Israel to allow vaccinated or recovered tourists to enter starting November 1

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-allow-vaccinated-or-recovered-tourists-to-enter-starting-november-1/

 Ministers on Thursday opened Israel’s borders, starting November 1, to tourists who are vaccinated against COVID-19 or have recovered from the disease, the Prime Minister’s Office said.

However, only tourists from countries that aren’t defined as “red” due to high infection rates will be allowed in. Additionally, reports said tourists won’t be allowed in from countries that are seeing an outbreak of the new AY4.2 variant, which has been causing concern.

The vast majority of tourists have effectively been banned from entering Israel since the start of the coronavirus pandemic in March of last year. The reopening of borders has been delayed numerous times throughout the year, as COVID infections waxed and waned.

House votes to hold Bannon in contempt for defying Capitol attack subpoena – as it happened

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/oct/21/steve-bannon-house-vote-subpoena-capitol-attack-us-politics-joe-biden-latest

 The House voted to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for defying subpoenas issued by the select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection. The matter will now be referred to the justice department, which will have to determine whether to prosecute Bannon, a former senior adviser to Donald Trump.

Exposed: ‘Sleeper cell’ of evangelical Christians posing as Orthodox rabbis

 https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/exposed-sleeper-cell-of-evangelical-christians-posing-as-orthodox-rabbis-1.521679

 A father and son practising as Orthodox rabbis in America have been accused by anti-missionary investigators of being secret evangelical Christians.

The claims over Michael and Calev Isaacson — who have changed their family name from Dawson — would cause disastrous halachic problems for the Jewish community if true.

Sacred rituals performed by the two men include writing holy scrolls, washing the dead, and conducting weddings, divorces and even conversions.

Investigators allege neither man is Jewish, making any rituals in which they took part invalid.

They are suspected of being a “sleeper cell” of evangelical Christians who may ultimately attempt to make aliyah and embed themselves within Israeli society.

The Isaacsons have been accepted and welcomed in a number of Orthodox Jewish communities in locations across the US.

 

US Orthodox rabbis accused of secretly being Evangelical Christians

 https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/us-orthodox-rabbis-accused-of-secretly-being-evangelical-christians-report-682759

Accusations have been leveled against a father and son in the United States who practice as Orthodox rabbis of secretly being Evangelical Christians. 

The father and son in question, Michael and Calev Isaacson, have worked as rabbis in Orthodox Jewish communities throughout the United States. These include Portland, Milwaukee, Houston, and, currently, Phoenix. While in Houston, from 2014-2016, Michael reportedly worked as a supervisor for the local kashrut association.

The accusations against them were leveled by Beynenyu, an Israel-based anti-missionary organization, who claim that they have relocated whenever the suspicions of the local rabbis were aroused 

Judaism and the Death Penalty; Of Two Minds but One Heart

 https://advocacy.ou.org/judaism-and-the-death-penalty-of-two-minds-but-one-heart/

 If one can be certain of anything in a discussion of Judaism’s views regarding capital punishment, especially those held in a public forum, it is that the following statement in the Mishna (Makkot 1:10) will be quoted:

A Sanhedrin that executed [more than] one person in a week is called a “murderous” [court]. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya states: “[More than] one person in 70 years [would be denoted a murderous court].” Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: “If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed.”

While this passage properly finds its way into all discussions of the Torah’s approach to the death penalty, other Mishnaic statements of equal authority with different perspectives seem to be often overlooked. In fact, the very Mishna quoted above gives the last word to R. Shimon ben Gamiliel, who responds that had they indeed ensured that the death penalty would never be carried out, R. Tarfon and R. Akiva “would have been increasing the murderers in Israel.”

Capital punishment -Tur

 Tut (C.M. 2)

