A little vague but they are entitled to their opinion. The names are kind of small but I recognize one of them. Question is, what is their solution to this problem? At least peleg is trying something.
I don't think R' Auerbach has anything to do with anything. I thought R' Scheinberg was one of his supporters, and I didn't know R' Yitzchak Ezrachi ever got involved either.
“more slander against Rav Shmuel auerbach???????!!!!!” When can we attack rabbis and when is it forbidden? See http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Rabbinic-journal-devotes-issue-to-sexual-abuse-in-Orthodox-community-508666
Rabbi Mark Dratch, the executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, wrote an article titled “What to do with abusive rabbis: halachic considerations.” “The Code of Jewish Law,” Dratch wrote, “records that a scholar, who is rumored to be involved in heresy or immoral behavior, such that he causes a desecration of God’s Name, is to be excommunicated. Such a person certainly is no longer considered a rabbi.” I agree with Rabbi Mark Dratch. What Rabbi Mark Dratch says applies to Shmuel Kamenetsky’s view that the second marriage [Tamar to her lover] is valid and that Shmuel Kamenetsky is right to tell the couple not to separate. Shmuel Kamenetsky is complicit in immoral behavior. The proof is the fraud/fake licensed psychology report damming Aharon---which Shmuel Kamenetsky famously sought and approved of.
Nope. The majority view is that matters have continued, more or less, the same way they always have. The minimum requirement of inductees would in any event be met by those that are going to army anyway. So there is no problem.
The new requirement of a minimum number of Chareidi inductees will not be met since less Chareidim are volunteering to be inducted into the Israeli military.
This is a profound misunderstanding of the crucial changes in the last 5 years and the changes in the 10-15 years before that.
If you don’t have knowledge of the way the law has been changed, then you cannot hope to understand the cause that these that Peleg are fighting for. There is certainly a huge threat to Torah in EY caused by the Lapid/Kadima-Bennet/Bayit Yehudi coalition changes to the status quo.
From the abolition of the Tal law, reversal of vaad hayeshivos control of the situation, imposition of mandatory quotas of chareidi recruits, forcing bochurim to come to army offices for deferment, etc etc this is certainly not the way things have been for decades. In fact, not even the way things have been for one decade.
Never before has there been such a threat to conscripting those in full time learning into an army that has always been and is further becoming an ever more unacceptable place for a frum yid.
When I went for my deferment 20 years ago, I needed to go to the army office, so you are definitely wrong on that one. As to the rest, you are wrong as well. The quotas are relatively low, and the pool of people that can be used to meet those quotas is very broad. To date, not one yeshiva student has followed the procedures according to the law and has been forcibly inducted into the army. Wake me up when that happens.
Daattorah, allow me to tell of breaking news in Susan v. Gerald. Yesterday, The NYS Court of Appeals approved and gave a number 2017-1101 November 13, 2017 to: “Please take notice, that the Motion for Leave to Appeal---a request for a decision to cancel and to nullify---the Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings Judge Eric I. Prus signed 10/15/2013 made by Gerald Aranoff, sworn to on October 26, 2017 will be made to the NYS Court of Appeals located at 20 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207 USA (phone 518--455--7700) on November 13, 2017 at 9:30 AM or as soon after as counsel can be heard for a judgment.” The 10/15/2015 Order: “The defendant's motions dated September 30, 2013 and October 2, 2013 are hereby denied. Post judgment motions are to be submitted by Order to Show Cause and served pursuant to the requirements of CPLR S2103. Defendant has failed to comply with either of these requirements. Furthermore, in action against the defendant initiated by his ex-wife, Index No. 23213--1991, the defendant was sanctioned $20,000 for filing repetitive and frivolous motions. Defendant, by Court Order, was prohibited from filing any further motions until he paid the full amount of sanctions owed. At this time, the sanctions amount totals $25,000 and the defendant has failed to pay said amount.''
Daattorah, allow me to show you my letter today to the Clerk of the NYS Ct of Appeals:
2. My motion papers 2017-1101 return date 11/13/2017 states: “11. Susan is practically admitting to her crimes fraud/forgery in her package to Mr. Asiello June 19, 2017 and in her court papers 1/4/2017 to NYS Court of Appeals…” 3. Susan's package June 19, 2017 and Susan's court papers 1/4/2017 make you and the court judges witnesses to Susan attacking me unfairly. In law suits A versus B, if A commits a crime such as physically assaults B, if done outside the court, B must go to the police or hire a lawyer to prosecute. If A physically assaults B in court before the court clerk and the judges, then B has recourse to ask the court to hear the complaint of the physical assault. You, Sir, are witness to Susan attacking me unfairly. This is much like a court clerk and judges witnessing party A in a lawsuit physically attacking and injuring party B in a rage. The clerk and the judges can no longer tell the injured party to go to the police or hire a lawyer to prosecute the guilty party.
