In apparent response to my posting that Rav Sternbuch had not given a verbal haskoma to Kosher Switch - their false claim to the contrary has been removed.
kosher switch endorsements
kosher switch endorsements
Contrary to what had been cited on their page of endorsements - Rav Sternbuch did not say that their switch was better than gramma. In fact a rabbi who was present at the meeting said that Rav Sternbuch said that it was worse than gramma. Thus this was not a case of Rav Sternbuch reversing his position because of pressure or misunderstanding the question or giving approval for a narrower domain than the Kosher Swtich claimed. Rather it is a clear misunderstanding on the part of Kosher Switch. Baruch HaShem they have removed their claim regarding Rav Sternbuch.
I'd be interested to hear the explanation as to how the kosherswitch is WORSE than gramma.
ReplyDeleteEnough with the anonymity already, what is the name of the "rabbi who was at the meeting" mentioned here in the post? Of course this will never be released.
ReplyDeleteHow, and more importantly, why should anyone trust anything that comes from these "house of representatives" when everything is just a on hearsay and anonymous testimonies in the name of poskim? Besides, halachically how is one even permitted to rely on such statements/psakim without properly verifying them? And no, proper verification does not mean: hearing (especially reading it on a blog) it from someone who heard from an unamed rabbi who heard it himself from the rav. R' Chaim Kanievsky himself couldn't trust psakim he heard in the name of his own father-in-law R' Elyashiv so he had to send him a private letter to find out his opinions (and you can assume that R' CK didn't hear these psakim from random people in shul saying things over in R' Elyashiv's name, but from someone he probably trusted); sefer Tehila L'yona, end of Taanis.
Too many questions and never any straight, clear answers.
Clearly the burden of proof is on Kosher Switch to prove that their version of the meeting with Rav Sternbuch is correct. Removing his name from their list supports my contention that they got their facts wrong.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to prove it to anyone, I don't need transcripts and testimony before beis din to support what I posted. If it were of importance I would get the permission of the rabbi who was at the meeting. At this point it doesn't add anything to the discussion. They are not contesting my assertion that they got their facts wrong.
Is the eyewitness to the meeting claiming that Rav Shternbuch said BOTH that which he said in Rav Shternbuch's name AND what Kosherswitch has in his name?
ReplyDeleteOr, on the other hand, is he saying that their quote of him was a complete fabrication?
Daas Torah: "I don't have to prove it to anyone, I don't need transcripts and testimony before beis din to support what I posted."
ReplyDeleteLet's say you indeed were summoned to beis din by KS on account of being motzi laaz and causing serious losses (both monetary and emotional) to the KS people, I fail to see how you wouldn't need transcripts or evidence to support your posting. All beis din has to go on is any eveidence presented by KS (which we don't know if they have or not - althought I assume they AT LEAST have witnesses because it's really unlikely that a single rep. from KS and R' Shternbauch sat alone in a room for the duration of the presentation, which would follow, that if there were witnesses and KS is lying, do you honestly think they would post this lie for the world to see knowing that they can easily be brought down? Now please be seicheldig, and don't say "well apparently yes, like see from this new post", beacuse again, this post wouldn't do you any good in beis din merely because "a rabbi who's was at the meeting said". That's not something you can go on to be motzi laaz.) and your evidence which is clearly just a "I was told".
How exactly would you come out zakai?
"Clearly the burden of proof is on Kosher Switch to prove that their version of the meeting with Rav Sternbuch is correct." This isn't poker were you can say "I'll take my chances they're bluffing". Assume that they do have a full hand because you clearly have nothing, they on the other hand have the upper hand here.
"If it were of importance I would get the permission of the rabbi who was at the meeting.". Considering the fact that this is here for all to see and you'll be causing more people to talk about the "deceitful act" of KS, yeah, I'd consider it somewhat important to get the name of that rabbi in case your wrong.
Choteh u'machti is not what you want on your report card befor Rosh Hashana.
Monseynaini said...
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah: "I don't have to prove it to anyone, I don't need transcripts and testimony before beis din to support what I posted."
Let's say you indeed were summoned to beis din by KS on account of being motzi laaz and causing serious losses (both monetary and emotional) to the KS people, I fail to see how you wouldn't need transcripts or evidence to support your posting.
=================
I don't understand what you are trying to say. KosherSwitch made an assertion which was denied by Rav Sternbuch. They made assertions regarding Rav Neuwirth - which were rejected by him in writing. There are a number of other rabbis that they claimed supported them - who deny the truth of their claim.