אף ע"פ שלא הי' דנין בחוצה לארץ דיני נפשות ודיני מכות ולא קנסות אם ראו בית דין שצורך שעה הוא שהעם פרוצים בעבירות דנין בין מיתה בין ממון בין כל מיני עונש. ואם הוא אלם חובטים אותו על ידי עכו"ם ואומרים לו עשה מה שישראל אומר לך: וכתב רב אלפס בפרק הגוזל בהא דקנסיה רב נחמן לההוא גברא דגזלן עתיקא הוה ש"מ דקנסינן בכי האי גוונא אפילו בח"ל. ודוקא גדול הדור כמו רב נחמן דחתניה דבי נשיאה הוה וממונה לדון ע"פ הנשיא או טובי העיר שהמחום רבים עליהם אבל דייני דעלמא לא ע"כ. ונראה שאפי' אין בדבר עדות גמורה שהיה מתחייב על פיהם בדין בשעה שהיו דנין דיני נפשות אלא שיש רגלים לדבר וקלא דלא פסיק אם נראה לדיין שיש צורך השעה לדונו בכך הרשות בידו: וכן יראה מדברי הרמב"ם שכתב יש לב"ד להלקות למי שאינו חייב מלקות ולהרוג למי שאינו חייב מיתה ולא לעבור על דברי תורה אלא לעשות סייג לתורה וכיון שרואין בית דין שפרצו העם בדבר יש להם כח לגדור ולחזק הדבר כפי מה שיראה להם הכל הוראת שעה ולא שיקבעו הלכה לדורות. וכן יש להם [בכל מקום ובכל זמן] להלקות אדם ששמועתו רעה והעם מרננין אחריו שהוא עובר על העריות והוא שיהא קול שאינו פוסק ולא יהיו לו אויבים שמוציאין עליו דבה רעה וכן מבזין את מי ששמועתו רעה ומבזין את יולדיו בפניו וכן יש להם להפקיר ממון שיש לו בעלים ולאבדו כפי מה שרואים לגדור פרצת הדור ולקנוס אלם ולנדותו ולהחרימו ולקללו ולהכותו ולתלוש שערו ולאוסרו בבית האסורים ולהשביעו בשם על כרחו שלא יעשה ושלא עשה כל אלו הדברים לפי מה שיראה לדיין שזה צריך לכך והשעה צריכה לכך ובכל יהיו מעשיו לשם שמים ואל יהא כבוד הבריות קל בעיניו שהרי דוחה לא תעשה של דבריהם וכל שכן כבוד בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב המחזיקים בתורת אמת שיהא זהיר שלא יהרוס כבודם אלא להוסיף כבוד המקום בלבד ע"כ:

Capital Punishment AruchHaShulchan

 Aruch HaShulchan (CM 2)

[שעונשין לצורך שעה ובו ד' סעיפים]: אע"פ שאין דנין בחו"ל ד"נ ומלקות וקנסות מ"מ אם רואים ב"ד שהשעה צריכה לכך שהעם פרוצים בעבירות דנים הכל כפי צורך השעה [ע"פ רשיון המלכות] ואפילו כשרואים ליחיד שהוא פרוץ בעבירות יכולים לקנסו כפי ראות עיניהם ובלבד שתהיה כוונתם לשמים ואפילו אין בדבר עדות גמורה אלא שיש רגלים לדבר וקלא דלא פסיק וליכא אויבים דמפקי לקלא אם נראה שזהו צורך שעה לדונו בכך וכך צריכים לעשות כן אם יש יכולת בידם שאם נעמיד הכל על הדין ונצרך עדים והתראה נמצא העולם חרב ולא חרבה ירושלים אלא מפני שהעמידו דבריהם על ד"ת [רשב"א בתשו'] ויש להם רשות לייסרו בגופו וממונו כפי שרואים לגדור הפרצה ואם הוא אלם עושים ע"י ערכאות המלוכה והם יצוו עליו עשה מה שדת ישראל אומר לך וכל מי שיש כח בידו לעשות סייג לתורה ואינו עושה אין לו סייג בעוה"ז ובעוה"ב ולא נין ונכד ועצור ועזוב [ב"י בשם מדה"נ] וכן מחוייבים להשגיח שלא ימצא חלילה בין ישראל איזה מחשבת מרד אף בלב נגד אדונינו הקיר"ה ושריו וכבר אמרו חז"ל שהקב"ה השביע את ישראל שלא ימרודו במלכיות [כתובות קי"א.] וכתיב ירא את ד' בני ומלך ומלכותא דארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיע: וכח זה הוא רק לגדול בתורה או לטובי העיר שטובי העיר בעירם כחם כב"ד הגדול ובזמנינו מוטל על הרב וטובי העיר לגדור פרצות ישראל בכל יכולתם וכל אשר יעשו [ברשיון הממשלה] איזה מכס מוכרחים הצבור לקיים אף דאיכא רווחא להאי ופסידא להאי כיון שדבר זה נוגע לתקוני הצבור או למיגדר מילתא ומי שמעכב בזה או מקלקל הוא חבירו של ירבעם בן נבט ואל תשגיח אם יש גם מהלומדים שמחזקים המהרסים דמסתמא אין בהם יראת שמים דוק ותשכח: אבל דבר שאינו לצורך תקון מתקוני העיר ולא למיגדר מילתא אין כח ביד טובי העיר רק להכריח את הציבור במה שהיה מנהג מקודם או שקבלו כל הציבור עליהם ואף בדברים בעלמא שאמרו רוצים אנחנו יכולים אח"כ לכופם דכל מילי דציבורא מתקיימים בדברים בלבד דא"א לכל הציבור לעשות קניינים ובלא אלו הפרטים אין כח בידם לעשות במידי דאיכא רווחא להאי ופסידא להאי ועכ"ז אם יש מנהג בעיר שביכולת טובי העיר לעשות כפי הנראה בעיניהם בכל דבר או שאנשי העיר קבלום עליהם שיהיה ביכולתם לעשות כל הנראה בעיניהם אזי ביכולתם לעשות אף במידי דאיכא רווחא להאי ופסידא להאי וטובי העיר שלבם לשמים יעזור להם ד' והבא ליטהר מסייעין אותו מן השמים: כתבו האחרונים דמי שנתחייב מלקות יתן מ' זהובים ובדברים כאלה רשות ביד הב"ד לעשות כפי ראות עיניהם ומעשה היה בימים הקדמונים באחד שנתחייב מלקות וישב בארץ להלקותו ולא בא הממונה להלקותו ופטרוהו רבותינו מלהלקותו עוד כיון שנתבזה בהכנת המלקות [סמ"ע] כמ"ש חז"ל כיון שנקלה פטור [רמב"ם פי"ז מסנה']:

