Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Rav Sternbuch protests against the get given to the wife of man in vegetative state.


This is Rav Sternbuch response to the case of a woman getting a get from her husband who is in a vegetative state - that had been reported  here. Freeing an agunah whose husband is in a vegetative state

Updated version In response to Rav Zalman Nechmiah Goldberg. Added letter from Rav Zalman Nechmiah Goldberg and Rav Shlomo Fischer. Rav Zalman Nechmiah Goldberg writes that he only discussed the topic from a theoretical aspect and never permitted such a type of get to be given. Rav Fisher writes that the get is a worthless piece of paper and the woman is an eishes ish

93 comments :

  1. Rav Shternbuch is just stating the obvious. It was clear from the outset that the zionist beit din that issued this so-called Get was doing nothing more than a political maneuver that had no validity under halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  2. WADR to R. Sternbuch, this letter sounds like a rant. Mixing in the anachronistic term “Mizrachi” and lashing out at Rav Zalman Nechemiah doesn’t add to the discussion at all.

    I’d be interested to know whether the woman is “doreshes alav” – if she isn’t (as I presume is the case), then his argument fails. Furthermore, the fact that he describes the man as "eino shafui", when in fact he is in a persistent vegetative state, indicates that he either hasn't read the psak very carefully or is mis-characterising the situation (on purpose?).

    RZNG is no smaller a posek than R. Sternbuch - it will be interesting to see what happens next.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the husband is in this terrible state, and is unable to provide financially and physically, cannot the Get be dissolved based on that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like the way he refers to HaGaon R' Goren ztl by only using his last name. Did any of the folk who sat on the ground and tore their clothes for the Langer case, also do the same when R' Sherman annulled thousands of conversions without blinking an eyelid? Considering the fact that he was cheered by the EJF conference, I doubt that very much!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 5:29 PM

    I would be interested in a more substantive response from Rav Shternbuch that deals more directly with both the teshuva from Rav Nosboim and the final Psak Din by the B"D.
    While I am sure that Rav Shternbuch undoubtedly has good reasons for his objections, unfortunately in this letter can too easily be characterized as though it is simply an anti-Rabbinut/anti-Zionist/anti-Israel political move.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Its about time Rav Sternbuch took on the Aguda in America and lets its employees litigate in Arko"oys and then gets Solomon Herbst to write a Get to fulfill the Ny Get Law orders. DT has the info but so far wont post them

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Eddie I am not sure there is anyone who really defends Rav Goren or thinks that the Langer case is comparable to what Rav Sherman did - aside from you. You keep bringing up this point over and over again - but I don't see that it is worth the electronic ink that is used. Rav Goren is widely despised in Chareidi circles - it is not Rav Sternbuch - and I don't any reason that will ever change.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What really IS the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is no such thing as "dissolving" a marriage in Halacha - the only comparable idea is retroactive nullification, which must be based on some severe pre-existing problem which would have rendered the agreement to get married null and void.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is Mr. Goren.

    ReplyDelete
  11. HaGaon HaRav Sherman shlit"a did not dissolve a single conversion. He found that many purported conversions were false and never took place in the first place and were never valid and the gentile never became a Jew and has been a gentile all along.

    (Many of them, by the way, that Druckman signed it turns out he was in Europe when he allegedly signed it on the day of the so-called "conversion" taking place in Israel with Druckman supposedly being in Israel performing the "conversion" at the time he was in Europe.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is a falsehood and the Aguda never did any such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Moe stop lying. This is exactly what the Aguda archivist's family is doing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That is the exact thing which Goren did - he claimed that the conversion was never valid.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Aguda has nothing to do with this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Moe this is precisely what the aguda archivist's family is doing. You cant deny reality.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I keep bringing it up because it is a good point. The Langer case is comparable in quality but not in quantity. You claim that nobody thinks they are similar, but ROY ZTL apparently did - i.e. he opposed the Langer psak, on halachic grounds, and also did the D' Sherman cases, since he was being consistent.
    " Rav Goren is widely despised in Chareidi circles - it is not Rav Sternbuch" I understand that to be the case. My point is that there is (or was) an agenda to get him based on political grounds and not halachic. otherwise, R' Elyashiv would have done keriah when R' Sherman annulled so many conversions.

    There is more evidence that people were converted by R Druckman than the fictitious conversion of Mr Borokovsky.