We should claim gross negligence for Shmuel Kamenetsky to accept the fake/forgery licensed psychologist report damning Aharon, which he famously sought to allow Tamar to marry her lover without a get from her husband Aharon. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-early-draft-comey-called-clinton-grossly-negligent-in-handling-emails-1510015167
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified material,” Mr. Comey wrote in one section of the draft. In another section of the draft statement, Mr. Comey wrote “the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email…supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.” Gross negligence is the standard for committing a crime. Shmuel Kamenetsky committed a crime.
Daf Hayomi Sanhedrin 6b R. Simeon b. Manasya says: When two come before you for judgment, before you have heard their case, or even afterwards, if you have not made up your mind whither [i.e., in whose favor] judgment is inclining [i.e., before the court becomes cognizant of the respective merits of the litigants], you may suggest to them that they should go and settle the dispute amongst themselves. But if you have already heard their case and have made up your mind in whose favor the verdict inclines, you are not at liberty to suggest a settlement, for it is written: “To start a quarrel is to open a sluice; Before a dispute flares up, drop it” (Proverbs 17:14). Before the case has been laid bare, you may leave off [give up] the contention [i.e.. suggest a settlement]; after the case has been laid bare, you cannot leave it off. The view of Resh Lakish is as follows: When two men bring a case before you, one weak [i.e. of small influence], the other strong [of great influence], before you have heard their case, or even after, so long as you are in doubt in whose favor judgment is inclining, you may tell them: I am not bound to decide in your case, lest the man of great influence should be found guilty, and use his influence to harass the judge. But, if you have heard their case and know in whose favor the judgment inclines, you cannot withdraw and say, I am not bound to decide in your case, because it is written “You shall not be partial in judgment: hear out low and high alike. Fear no man, for judgment is God’s. And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it.” (Deuteronomy 1:17). I received today from the NYS Ct of Appeals: Re: Aranoff v. Aranoff Mo. No. 2017-1101 Dear Mr. Aranoff: I acknowledge receipt of your papers dated October 26, 2017. Your papers will be submitted to the Court as a motion for leave to appeal on November 13, 2017. Any opposing paper from respondents must be served and received by this office no later than November 13, 2017. See, the NYS Court of Appeals is following Sanhedrin 6b and agree to hear my case!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S1i9BwU77OA/VpFfiQSQXlI/AAAAAAAAUic/d-MGuB8HAcY/s640/R%2BKaminetsy%2Bis%2Ba%2Bgadol%2Bfirst%2Bversion.jpg
ReplyDeleteA little vague but they are entitled to their opinion. The names are kind of small but I recognize one of them. Question is, what is their solution to this problem? At least peleg is trying something.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any mention of Rabbi Aurbach nor do I see any slander. Care to elaborate?
ReplyDeleteI don't think R' Auerbach has anything to do with anything. I thought R' Scheinberg was one of his supporters, and I didn't know R' Yitzchak Ezrachi ever got involved either.
ReplyDeleteThis letter says nothing pro or con about the protests.
ReplyDeleteThere is no problem.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides agree their is a problem. They only disagree as to what the best response to the problem is.
ReplyDelete“more slander against Rav Shmuel auerbach???????!!!!!”
ReplyDeleteWhen can we attack rabbis and when is it forbidden? See http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Rabbinic-journal-devotes-issue-to-sexual-abuse-in-Orthodox-community-508666
Rabbi Mark Dratch, the executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, wrote an article titled “What to do with abusive rabbis: halachic considerations.” “The Code of Jewish Law,” Dratch wrote, “records that a scholar, who is rumored to be involved in heresy or immoral behavior, such that he causes a desecration of God’s Name, is to be excommunicated. Such a person certainly is no longer considered a rabbi.”
I agree with Rabbi Mark Dratch. What Rabbi Mark Dratch says applies to Shmuel Kamenetsky’s view that the second marriage [Tamar to her lover] is valid and that Shmuel Kamenetsky is right to tell the couple not to separate. Shmuel Kamenetsky is complicit in immoral behavior. The proof is the fraud/fake licensed psychology report damming Aharon---which Shmuel Kamenetsky famously sought and approved of.
Perhaps you should try writing some text besides a title. Or you could change the name of your blog to "I'll just leave this here".
ReplyDeleteNope. The majority view is that matters have continued, more or less, the same way they always have. The minimum requirement of inductees would in any event be met by those that are going to army anyway. So there is no problem.
ReplyDeleteThe new requirement of a minimum number of Chareidi inductees will not be met since less Chareidim are volunteering to be inducted into the Israeli military.
ReplyDeleteThis is a profound misunderstanding of the crucial changes in the last 5 years and the changes in the 10-15 years before that.
ReplyDeleteIf you don’t have knowledge of the way the law has been changed, then you cannot hope to understand the cause that these that Peleg are fighting for. There is certainly a huge threat to Torah in EY caused by the Lapid/Kadima-Bennet/Bayit Yehudi coalition changes to the status quo.
From the abolition of the Tal law, reversal of vaad hayeshivos control of the situation, imposition of mandatory quotas of chareidi recruits, forcing bochurim to come to army offices for deferment, etc etc this is certainly not the way things have been for decades. In fact, not even the way things have been for one decade.
