Sunday, July 16, 2017

back in business


  1. Oh, great! I hope you had/have a Refuah Sheleimah.

  2. Why are comments closed on the previous Meir Zlotowitz topic?

  3. B”H I pray for a refuah shelemah for all sick of Israel. What’s the latest? Pacer July 14, 2017 on Mendel Epstein et al:
    “appellants’ joint, unopposed motion for extension of time to file petition or petitions for rehearing. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 26(b) and 40(a), the appellants, Binyamin
    Stimler, Jay Goldstein and Mendel Epstein, by their respective undersigned
    counsel, move jointly for a 49-day extension of time to file a petition or
    petitions for rehearing.”

  4. looking forward to many more years of discussion and Limmud!

  5. Welcome back! I hope you're feeling better without long term damage.

  6. Welcome back, Rabbi!!!
    I am very happy with to know you had a good recovery and is posting again!

  7. B"H, welcome back!

  8. Welcome back!

    May your recovery be complete

  9. Pacer July 17, 2017: The foregoing motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing, if any, must be filed on or before September 8, 2017.
    By the Court,
    s/ Jane R. Roth
    Circuit Judge
    Dated: July 17, 2017
    tmm/cc: All Counsel of Record
    Case: 15-4095 Document: 003112675572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2017

    Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge: The statements at issue were testified to by Aryeh
    Ralbag. At trial, Ralbag described the statements made
    before a beth din which was convened when the alleged
    victim of one of the charged kidnappings had challenged the
    validity of the get he signed. Ralbag and two other rabbis
    presided at the beth din, and four witnesses—including
    Goldstein and Stimler—testified that Goldstein and Stimler
    had served as eid in procuring the contested get.89
    89 The other two witnesses, were arrested and charged as part
    of the kidnapping ring. Ralbag was granted immunity in
    exchange for his testimony, and the other two witnesses pled
    guilty to lesser offenses.

  10. Great to hear that you are BARUCH HASHEM "back in business".....

    If you are up to it, I'm sure I'm not the only one that has been davening for you... and would love to hear how you are feeling, Reb Daniel...

  11. mr. eidensohn couldn't spell on account of being retarded before he had his stroke, kol sh'keyn after Hashem destroyed him for being an apikores

  12. See
    In the groundbreaking ruling, the judges wrote that: "When an unjustified complaint is filed, the consequences for the husband are unbearable. The police by default issue a restraining order, and there is long-term harm. The procedures for issuing protection relie on evidence lighter than a feather-weight. The courts err on the side on safety out of fear of violence, and so, even if the accused is found innocent at the end of the procedure, the humiliation involved tarnishes his good name and in many instances harms his employment. Removing a person from his home on the basis of a false complaint constitutes physical violence...On the other hand, the complainant achieves tactical gains in custody proceedings, legal fees, etc. and there is also a direct connection [with these false complaints] and the amount of alimony. In the end the man finds himself in a kafkaeque situation."

    Bravo for the Israel Rabbinate!

  13. Glad to hear you! May you have a complete and full refua shelaima!

  14. In this week’s parsha דברים we read:
    “I charged your magistrates at that time as follows, Hear out your fellow men, and decide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger. 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 1:16--17)
    Sanhedrin 7b-8a:
    Again: “Hear out your fellow men, and decide justly” This, said R. Hanina, is a warning to the court not to listen to the claims of a litigant in the absence of his opponent; and to the litigant not to explain his case to the judge before his adversary appears. שמע [hear], in the verse, can also be read, שמע [In the Pi'el, which has a causative sense, (make hear)]. R. Kahana, however, says: We can derive this rule from the verse: Thou shalt not take up [תשא] a false report “You must not carry false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness” (Exodus 23:1). [Referring to the judge], which may be read, tashshi [in the hiph'il from תשא entice, induce, mislead]. As for the text quoted above, “and decide justly”. Resh Lakish says that it means: Consider rightly all the aspects of the case before giving the decision. As for the words, “between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger” R. Judah says that this refers to disputes between brothers about trifles such as, for instance, who should occupy the lower and who the upper part of a house. “or a stranger” This, says R. Judah, refers [גרו…] even to so insignificant a dispute as one concerning a stove and an oven. “You shall not be partial in judgment” [לא תכירו פנים]. R. Judah says this means: You shall not favor [lit. recognize] any one [even if he is your friend]; and R. Eleazar takes it to mean; You shall not estrange anyone [even if he is your enemy] [תנכרו…]. A former host of Rab came before him with a law-suit, and said: Were you not once my guest? Yes, he answered, [and what is your wish?]. I have a case to be tried, he replied. Then, said Rab, I am disqualified from being your judge, and turning to R. Kahana, said: Go you and judge the case. R. Kahana noticed that the man presumed too much on his acquaintance with Rab, so he remarked: If you will submit to my judgment, well and good; If not, I shall put Rab out of your mind [by showing you my authority]. [Lit., I shall get Rab out of your ears; i.e., by applying the sanctions of excommunication]. “hear out low and high alike” Resh Lakish says: This verse indicates that a law-suit involving a mere perutah must be regarded as of the same importance as one involving a hundred mina. For what practical purpose is this laid down? If it is to urge the need of equal consideration and investigation, is it not self-evident! Rather, it is to give the case due priority, if it should be first in order. “for judgment is God's” R. Hamma, son of R. Hanina, comments: The Holy One, blessed be He, hath said: It is not enough for the wicked [judges] that they take away money from one and give it to another unjustly, but they put Me to the trouble of returning it to its owner.”


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.