    A couple more points. Rav Soloveichik and Rav Kook were also despised, in certain sectors of the haredi world. They to some extent have been reclaimed in some sectors. The real reason why Shlomo Goren was despised was because of the humiliation of the Haredi world in 1967, when he liberated Yerushalayim. Satmar forbade even going to the Kotel, although I don't know if the followers of the Minchat Yitzak also avoid going there.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Woe unto us if this is the way Poskim respond. Write a teshuva and demonstrate why his reasoning is incorrect! This has been the tried and true method of generations of Poskim.

    The gratuitous slander of mizrachi and the lack of even basic Rabbinic protocol and courtesy again highlights why the masses feel they can behave in the way they do - they are simply mimicking the behavior of their "leaders". Why do you need to put "Raavad" in quotations? Does he believe Rav Zalman Nechemiah, shlita, did not agree? Does he negate his status as a person worthy of paskening?

    We really are in trouble. May G-d save the Jewish people....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM

    You mean like a degenerative mental condition that would eventually leave the man in a vegetative state, that the husband to be knowingly concealed from the wife to be until after the wedding?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    Welcome back Stan.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually, Moe, Rabbi Sherman did not find anything. he simply said that anyone converted under R' Druckman is not a valid convert, without looking into the case or the facts of the matter. that is actually worse than what the allegations were agasint R Goren. (it is called kal v'chomer). R Goren looked at the case and found evidence to back his claims, and found that there never was a covnersion or that if there was it was " false and never took place in the first place and were never valid and
    the gentile never became a Jew and has been a gentile all along.". What you are actually saying is fallacious logic, or the no-true Scotsman fallacy.
    Regarding the particular case where one certificate was signed wrongly, that was a clerical error. he was not absent for the majority of conversions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This has nothing to do with the Agudah.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rav Nussbaum's psak has been removed from the dinonline website, and can now only be found in the cache:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bjNDHKgNxh8J:www.din.org.il/2013/05/27/%25D7%25A0%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599%25D7%25A0%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2592%25D7%2598-%25D7%2591%25D7%259E%25D7%25A7%25D7%2595%25D7%259D-%25D7%2594%25D7%2591%25D7%25A2%25D7%259C-%25D7%2594%25D7%25A9%25D7%2595%25D7%2598%25D7%2594-%25D7%259E%25D7%2593%25D7%2599%25D7%259F-%25D7%2596%25D7%259B%25D7%2599%25D7%2594/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk



    The Charedi terror machine is obviously in full swing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is the Daas Torah expressed by Rav Shach ztl with the Steipler and R' Elyashiv ztl
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12319&st=&pgnum=26

    They decry the annulment of a giur of someone who is considered a ger (although he ate treif and could not complete the sentence "Shema Yisroel").
    Now, this is precisely what D' Sherman did wholesale. But apparently with the consent of Hareidi Gedolim.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I deleted a number of comments which were not relevant to the topic

    ReplyDelete
  26. Contrary to what is claimed here, this psak wasn't written by Rabbi Nussbaum. It was written by Rabbi זאב ליטקה.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 9:16 PM

    He actually uses the "Ravad" in reference to Rav Uriel Lebia. Which to be honest isn't really his title. Unless there has been some drastic change, Rav Shmuel Eliyahu is the chief Rabbi of Tzfat and so technically he is the Av Beit Din there.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not that it wasn't valid, but that it never took place at all. There was never any proof of a conversion, just an assumption there was a conversion it supposedly took place in some small town in poland that never had a rav. The townspeople said he was a relatively decent non jew, so they (might have) had chuppa ve'kiddushin, which they couldn't even verify or remember or write in tThe pinkas haKehillah.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No, what you are claiming is the opposite of the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Because that was the campaign Goren ran on when seeking election as Chief Rabbi. He was merely fulfilling his campaign promise in that "ruling".

    ReplyDelete
  31. No. The Druckman so-called conversions were a farce from the get-go and were never valid in the first-place.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You would need proof that is the case before you could consider that fact as grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Zev Litke" is a pen name (naftoli-zeev), as you will realise if you do a bit of detective work. If you read the piskei din written by R. "Litke" (not just that one, but all of them), you'll realise that they are highly unlikely to have been written by a rabbi with no independent confirmation of his existence - they are clearly the work of an extremely experienced dayan.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Clearly this just shows how the rabbanut plays to its paymasters the govt. There is nothing for r sternbuch to get serious about here. Why havent the Gedolim of yesteryear used this approach if it is legitimate?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 10:19 PM

    Also the site clearly says that all of the Psakim on it were written by one of the Rabbanim of the Beit Din/Beit Horaah. Yet Zev Litke's name does not appear on either list. So either the site is lying or, the Zev Litke posts are a pseudonym.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 10:21 PM

    Then can you explain the teshuva that Rav Nosboim wrote for them? He is not a Rabbanut Rav and he needed only twelve pages not sixty seven to find a valid heter.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 10:22 PM

    More importantly Stan can you please ask Rav Gestetner to provide a detailed rebuttal of their psak.