All the above is clear and certain and documented. I am not reporting anonymous rumours - I personally know the people who have told me that Kosher Switch is mistaken. The fact that you don't know them doesn't change the validity of my assertion.
If in fact Kosher Switch wants to take me to beis din I would have no problem identifying my sources and they would have no problem testifying to what I have written.
At this point, it should be sufficient what I have done. I am not claiming that kosher switch doesn't have haskomas - I jut noted that Rav Sternbuch did not give them one.
I don't understand why you think that revealing inaccurate claims is an improper or even sinful activity.
So, what we're saying now is that Rav Shternbuch DID say the enthusiastic words quoted in his name by Kosherswitch, but that they were taken out of context?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, he BOTH damned it (worse than gramma) and enthusiastically praised it?
BTW, I am not writing because I want to defend Kosherswitch, but to point to the absurdity and non-reliability of the entire process through which halachic sanctions are proferred and denied.
Daat torah said...
ReplyDelete"I don't understand what you are trying to say. KosherSwitch made an assertion which was denied by Rav Sternbuch... There are a number of other rabbis that they claimed supported them - who deny the truth of their claim."
"All the above is clear and certain and documented. I am not reporting anonymous rumours - I personally know the people who have told me that Kosher Switch is mistaken."
Maybe you don't get it but it's quite simple: everything you know is second hand. Don't mix in other rabbanim because your post is regarding R' Shternbauch's haskama only. The new developments re: the haskamos of of the other rabbanim who apparently never permitted it, are very questionable too. But we'll leave it for now.
"I don't understand why you think that revealing inaccurate claims is an improper or even sinful activity."
Here it is in real simple English: R' S said something. KS claims he said A and your acquaintance claims he said B and KS is lying ("mistaken"). Now, on his word alone your accusing KS of misleading the public and falsifying R' S endorsment. Being that you don't know this 100%, Halacha requires l'mechash mi'bai (Nida 31a) but not to accept it as definitive. To go ahead and declare it as a fact and spread this information that already causED damage, for that I don't know a heter. Do you? If however R' S himself came out (not through one of his tens of gabbaim) and said what KS said in his name is a fabrication, then you'd be permitted to go ahead. But for some odd reason he didn't, and neither did Zomet try contacting KS to find out the other side. We're not asking for the rav to say "dvarim she'amarti lachem tahus hem b'yadi", rather, "what KS said in my name is false". Shouldn't be a big deal to do, no?
" I would have no problem identifying my sources and they would have no problem testifying to what I have written." - Lets hope theyre right, because like I mentioned earlier, choteh u'machti (amongst others) is probably not what you want on your record before RH.
Monaeynaini - It seems that your complaint is really with Rav Sternbuch. He conveyed through his gabbai that he wanted it publicized that he did not give a haskoma to kosher switch. You are asking why he told this to his gabbai and why he didn't simply write a letter stating these facts. I don't know the answer to this - but this has happened a number of times with other issues. Including the Tropper scandal and the Brazilian Dybuk as well as the woman who was starving her child and the resulting rioting in Meah Shearim against Hadassah Hospital. It also includes the issue of child abuse. When I have asked he has simply said that this is the way he wants to do it.
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah... "When I have asked he has simply said that this is the way he wants to do it". If your saying that you asked the rav why he publicizes his rulings by word of mouth and he simply replied thats how he wants it done, then yes, my complaint is with him.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, even if R' Sternbauch chooses to publicize his opinions in 2011 by word of mouth, this still is not a license to accept possible lashon hara and even worse, to give it over to the public who - as we all know - will take it as certainty, not simply chashash. So with you, I don't have a complaint. B"h you weren't machshil me, but someone(s) at KS might have a tvia on you. Don't forgot the damage caused was probably monetary, personal and emotional. I'd be pretty nervous before RH if I was in your [not sturdy] shoes.
(this being the case I wonder (bim'chilas kvodo) how then can people rely on any rulings in his name on the ASSUMPTION that it's true).
Monseynaini said...
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah... "When I have asked he has simply said that this is the way he wants to do it". If your saying that you asked the rav why he publicizes his rulings by word of mouth and he simply replied thats how he wants it done, then yes, my complaint is with him.
---------------
B"H We are making progress. Actually your problem applies even if there is a written document. How do we know what facts the posek was presented with. For example there was recently a case of a molester in Jerusalem where a well known posek said not to go to the police - he said it was enough to publicize that the person and the services he provided should be avoided. When it was pointed out that the molester could simply move to a different neighborhood or city - the posek agreed that the police could be called. Thus the same posek issued two totally different rulings - regarding the same case.