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN JEWISH LAW AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM: A CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW

 https://lessons.myjli.com/crime/index.php/lesson-2/capital-punishment-in-jewish-law-and-its-application-to-the-american-legal-system-a-conceptual-overview/

 Moreover, the views of Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva are not representative of the whole of Jewish law; rather, their opinions are two among many and did not represent the opinions of mainstream Jewish legal authorities. Thus, Judge Bright’s statement regarding the “virtual impossibility” of an execution in ancient Jewish law reflects a minority opinion.⁴⁵ In fact, Professor Blidstein, on whose article Judge Bright’s statement was based, deemed Rabbi Akiva to be “the final expositor of a muted tradition.”⁴⁶ Blidstein further observed that Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel, who contested the views of Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, “was probably not alone in protesting this virtual abolition of the death penalty. His is merely the clearest voice.”⁴⁷ The view of Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel appears to find support in other rabbinic statements, which dispute the overriding concerns that motivated Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva. For example, the Rabbis of the Talmud comment on the Biblical verse which instructs that in executing a murderer, “do not pity him.”⁴⁸ According to the Rabbis, this verse was a response to those who would oppose the execution of a murderer on the grounds that, because the victim is already dead, the taking of another life serves no purpose.⁴⁹ As Blidstein explains, “[h]owever generous the motive, the perversion of justice is evil, its motivation misguided. The Rabbis feared that true love of humanity could only be undermined by indiscriminate recourse to ‘mercy,’ which, as Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel pointed out, would deny an innocent society the concern shown the criminal.”⁵⁰

The Torah views publicizing punishment as a deterrent to others as well as the perpetrator

The question has been raised a number of time as to why I publicize the punishment of molesters since as long as they are in jail they can't commit further offenses? My answer is that publicity of punishment is viewed by the Torah as an important deterrent not only to the perpetrator but also to others. The following is a clear exposition of this idea from Torah sources.