    Oh and we are still waiting on the one for his backing of Michael Schlessinger.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 10:26 PM

    It appears in the Rav Nosboim teshuva. I am not pretending to know all of the facts in the case, I am simply going by what is presented in the teshuva and psak din surrounding it.

    Here is the language of the Teshuva:

    לפנינו שאלה קשה על עגונה שעומדת בפתחם של בתי הדין כבר כמה שנים למצוא מזור לעגינותה.

    האשה צעירה נשאה לאדם וזמן קצר לאחר נישואיה האיש השתבש לחלוטין ומאושפז בביה"ח לחולי נפש, והאשה

    ניתקה עימו כל קשר הן בגלל מצבו שאין זה מאפשר לה חיים נורמאלים איתו, והן מהסיבה שלא גילה לה את עברו

    (שהיו לו בעיות נפשיות לפני נישואיו). לאחר תקופה הכירה אדם אחר וחיה עימו עד שלאחר כמה שנים נפרדה ממנו.

    כעת היא עדיין צעירה ומתדפקת על דלתות בתי הדין למצוא מזור לעגינותה.

    במקרה שלפנינו ישנם כמה פרטים עליהם דנו בבית הדין אם ניתן מחמתם להתיר אשה זו לשוק. כאן לא נדון בפרטים

    אלו, אלא נציע הצעה נוספת שאם היא תתקבל במקרה זו יהיה בה כדי להוסיף נופך להיתר. אבל ודאי שאין לקחת את

    הנושא כדי לקבוע שניתן לתת גט במקרים דומים.

    בבואינו לדון האם ניתן במקרה כזה להוציא גט מהבעל עלינו לדון בכמה שאלות כבדות משקל, האחת האם בכלל שייך

    לעשות גט בזיכוי בלא ידיעת הבעל – במקום שהוא זכות גמור עבורו. וכמובן עלינו לדון האם במקרה הנוכחי יש בכלל

    זכות. שנית, האם בכלל איש זה הוא בר גירושין, שהרי הגדרתו היא 'שוטה' שאולי אינו בר גירושין.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It wasn't clear to RZNG - who much of the Charedi world uses for attaining semicha.

    ReplyDelete
  40. From his writing, he apparently seems to be a learned person, but that alone doesn't support the theory that he is really R' Nussbaum.

    In a teshuva by R' Asher Weiss, he refers to R' Litka as his student, and one of the heads of his beis medrash. In another teshuva, R' Litka refers to R' Weiss as his rebbi. I don't think that this fits the bill in the case of R' Nussbaum.
    כבוד תלמידי אהובי
    תלמיד המחכים את רבו
    הרב הגאון המצויין
    ר' זאב ליטקה שליט"א
    מראשי בית מדרשנו

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jamoncampus.com%2Fu%2Fupload%2Feven10.doc&ei=IuyEU4eEKOqK7AaZwoG4Dw&usg=AFQjCNELFeArJayukxRYv0T6kCqdXeXmRA&bvm=bv.67720277,d.ZGU

    ReplyDelete
  41. R' Zeev Litka appears in official Israel court documents, and is also listed as living in the Ramot neighborhood of Yerushalayim...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Moe, what do u mean "because"? There is no cause and effect. He did not need to make a promise in order to get elected. He had already run against R' Unterman in '66, and lost very narrowly. By 73 he was much more popular, and R' Unterman was very old to continue. He argued as Rav haRashi of tel aviv that there was a halachic way. you are simply obfuscating and trying to conceal the hypocrisy of the haredi world, who jumped on Goren, but were totally silent when Sherman did something 10,000 x as bad.

