Monday, May 6, 2013

Rav Sternbuch is upset about protest against conviction of Elior Chen & use of names of rabbis without authorization


Upon enquiring about the kol koreh that was published today, I was informed by reliable sources that this is a letter written some years ago, before the rabonim were fully aware of the gravity of the crimes committed by Chen. It was apparently reused today without their prior knowledge or permission, I was also told that Rav Sternbuch was upset to hear that the rabbonims names were being used to support this criminal.


The allegations of support were carried in a story in Kikar Shabbat.  There is at present no independent confirmation of the present support of those who supposedly signed this letter.

18 comments :

  1. Perhaps we need to have a Kol Koreh issued that points to the ease with which Kol Koreh's and letters are issued with signatures that are falsified. Maybe no one will believe that Kol Koreh either, making the point moot. But the problem is certainly not moot. Just this past week, I heard a gadol address a public letter that bore his signature, and he related the exact circumstances of how this was completely false. In fact, he noted that the last time he participated in a meeting on the subject was 12 years earlier, and there was nothing issued then. If we cannot trust a public statement, what can we trust? How do we fix this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has anyone not heard of photoshop? Tell me what you want in a Kol Koreh and who you want to sign it and I will produce one for you.

      It really is that simple. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If a Badatz(or anyone else ofr that matter) Kashrut certificate with holograms ect can be forged on a monthly basis for sellers in the Machne Yehuda Shuk, why couldn't a Kol Kore? Further why should that ease of forgery need be advertised? Everyone already knows it happens with the Kashrut certificates.

      Delete
    2. if the claim is that the signatures were forged, fine, that is not a problem. when i read a pashkivil i'll know that it has zero credibility. but if the claim is that rabbanim sign a declaration without knowing what they are signing, that is a problem.

      Delete
    3. Ben

      I agree with you on both points. In general I don't believe Pashkveilim. In this age, in my mind, they have no credibility.

      If Rabbis are signing things that they haven't read or investigated... Well that is gross negligence.

      Delete
  2. before the rabonim were fully aware of the gravity of the crimes committed by Chen.

    how does it work? someone is arrested by the police. an askan comes to a rav and says "rav, this guy, this tzadik, has been arrested. we are gathering signatures calling for people to support him". and the rabbi signs? he doesn't ask "what is he accused of? is there any evidence? etc?". and assuming that the rav does sign and later on becomes more informed on the subject, does he then fire the askan (or refuse to speak with him, or somehow distance him) for getting to sign that declaration without briefing him properly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. excellent questions. A related issue is how a publication could write such a story without verification that the people mentioned are actual supporters

      Delete
    2. Signatures is much stronger evidences than saying "so & so are supporters" of this person. I can say anything but can't just bring in an actual signature that was signed lacking proper info.

      Delete
    3. MiMedinat HaYamMay 8, 2013 at 9:46 PM

      "how a publication could write .. "

      nothing of this sort goes into these publications without approval of the particular "power that be" of that publication.

      as for signatures, there's a simple solution. its called a telephone (or chas veChalillah, email.) the truth is, you dont even need an actual signature; just an askan verifying the (supposed) signature, or even just claiming so-and-so signed on.

      Delete
  3. Then there is a question of responsibility. If I am out of the office and my secretary generates a prescription for a patient and uses my rubber signature stamp to sign in, in clear violation of office policy, then I am still responsible when the patient has a reaction and dies.
    At one point do the "Gedolim" become responsible when their signatures appear on such things?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I photoshop your signature onto a bunch of scripts for oxicontin and sell it one the street are you responsible? What if I just give away the Mighty Garnel's "signed" prescriptions?

      We live in a new age. Once in which you can no longer trust a signature.

      Delete
    2. is it clear that there is ever 'responsibility' for acts of gdolim?
      anything positive that comes out is appropriately attributed to daas tora/ruach hakodesh. anything negative is blamed on askonim.....

      Delete
  4. Unfortunately some rabbonim have become nothing but mindless puppets controlled by these so called askanim,who are nothing but outright criminals and gangsters of the lowest type

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why is Mendelson from Kommieus supporting him?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is there any defense for paskening anything from a pashkivel? Is there any Halacha stating that you can read or believe anything just because it was pasted to a wall in Yerushalayim?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why did they sign it back then without knowing what it is all about? If they don't do their due diligence before signing public declarations, how can they be taken seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Must see Pashkevillim:

    http://www.zeevgalili.com/2009/08/5986

    Follow the link or you're going to gehinnom!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is a simple solution to the problem. Rabbonim whose signatures are forged should denounce the offenders who did it publicly. But right now many rabbonim have the best of two worlds: they sign willy-nilly, and disavow with the same casualness.

    This is persistent plausible deniability. Natan Kaminetsky claims that Maran Eliyashiv told him a ban went out without his permission. How can a holy responsible man not follow such a claim by saying I will denounce it and revoke it. But he didn't.

    The system of rabbinic responsibility is broken and it is not just the forgers and askanim who are to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I was informed by reliable sources that this is a letter written some years ago, before the rabonim were fully aware of the gravity of the crimes committed by Chen."

    So you are saying: they DID sign it, but would not do so today.

    So they lacked due diligence, because they were supposed to find out "the gravity of the crimes comitted by Chen" BEFORE they signed it.

    Qui s'excuse s'accuse.

    What you are saying is basically: Nowadays, those renowed Rabbis sign whatever is put in front of them, but once they find out it was not opportune, they regret it....

    Gives a great image of them.

    ReplyDelete

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