Justice Menachem Elon (Principles of Jewish Law): The most common purpose of punishment, as found in the Bible, is "to put away the evil from the midst of thee" (Deut. 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:24; 24:7). While such "putting away" is applied in the Bible to capital punishment only (which indeed constitutes the only effective total elimination), the principle underlying the elimination of evil, as distinguishedfrom that of the evildoer (cf. Ps. 104:35 and Ber. 10a), provides a theory of punishment of universal validity and applicable to all criminal sanctions. It means that the act of punishment is not so much directed against the individual offender - who is, however, unavoidably its victim - as it is a demonstration of resentment and disapproval of that particular mode of conduct. By branding that conduct as worthy of, and necessitating, judicial punish­ment, it is outlawed and ostracized. Similarly, punishment is inflicted on the offender not so much for his own sake as for the deterrence of others: that all people should hear and be afraid (Deu 17: 13 - rebellious elder; 19:20 - perjury; 21 :21 - rebelious son). From the point of view of criminal law enforce­ment policies, the deterrent aspect of punishment in Jewish law is already the most important of all: people who hear and see a man heavily punished for his offense are supposed to be deterred from committing the offense and incurring the risk of such punishment (they "will do no more presumptuously" - Deut. 19:20). Hence the particular injunction to have the offender hanged on a stake after having been put to death (Deut. 21 :22), so as to publicize the execution as widely and impressively as possible; but note that the corpse must be taken off the gibbet before nightfall, "for he that is hanged is a reproach to God" and defiles the land (Deut. 21 :23) - and no concession made to policies of law enforcement can derogate from the affront to God involved in killing and hanging a human being.

It is not only the principle known in modern criminology as general prevention," the deterrence of the general public, but also that of "special prevention," the prevention of the indivi­dual offender from committing further crimes, that is reflected in Jewish law.It has been said that the imposition of capital punishment on such offenders as the rebellious son (Deut. 21: 18-21), the rebellious elder (Deu t. 17: 12), the abductor (Ex. 21: 16), and the burglar (Ex. 22: I) is justified on the ground that these are all potential murderers (cf. Maim., Guide 3 :41); and rather than let them take innocent human lives, they should themselves be eliminated. That the deterrent effect of punish­ment on the offender himself was a consideration which weighed heavily with the talmudical jurists is illustrated also by the rule that where punishment had proved to have had no beneficial deterrent effect on the offender and he has committed the same or some similar offenses over and over again, he would be liable to be imprisoned and "fed on barley until his belly bursts" (Sanh.9:5).

First, they came for Alta

 https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/first-they-came-for-alta/

 Alta’s transfer from Manchester to Israel, he said, would cause her further pain. Death would be a better solution.

There has been little dissent. Britain and other European Union countries with socialized medicine have adopted a policy of euthanasia. The policy began with abortion on demand, followed by the right of a patient to end life-support. Then, parents and children were given the same right to kill their loved ones. Over the last few years, the policy has allowed hospitals to remove patients from life support against the wishes of the family.

The process of official murder is not difficult. The hospital submits the opinion of physicians that the doomed patient will never recover and that death would end his suffering. In 2017, Britain, supported by the European Court of Human Rights, refused to allow Charlie Gard, less than a year old, to be taken to a US hospital for experimental treatment. Against the wishes of her parents, a British hospital removed life support from Charlie, who died a day later.

REJECTED! Sex Offender Yona Weinberg's Slander Lawsuit Rejected by Jerusalem Judge!!

 

Judge Wrote That Referring to Weinberg as a "Terrorist With a Machete" Was Justified

Dear Friends: With boundless gratitude to Hashem, and deep appreciation for the extraordinary support we received from our readers worldwide, we are delighted to share the news of a great victory for the safety of Israeli children. After a 5-year court battle, a Jerusalem judge rejected convicted sex offender Yona Weinberg’s defamation lawsuit for warning Har Nof parents about the danger he poses to their children. Moreover, the judge wrote that telling people to “treat Weinberg as they would a terrorist with a machete” was justified because of the life-threatening danger he poses to children. Why is this so important? Because Israel does not have a sex-offender registry (yet), and many sex offenders from the Diaspora abuse Israel’s Law of Return and flee to Israel. So the only way for Israeli parents to know about dangerous sex offenders living near them is for child safety advocates to publicly warn them. Silencing those voices would have been a giant step backwards. There is much more to say on this, but that will have to wait for a later email. In the meantime, we just wanted to share this wonderful news with our digital family members. With humility and gratitude Yakov ----------------------------------------------------- Here are some links to the media coverage thus far, and below are some video clips of the 5-year journey. Times of Israel English https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-rejects-pedophiles-lawsuit-against-rabbi-who-likened-him-to-a-terrorist/ Arutz Sheva English https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/315390 Jewish Press English https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/rabbi-yaakov-horowitz-wins-defamation-suit-launched-by-convicted-pedophile/2021/10/20/ Walla News Hebrew. https://news.walla.co.il/item/3466009 Srugim Hebrew https://mobile.srugim.co.il/article/609267

An emotional message to abuse victims the night before the first Jerusalem court hearing

News 12 piece 5 years ago when the lawsuit was filed

Very meaningful endorsements for our Hebrew Child Safety Book -- first one from Rebbitzen Kolodetsky, daughter of Reb Chaim Kanievsky Shlit'a. She tells a remarkable story about how our book saved a child, and says, "it's an obligation for every home to have one.