    ReplyDelete
  43. since you do not recognize any Tzioni Rabbis at all, then of course nothing they do is valid. Of course, you consider the imaginary conversion of Borokovsky as being valid, although it is not worth the ham sandwich it was purchased for.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Tzadok if you want Rav Gestetner to write a rebuttal you are welcome to contact him yourself. It is not his job to rebut every shtus of the Rabanut.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @eddie it is not a good point. Please no more repetitions. You are not convincing anyone and no one is convincing you. Future comments on this topic will simply be rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  46. fair enough! been through it enough times! :)
    can i write about the Dakkar instead?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Does anyone know if Goren's mamzeirim, whom he let marry, had any children of their own and if their lineage is growing?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Tzadok distorts what was written. He has not even heard of that case. He simply holds that in a case where the father is capable he gets the boys and disagrees that yeshivahs are providing adequate chinuch. Furthermore who gave anyone the right to take the mitzvah of chinuch away from father if he is capable?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 28, 2014 at 12:45 AM

    Like I said Stan, and as the News reported, and as documentary proof has been offered this wasn't a decision that some city Rabbis in Tzfat simply came to on their own. They asked several Gedolim, Chareidi, non-Rabbanut Gedolim for advice. One such teshuva has been posted. If you are going to call it shtut, at least show from the sources(i.e. the teshuva and psak) where it went wrong.

    Further you have said that you are a chaver on his B"D. So quickest route is simply to ask you to run it over to him.

    Further you have said with absolute conviction that Rav Gestetner would without doubt back Michael Schlessinger. So please provide documentary evidence of such or retract your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  50. if we go back to the current story - what happens when the dividing line between different groups is surrounding issues like Gittin; mamzerut; and giur? There will be groups who are not accepted by others, because of the chashash of mamzerut or of questionable lineage. So there will be a split in the nation, reminiscent of the Kingdoms of Yehuda and Israel. But this already exists, even in the haredi world. I don't wish to repeat my old arguments, but even in the Hareidi world there are divisions, and non acceptance of poskim. So the problem is endless.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 28, 2014 at 1:15 AM

    I'm sorry Stan, but you are completely incorrect. I have heard of the Schlessinger case. Kinda hard not to if you frequent this blog. I'm sorry that you made a statement in Rav Gestetner's name, but please provide documentary proof that that is indeed Rav Gestetner's position in that case.

    ReplyDelete
  52. He was referring to rav gestetner who has not heard of this case. If you want proof call him up. But you can always ask your rabbanut friends what the halocho is not and know the opposite is the halocho tzadok.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 28, 2014 at 6:31 AM

    Sorry. Fell victim to your bad grammar. See when you start a paragraph by referring to someone in the 3rd person. And then begin each following sentence with the 3rd person singular, those following sentences refer back to your original third person subject. For example you say, "Tzadok says... He... He...." according to the basic rules of English grammar those following sentences are still referring to Tzadok.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 28, 2014 at 2:06 PM

    I don't avoid it, I just don't believe that it exists and you have yet to given any documentary evidence that it does.

    Since we are on this topic once again, and since you have said the above psak is corrupt. Demonstrate it. Rebut Rav Nosboim's teshuva and the Psak of the Beit Din.

    Unless you can show precisely how and where they are wrong there is no reason to entertain your conspiracy theories which are little more than Sinat Chinam.

    ReplyDelete
  55. So you are equating Rav Sternbuch with sinas chinom.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Conspiracy theory = stan stole tzadok's identity.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Conspiracy theory = Degel hatorah voted for Volvos. Oh sorry I meant Oslo I.

    ReplyDelete
  58. why is Stan given the privilege of repeating old hat stories, but I am warned not to?

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Eddie it is simple - you comply with a simple request and it doesn't require me to delete comments - which I will get to

    ReplyDelete
  60. It's hard to read Rav Nechemya Goldberg's letter from a phone. What is he writing?

    ReplyDelete
  61. The letters from R'ZNG and R'SF are of great importance in this mater. However, due to them being handwritten and the size of the scan, it is hard to read them. Is it possible to type either in Hebrew or a free translation in English?
    thank you

    ReplyDelete
  62. From my incomplete reading of RZNG's letter, it seems he denies givng a practical halachic support of the Get, and was misinformed or that he was misrepresented on what he said. Please correct me if i am wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ther re we go Tzadok. Rabbanut is corrupt. Even RNZ didnt agree to it and hes the author of the pre nuo which rav elyashiv rejects. And Rav Fisher says shes an aishes ish. And rav ovadyas son rejects it too.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Tzadok the Get is a worthless piece of paper and the woman is an aishes ish. Get it. What kind of Rabbanut do you suuport? And similarly the same applies to the Get of the Aguda archivists daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Received the following comment with permission to post anonymously:


    "In the comments, Rabbi Michael Tzadok keeps referencing to a Psak from Rabbi Nussbaum.


    He happens to be wrong, it's a Psak from Rabbi Ze'ev Litka which was on the din.org.il site (which is run by a Beis Din under Rabbi Nussbaum), and even that was removed after the letter from Rabbi Sternbuch.




    I managed to save that Psak before it was removed, and I converted it to a PDF. Here it is if you want it."

