Monday, July 22, 2019

New Letter in Support of the Beis Din's Ruling in the Case of R' Shmuel Tal


4 comments :

  1. “New Letter in Support of the Beis Din's Ruling in the Case of R' Shmuel Tal”
    Beautiful. I read the new letter in support of the bet din ruling. This is a letter Rabbi Tal can keep and show anyone that harasses him. He could tell anyone that harasses him to bug off and mind their own business. This letter reminds me of Rabbi Kornfeld’s July 1991 letter to Susan for Susan not to forsake me which I last week sent a copy to SCOTUS 18-9390 and to NYS COA 649. Rabbi Kornfeld knew well the gamara that a man could compel his wife to join him in Jerusalem/Israel.
    Maybe I should’ve told Rabbi Irwin Haut of blessed memory in 1991 to bug off and mind your own business. Maybe not; he might’ve punched me in the face. Yes, Irwin Haut saw rabbi Kornfeld’s letter Could Aaron tell K-G of the K-G garbage heter, to bug off and mind their own business? Maybe not, he might get punched in the face. What to do? Hard to fight against the רשע ערום.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kalonymus AnonymusJuly 23, 2019 at 12:28 AM

    "Maybe not, he might get punched in the face."
    Reminds me of the Woody Allen joke about Hemingway..

    ReplyDelete
  3. This letter reminds me of Abshalom requesting a letter from his father to receive supporting accompaniment from any town while gathering a rebelling military.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I still have difficulties with this new letter in support of R' S. Tal of which is very troublesome.

    R' AW should have never presided over the BD to begin with, it therefore does not satisfy "Uvinkiyos haraui" as claimed in this letter, as far as "Vihyissem nekiyim" is concerned. R' AW stated himself why he offers his support to R' Tal as in the following:

    ...כששאלו את הרב וייס למה הוא מפרסם מכתבי תמיכה, הוא אמר שהרב טל עזר לו בעבר בקמפיין שלו, אז הוא חייב לו".

    He therefore should have definitely recused himself and have not been involved in any way, shape or form. It does not look good, so this letter in support is flawed. His presiding could have swayed and influenced which evidence should be given attention, accepted or otherwise and which to discard, thereby influencing the final outcome, and that is not available for public consumption. In absence of transparency it remains highly problematic and needs to be looked into whether you can consider "Uvinkiyos haraui" M'H' umiYisrael.

    ReplyDelete

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