An interview on YNet, Yediyot Achronot's station. Watch how they try pushing the provocative angles of the story, and my struggle to stay on message

Court rejects pedophile’s lawsuit against rabbi who likened him to a terrorist

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-rejects-pedophiles-lawsuit-against-rabbi-who-likened-him-to-a-terrorist/

The Jerusalem District Court has rejected a NIS 200,000 ($62,300) libel suit filed by a convicted pedophile against a rabbi who had warned Israelis to treat him like a “terrorist with a machete.”

Judge Michal Hirschfeld ruled that the statement by Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, an anti-abuse activist from Monsey, New York, regarding the convicted pedophile, Yona Weinberg — who immigrated to Israel from the United States — was true and included an opinion expressed in good faith. The ruling was issued last month and was made public on Tuesday.

However, the court ordered Horowitz to pay a minimal sum of NIS 3,000 ($935) over two other statements alleging that Weinberg is a fugitive and that he had given kids sweets that don’t have a kosher certificate. Horowitz was also ordered to pay a similar sum for Weinberg’s expenses and half his court costs. 

Capital punishment by beis din

 Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 2)

Every Court of Law,²Even a Court of Law outside the Land of Israel — M.E. even [one whose members] are not duly ordained in the Land of Israel,³ supra § 1, n. 14. — if they see that the people are unrestrained in [committing] sins,⁴Even if there is one individual who is in the habit of violating the law, he may be penalized by the Court of Law, although the punishment meted out is not in accordance with Biblical law, only that when the people as a whole are unrestrained in transgressing laws, they may enact measures as a safeguard and they may inflict penalties on any one person for the infringement of their rules even if they did not see that person committing sins unrestrainably — M.E. and [provided] that the exigencies of the hour demand it,⁵Tur — G. It may, however, be asked (in accordance with the interpretation of M.E.), why should an individual transgressor be considered as falling under the category of ‘exigencies of the hour?’ This should, therefore, be understood as follows: If we withhold punishment from an habitual individual sinner, others will learn from his evil ways and will likewise become unrestrained in the commission of sins. Hence, the exigencies of the hour apply here too (Tummim). Others, however, maintain that the individual may be penalized even when the foregoing reason is not applicable (Shebuth Ya‘akob) — P.Tesh. may pass judgment both [with respect to] death⁶Derived from San. 46a, Yeb. 90b: ‘It was taught, R. Eliezer b. Jacob stated: I heard that the Court of Law may (whenever necessary) administer punishment by lashes and impose (capital) sentences, even though not (warranted) by Biblical law; not for the purpose of disregarding the Torah but in order to make a fence around the Torah. It once happened that a man rode on horseback on the Sabbath during the Greek period and was brought before the Court of Law and was stoned, not because he was liable to this penalty, but because the needs of the hour demanded it. It also happened that a man had intercourse with his wife under a fig tree and was brought before the Court of Law and was flogged, not because he deserved it, but because the needs of the hour demanded it.’ N.Yos., however, writes that the above penalties were imposed by the Great Sanhedrin but any other Court of Law does not have the authority to administer such punishment. He adduces the following text to prove his point: San. 52b: ‘Immarta, the daughter of Tali, a Kohen, committed adultery. In consequence of that, R. Ḥama b. Tobiah had her surrounded by faggots and burnt. R. Joseph said: He (R. Ḥama) was unaware of two laws. He was unaware of R. Mathna’s statement (that burning was executed by pouring molten lead down the culprit’s throat) and was ignorant of the following Baraitha: And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days (Deut. XVII, 9). This teaches that when the priesthood operates (in the Temple), the Judge operates (with respect to capital punishment) ; but when the priesthood does not operate, the Judge may not function.’ Hence, R. Ḥama, who flourished after the destruction of the Temple had no authority to impose capital punishment. N.Yos. cites additional cases to corroborate his viewpoint: Nid. 13b, San. 58b: ‘R. Ḥama had the hand of one who was accustomed to strike other people cut off.’ San. 27a: ‘The Exilarch (Resh Galutha) said to R. Abba b. Jacob, Go and investigate the matter; if he is definitely the murderer, dim his eyes.’ In these latter cases only partial punishment was administered but not full punishment in accordance with Biblical law. However, N.Yos. is opposed by the Codifiers (v. also D.M.) who hold that if the needs of the hour demand it even full punishment may be meted out including capital sentences although it would not be in accordance with Biblical law where legal warning and valid witnesses are required which would be difficult to obtain nowadays as a result of which the world would become full of violence and ultimately destroyed. Cf. ‘Jerusalem was destroyed because judgments were rendered in accordance with strict Biblical law’ (B.M. 30b). Thus RaShBA, N, and Asheri in Resp. Hence, Caro’s ruling here. , also the case of Simeon b. Shetaḥ in Mishna San. 45b who hanged eighty women at Ashkelon. and monetary [penalties]⁷M.K. 16a; B.K. 96b. as well as [to administer] all laws of punishment,⁸Ibid. even if in the case [in question] there is no valid evidence [available].⁹Kid. 81a; San. 26b and Tosaf. s.v. החשוד; Tur citing Yad, Sanhedrin XXIV, 4. This means that there was no legal warning given by witnesses to the offender immediately before committing the offense. For witnesses and legal warning are required only when adjudicating a Biblical law, but one who disobeys the ordinances of the country may be penalized according to the needs of the hour (N in Resp.) — M.E., ShaK. In capital cases the consent of the town Elders is required after due deliberation (B.Yos. citing RaShBA) — M.E. And if he is a stern individual, they may flog him by means of heathen authorities.¹⁰Derived from Mishna Git. 88b: ‘A heathen court may impose flogging upon a man and say to him, Do whatever the Israelite (authorities) tell you.’ Since Caro does not record here the latter statement of the Mishna (as found in Tur), viz., ‘and say to him, Do whatver the Israelite (authorities) tell you,’ it follows that even the final legal proceedings may be carried out by the heathen authorities since the offender is a very harsh person and the penalty is not in accordance with Biblical law — M.E. For only in the case of a Get (as in Git. ibid.) must the final legal proceedings be executed by Israelite authorities in order that it be considered valid — Nethiboth. , also infra § 26. And they have authority to expropriate his property and to forfeit it according to whatever they see fit in order to fence in the lawlessness of the generation.¹¹Tur on the authority of Yad, Sanhedrin XXIV, 4-10 — G. Derived from M.K. 16a where Scriptural verses are adduced whence we derive that we have the authority to excommunicate persons refusing to obey the summons of the Court, to pronounce the Ḥerem (v. Glos.), to forfeit property, to curse, to smite, to pluck one’s hair, to adjure (so that one desists from malpractices), to fetter, to arrest and to prosecute. ‘We administer flogging on account of an evil rumour, because it is said, Nay (al), my sons; for it is no good report that I hear’ (I Sam. II, 24) — Kid. 81a. This has reference to an uninterrupted rumour not due to intimidation and where no enemies are about who might have published the rumour — Yeb. 25a. Cf. Tur. O.Ḥ. § 1 , also Git. 36b on the Rabbis’ power to expropriate one’s property; also Meg. 25b where it is stated that it is permissible to abuse a person of ill fame. The latter statement refers to an ordinary person but not to a scholar (RaN). Cf. Men. 99b: ‘Resh Lakish said, A scholar-disciple who has committed a misdeed should not be reproached in public because it is said, Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day and the prophet also shall stumble with thee in the night (Hos. IV, 5), that is to say, Keep it dark like night.’ The par. passage in M.K. 17a reads that ‘they do not place him under the ban.’ Some Later Authorities rule that the Court of Law has the power only to declare a debt cancelled but they cannot take possession of the money or the like on behalf of a person before it reaches the latter’s hand (Birke Yosef). Others (on the basis of Git. 36b) hold that the Court of Law does have this authority even before it reaches the latter’s hand — P.Tesh. All their acts, however, should be [done] for the sake of Heaven.¹²Cf. San. 46a: ‘Not with the purpose of disregarding the Torah, but in order to safeguard it.’ And [this should be executed] only [by] a great personage of the generation¹³Derived from B.K. 96b regarding the man who misappropriated a pair of oxen and was penalized by R. Naḥman, whence we see that only a distinguished personage like R. Naḥman who was the son-in-law of the Nasi’s house had the power to impose penalties. or [by] the representatives of the town¹⁴ B.B. 8b. whom they [i.e., the people] have recognized as the Court of Law over them.