    ReplyDelete
  66. If you have the occasion, please ask Rabbi Sternbuch two questions:

    1) If a man was married to a wife who had been in a vegetative state for 7 years, would he give him a heter to "lovesh shachor we yotze michutz lair"?

    2) If a man was married to a wife who had been in a vegetative state for 7 years, would he sign a heter meah rabbanim to allow the husband to remarry?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Those questions are completely halachicly different and incomparable and irrelevant to the question in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 1. No. 2.yes, and please protest how unfair the torah is. If you dont like it, its your prerogative but dont try and change halocho to suit your purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Of course, yiur correct. Rhe question should be would you let the daughters inherit(while the wife is still in the hospital)?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Where is Tzadok to justify this rabbanut fake get

    ReplyDelete
  71. Again you need to justify asking tzadok to approve posts

    ReplyDelete
  72. What do you mean by corruption?

    ReplyDelete
  73. I think Druckman's name was stamped on the document per Israeli law. It doesn't mean the conversions weren't good, though. It just means that the actual rabbis sitting on the court didn't include Druckman. So Sherman didn't like the Israeli requirement that Druckman's name be attached t each conversion. That's really totally irrelevant though to the consideration of whether the bet din operated l'halakha.

    ReplyDelete
  74. It will change when sinat khinam changes.

    ReplyDelete
  75. He convinced me and I came here knowing nothing on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  76. That's not a get zikui, though. Not sure why they went to this get zikui I've never heard of before...

    ReplyDelete
  77. The Zionist Entity.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "though a comatose husband is grounds for dissolving a marriage according to Jewish law, in practice, the rabbinic courts tend rule conservatively, rarely granting a wife permission to leave an incapacitated husband. "



    This was in Tablet. Not my primary source for halakha, but does anyone know what they mean? Is there a ground aside from this get zikui to grant the get? I saw that R' Tzaddok below mentions anullment through mekakh taut, but (1) that doesn't seem to be what Tablet is referring to and (2) if there is a good argument for mekakh taut why did they go to get zikui>

    ReplyDelete
  79. I just saw this comment on the Otzar HaChochma forum:

    לאחר בירור כתב לי חבר ידיעה מכלי שני שהמכתב אמתי והסיבה שהוא חתם היא מפני שעושים לו צרות על כך, אך הוא לא חזר בו מעצם הפסק, ומכל מקום הוא ביקש שלא יזכירו אותו יותר בהקשר של הפסק הזה...

    If true, it just goes to show that psak nowadays has more to do with the mob than Hashem

    ReplyDelete
  80. So we now have a rumor from an anonymous source that if true means one thing and if not true means something else and therefore you can legitimately conclude that you know no more than when you started!

    ReplyDelete
  81. In other words,,, i said it but dont quote me on it. Hardly a psak (or retraction of a psak.)

    ReplyDelete
  82. I'm not saying I know anything. But it makes no sense that Lavi would have misquoted RZNG - this is the ultimate milsa de'avida ligluyei. So, on the assumption that Lavi is not nuts, the first quote from RZNG backing the get is authentic - and RZNG backed down because he's being terrorised.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @Stan Rabbi Tzadok does not have the job of rejecting posts. We are talking about a select subset of comments that are extremely obnoxious ones that attacked him personally in a very viscious manner.. I had decided to reject them - but he felt it should be published anyway. So when it comes to character assasination I sometimes give the target the option of allowing the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  84. If you don't know anything why do you feel a need to slander the parties? Why not wait until people who know testify what happened?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I'm not slandering anyone. The only slander was in R. Moshe Sternbuch's letter where he mixed in the government's policies with R. Lavi's psak.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I wasnt given the courtesy of editing tzadoks character assisinations of me.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 30, 2014 at 3:31 PM

    And rav ovadyas son rejects it too.
    Rav Ovadiah's son is the Rabbanut stan.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    I have chosen to believe the psak or not. However, this certainly won't be the first time a posek has backed down on something they said when the position became unpopular(Rav Batzri's Dybuk for example).

    ReplyDelete
  89. Rabbi Tzadok,

    "I have chosen to believe the psak or not." What did you mean with this?

    " However, this certainly won't be the first time a posek has backed down on something they said when the position became unpopular"



    So, you're claiming that Rav ZN Goldberg backed down, and subsequently lied.


    You may choose to believe whatever you would like to choose to believe. Of course, our choices have no bearing on the actual truth of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  90. J: "Zev Litke" is a pen name.
    IR: Can you reveal who he really is, or how to search for it?

    ReplyDelete

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