Never before has there been such a threat to conscripting those in full time learning into an army that has always been and is further becoming an ever more unacceptable place for a frum yid.
When I went for my deferment 20 years ago, I needed to go to the army office, so you are definitely wrong on that one. As to the rest, you are wrong as well. The quotas are relatively low, and the pool of people that can be used to meet those quotas is very broad. To date, not one yeshiva student has followed the procedures according to the law and has been forcibly inducted into the army. Wake me up when that happens.
ReplyDeleteDaattorah, allow me to tell of breaking news in Susan v. Gerald. Yesterday, The NYS Court of Appeals approved and gave a number 2017-1101 November 13, 2017 to:
ReplyDelete“Please take notice, that the Motion for Leave to Appeal---a request for a decision to cancel and to nullify---the Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings Judge Eric I. Prus signed 10/15/2013 made by Gerald Aranoff, sworn to on October 26, 2017 will be made to the NYS Court of Appeals located at 20 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207 USA (phone 518--455--7700) on November 13, 2017 at 9:30 AM or as soon after as counsel can be heard for a judgment.”
The 10/15/2015 Order:
“The defendant's motions dated September 30, 2013 and October 2, 2013 are hereby denied. Post judgment motions are to be submitted by Order to Show Cause and served pursuant to the requirements of CPLR S2103. Defendant has failed to comply with either of these requirements. Furthermore, in action against the defendant initiated by his ex-wife, Index No. 23213--1991, the defendant was sanctioned $20,000 for filing repetitive and frivolous motions. Defendant, by Court Order, was prohibited from filing any further motions until he paid the full amount of sanctions owed. At this time, the sanctions amount totals $25,000 and the defendant has failed to pay said amount.''
Daattorah, allow me to show you my letter today to the Clerk of the NYS Ct of Appeals:
ReplyDelete2. My motion papers 2017-1101 return date 11/13/2017 states:
“11. Susan is practically admitting to her crimes fraud/forgery in her package to Mr. Asiello June 19, 2017 and in her court papers 1/4/2017 to NYS Court of Appeals…”
3. Susan's package June 19, 2017 and Susan's court papers 1/4/2017 make you and the court judges witnesses to Susan attacking me unfairly. In law suits A versus B, if A commits a crime such as physically assaults B, if done outside the court, B must go to the police or hire a lawyer to prosecute. If A physically assaults B in court before the court clerk and the judges, then B has recourse to ask the court to hear the complaint of the physical assault. You, Sir, are witness to Susan attacking me unfairly. This is much like a court clerk and judges witnessing party A in a lawsuit physically attacking and injuring party B in a rage. The clerk and the judges can no longer tell the injured party to go to the police or hire a lawyer to prosecute the guilty party.
We should claim gross negligence for Shmuel Kamenetsky to accept the fake/forgery licensed psychologist report damning Aharon, which he famously sought to allow Tamar to marry her lover without a get from her husband Aharon.
ReplyDeleteSee https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-early-draft-comey-called-clinton-grossly-negligent-in-handling-emails-1510015167
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified material,” Mr. Comey wrote in one section of the draft. In another section of the draft statement, Mr. Comey wrote “the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email…supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.”
Gross negligence is the standard for committing a crime. Shmuel Kamenetsky committed a crime.
Daf Hayomi Sanhedrin 6b
ReplyDeleteR. Simeon b. Manasya says: When two come before you for judgment, before you have heard their case, or even afterwards, if you have not made up your mind whither [i.e., in whose favor] judgment is inclining [i.e., before the court becomes cognizant of the respective merits of the litigants], you may suggest to them that they should go and settle the dispute amongst themselves. But if you have already heard their case and have made up your mind in whose favor the verdict inclines, you are not at liberty to suggest a settlement, for it is written: “To start a quarrel is to open a sluice; Before a dispute flares up, drop it” (Proverbs 17:14). Before the case has been laid bare, you may leave off [give up] the contention [i.e.. suggest a settlement]; after the case has been laid bare, you cannot leave it off.
The view of Resh Lakish is as follows: When two men bring a case before you, one weak [i.e. of small influence], the other strong [of great influence], before you have heard their case, or even after, so long as you are in doubt in whose favor judgment is inclining, you may tell them: I am not bound to decide in your case, lest the man of great influence should be found guilty, and use his influence to harass the judge. But, if you have heard their case and know in whose favor the judgment inclines, you cannot withdraw and say, I am not bound to decide in your case, because it is written “You shall not be partial in judgment: hear out low and high alike. Fear no man, for judgment is God’s. And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it.” (Deuteronomy 1:17).
I received today from the NYS Ct of Appeals:
Re: Aranoff v. Aranoff Mo. No. 2017-1101 Dear Mr. Aranoff: I acknowledge receipt of your papers dated October 26, 2017. Your papers will be submitted to the Court as a motion for leave to appeal on November 13, 2017. Any opposing paper from respondents must be served and received by this office no later than November 13, 2017.
See, the NYS Court of Appeals is following Sanhedrin 6b and agree to hear my case!