut takes effect even bediavad!

    So, while there might be situations, where the Dayan is convinced that the person will actually keep mitzvot and he has permission to do so "kefi reot eyeney hadayan"' it is not lechatchila.And certainly one is not correct in giving mussar by saying that they should "encourage it" when it is actually an issur lechatchila! if the dayan feels that this leads to problems!

    So, Rav Tropper and his organization set it up in a way that they do not deal with such issues for in the majority of cases they are not genuine.

    "Furthermore once it became clear that she was confused about what was and was not a true conversion, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Torah community to attempt to help her make good choices".

    Who says is is "incumbent"? You have source? It is not wise to to dictate to others on issues like this where there is an issur lechatchila. You might say that one is "allowed" to do so; but to claim that it is "incumbent" is wrong!
    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  83. You say it lacks Kabbalat mitzvot, however I know that R' Eliashiv and R' Eisenstein don't hold that way. Not for a person to start the process l'shem ishut. It is only a problem if they finish the process l'shem ishut. mekubal wrote: "I am not in a position to discuss this directly with R' Eliashiv, however I have discussed it with R' Eisenstein, and also with R' Yosef. Both told me that it is up to the B"D, at the end of the process to find and decide if, at the end of the process it is being done for proper reasons".

    ROni: Exactly! and Rav MOshe and Rav HErtzog claimed that in america and in similar places there is an "umdenah dmuchach" that it lacks kabbalat mitzvot. If a dayan is convinced otherwise, so be it that in this particular case it is different.

    Also Rav OVadayah in his teshuvot differentiates between before marriage and after marrigage suggesting that after marriage, in general, there may be a genuine interest of kabbalat mitzvot and the rationale tha tthey are doing it for love is not so strong as before their their marriage. This is recorded in his teshuvot!

    ReplyDelete
  84. ROni wrote: "2) especially, when the person seeking or being sought is wealthy with lots of money it has the impression (true most times) that it was done with the corruptible power of money".


    MEkubal" Are you suggesting that we don't convert rich people?
    Does R' Tropper refuse rich people?
    Whatever happened to the precept that the poor and the wealthy are supposed to be equal in our eyes".

    Roni: Why do you read things that were not written and put words in my mouth? I wrote "Especially" which means that this point is in sequence to previous point: That in addition to the general assumption, that when done for marriage they are not genuinely seeking to keep mitzvot; when on top of that the fellow has money it gives greater rise to the suspicion that it is not genuine (due to their previous not keeping torah and mitzvot) and they are buying their conversion with money (as we are very familar with so many stories).

    But of course, when one is really seeking to covnert (like for instance, a sole male or female) then we do not differentiate between race or gender or the amount in the bank account.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "However, aside from the various suppositions, I don't see a problem with saying that R' Tropper offered his help to someone who needed it, even if her last name was Trump".

    In addition to the way the motzi shem rah made his libel, it is a problem because in general Rav Tropper does not deal with gerut for thos who were not married yet. (This is even if we are sure that in this case there is full shmirat mitzvot and both parties keep shabbat, kashrut and mikvah al pi Shulchan Aruch).

    ReplyDelete
  86. Also Rav OVadayah in his teshuvot differentiates between before marriage and after marrigage suggesting that after marriage, in general, there may be a genuine interest of kabbalat mitzvot and the rationale tha tthey are doing it for love is not so strong as before their their marriage. This is recorded in his teshuvot!
    I know what is recorded in his teshuvot, I have read most of them. However, I also know what was the case, when I asked him straight out about two different situations where it was clear that the conversion process was starting l'shem ishut. I also approached R' Eisenstein about those issues. Both Rabbanim answered me that it was not a problem... to trust the Beit Din to know at the end what the situation is.

    Why do you read things that were not written and put words in my mouth? See this is a rhetorical question in which you assume I am doing something, though I could reverse this on you. The truth of the matter is that from my reading, and re-reading of your words, the meaning remained unclear. So I asked clarification questions, that was all.

    Roni, and I mean this with all sincerity, you would do much better to not always assume that you are being attacked. In case you haven't noticed, in this instance I am actually trying to justify R' Tropper's alleged actions. You would do well to take help when it comes and not alienate people by assuming the worst.

    To sum up, your points though. You say that some pretty big poskim have a problem with it. In addition Rabbi Tropper doesn't do it. So you take umbrage at someone saying that he does/did. I find that a fair, if somewhat unnecessary point.

    ReplyDelete
  87. the Monsey Tzadik said...

    Because in general it is not valid! It is wrong to seek conversion for someone who is not married yet, in order for them to able to get married.

    Tropper,

    You actually said that shtus in front of hundres of rabbis that it is better for the couples to get married first and then ask for conversion because then it is not leshem ishus but you ask for it not be publicized.

    I cannot believe that nobody took you to task with that like your other shtus you said that Jews who have sex with shiksas are on higher madrega than Jewish guys who are married to Jewish girls but do not go to the mikva.

    Your sick reasoning was that having sex with goya the punishment is malkus and having sex with nidah is cares.

    That nobody challenged you for that is one way to show us yeridas hadoros.

    And in any case, Did you or any of your employee reached out to Ivnaka or Jared trying to convince them to go with the EJF.

    Did you ever converted couple who was not yet married ?


    No I have not been brain washed, I just think that this should be kept to what is fair and what are facts.

    Essentially my point here is that unless you have a news source, or a video or audio file, it didn't happen simply on account of it is just your word against another's.

    MT quite honestly I think you help Tropper by spilling your bile against him, as much as Roni hurts him with his angry comments. Its a weird Ying Yang thing...

    Seriously though, I know that you are hurt, and have been hurt by him. However, at some point you just gotta move on and get past it. If you can document your accusations than great, if not... while I cannot speak for everyone, I would prefer that you kept them to yourself, or start a blog entitled "I hate Tropper", and leave those of us who want Torah discussion, based on Torah issues in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Essentially my point here is that unless you have a news source, or a video or audio file, it didn't happen simply on account of it is just your word against another's.

    I actually say that he told it in front of 100's of rabbis, it was at the New Jersey Conference in 2006 where rav Hershel Schachter, gave a lesson about conversion of a minor (which clould help Tropper understand that rashi) , I hope someone who who was in that conference will confirm it. However it might be uncomfortable for some people who were paid by the EJF to go to that conference (airplane, family, accommodation) to say so

    Seriously though, I know that you are hurt, and have been hurt by him.

    I was not personally hurt by him but I know people who did, like the family of Gideon Busch, like Rabbi Nathan Slifkin, like his first wife, like the single mother whose Tropper told her husband to leave her and her children and to go to a yeshiva in Israel, like the woman and her child Tropper revoke her conversion because of wearing pants.

    If we can publicize Tropper misdeeds and convince people who want Orthodox conversion to go to a normal beis din, convince people who want to be BT to go to a normal yeshiva then we can save life, we can save families.

    Also we would like to keep the concept of eilu and eilu, Tropper is one of the greatest enemy of Modern Orthodoxy and if they afraid to stand up to Tropper other will do.

    BTW, the UOJ has another expose on Tropper

    ReplyDelete
  89. ". I also approached R' Eisenstein about those issues. Both Rabbanim answered me that it was not a problem... to trust the Beit Din to know at the end what the situation is".

    MEkubal,
    Moadim Lessimchah!

    I don't think that they are contradictory. Lechatchila it is not done. A Beit Din that sees fit to do it and is a mumcheh and yireh shomayim may do it bediavad and then you may trust the this Dayan's judgment at the end of the process.

    Chag Sameach

    Roni

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mekubal,

    I want to take this opportunity to ask you for a public forgiveness for many words that I wrote that were disrespectful to you and insulting and rude.

    Have a great endof chag and may Hashem help us all to give us the greatest hoshana that we all need: the YEshua of the geula shleyma,

    Roni

    ReplyDelete
  91. Btw, Mt, had you have a chance to find out who wrote the following lines?
    וגם אין לצדד להתיר איסורא זוטא כדי שלא לעבור ע"ה איסור חמור, וכמו שאמרו בעירובין ל"ב, וכמש"כ המהרשד"ם לצדד בכה"ג וכמש"כ ג"כ בשו"ת מוהר"ח צאנז, וה"נ נאמר דנעבור לכתחלה איד"ר =איסור דרבנן= כדי שלא יעבור על איסור דבא על הנכרית דע"י נשואין הוי בפרהסיא ואסור מה"ת,

    דהא בנ"ד דיש לחוש בזה בודאי שלא תשמור פתחי נדה וטבילה ויהי' בועל נדה בכרת ...., ובנכרית אין איסור נדה

    ReplyDelete
  92. Dt,

    Please post my public apology to Mekubal!

    Moadim lessimcha!

    ReplyDelete
  93. Btw, Mt, had you have a chance to find out who wrote the following lines?
    וגם אין לצדד להתיר איסורא זוטא כדי שלא לעבור ע"ה איסור חמור, וכמו שאמרו בעירובין ל"ב, וכמש"כ המהרשד"ם לצדד בכה"ג וכמש"כ ג"כ בשו"ת מוהר"ח צאנז, וה"נ נאמר דנעבור לכתחלה איד"ר =איסור דרבנן= כדי שלא יעבור על איסור דבא על הנכרית דע"י נשואין הוי בפרהסיא ואסור מה"ת,

    דהא בנ"ד דיש לחוש בזה בודאי שלא תשמור פתחי נדה וטבילה ויהי' בועל נדה בכרת ...., ובנכרית אין איסור נדה



    I am not what you are trying to prove from שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו

    You only quoted that first part He obviously does not agree with you that it better to boel nochrit.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Finally got some help to tell him that what Rav Tropper says is exactly what HaRAv Chayim Oyzer Grodzenski (and others say)!

    M writes: "You only quoted that first part He obviously does not agree with you that it better to boel nochrit".

    Can you enlighten me to quote the part where he does not agree with me in case where they will not keep torah and mitzvot and be boel niddah?

    ReplyDelete
  95. to Roni
    Just sit and watch as Calgary Alberta become the EJF clearing house for intermarried's.
    I've live here for years and together with the Calgary Kollel there is out and out campaign to reach out to 20 something boiys dating their shiksah (omps can i say that anymore) girlfrinds
    we are watching and reporting
    EJF WATCH

    ReplyDelete
  96. You already mentioned this befor. Can you give me the names of the Rabbis that you claim are working currently for the EJf that are doing what you claim they are doing?

    As far as I'm aware, EJF does not have a kiruv office at Calgary. The Bais Din that they send to, has converted ONE family who was ALREADY MARRIED. If you have the names of rabbis who are currently doing what you say they are doing and they are currently working under EJf I will be able to pass over to the people at the headquarters so that would be able to remedy this situation. But, as of now, this story simply lacks any credibility as to their connection to the EJf, as the EJf's policy is to reject cases where the prospect is not married and is seeking conversion in order that they get married.

    ReplyDelete

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