¹⁵Tur has שהמחום רבים עליהם ‘whom the public recognized as authorities over themselves.’ Gloss: And thus is the accepted practice everywhere, [viz.,] that the representatives of the town are regarded in their [own] town [as authoritative] as the [former] Great Sanhedrin.¹⁶Mord. (B.M. II beg.) on the authority of R. Gershon states: ‘Whosoever is appointed a leader of the community is regarded like the mightiest of the mighty and Jepthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation (R.H. 25b) and whatever he does is considered binding.’ Thus also RaShBA — M.E. They may administer flogging and impose [death] penalties and their expropriation [of one's property] is considered valid according to the adopted custom,¹⁷MaHaRIK (Rt. I, XIV) writes that even according to the opinion that the representatives of the town have the power to enact measures as they see fit, it applies only to communal needs but not with respect to cancelling a debt of one individual for the benefit of another which does not fall under the category of communal needs. Thus also Isserlein in his Decisions. Furthermore, only one who is a distinguished personage in his generation may expropriate property — M.E. Cf. supra n. 13. If the custom in the community is to submit the matter to arbitration by one litigant choosing one person and the other litigant choosing another person and the Head of the Court of Law acting as the third, — this practice should not be altered — P.Tesh. although there are some who differ and are of the opinion that the representatives of the town have no power in these [matters] save that they [have the authority] to compel the community in [observing] whatever was an adopted practice heretofore,¹⁸B.B. 8b: ‘The townspeople have a right to stipulate meassures, prices of food and wages of labourers and to remove (place outside of the protection of the law — Rashi) those who disregard the terms fixed by the authorities (ולהסיע על קיצתן). The dissenting opinion takes ולהסיע as referring to ‘measures etc.,’ i.e., just as in the latter case it must be with the consent of all, so too in the case of ‘terms fixed by the authorities,’ the consent of all is required. The first opinion takes ולהסיע as a separate measure. Hence, the consent of all is not required — W.G. Cf. also Y. Meg. III, 2(74a) : ‘The seven representatives of the town are regarded as the (entire) town. What are we treating of? If they (the townspeople) accepted them, then even if one (was appointed his decision should be binding upon all the townspeople) ; if they did not accept them, then even many (i.e., more than seven cannot enforce their rulings upon the townspeople). We, therefore, deal here with an undefined case (i.e., the townspeople appointed them to look after the communal matters, without specifying which matter they delegated to them, and the town representatives sold aught without consulting the people, we are therefore, informed that their transaction is binding).’ or they accepted upon themselves [a new measure] with the consent of all [the townspeople],¹⁹e., by mere speech the matter becomes binding even in a matter concerning which no adopted practice existed formerly — M.E. but they may change naught in any matter that would involve a gain for one person and a loss for another²⁰For this does not come under the category of safeguarding a cause — M.E. , also Ḥid. Hag. P. Tesh cites the case of the controversy around the Sulzbach edition of the Talmud. The latter was forbidden to be printed until a certain period would elapse after the Amsterdam edition of the Talmud was published. Certain authorities ruled that the purchasers of the Sulzbach ed. were prohibited to study in it. Zikron Ya‘akob, however, on the basis of the present ruling, held that since this prohibition would involve a gain for one (i.e., the Amsterdam publisher) and a loss for the other (i.e., the Sulzbach publisher), the law is that those who had already bought the Sulzbach edition were permitted to use it. , also P.Tesh. to Y.D. § 208, 5; § 236, or to declare a debt cancelled without the consent of all [the townspeople].²¹Mord. to B.K. X — G. Nevertheless, [in these matters] we follow the adopted custom of the town, especially if the [townspeople] accepted them [to render decisions] in every matter.²² infra § 23 Thus seems to me [to be the correct view].²³ Y.D. § 228 on the laws pertaining to ordinances and Ḥerem for the sake of the public welfare — G. The later authorities state in their Responsa that one who has been sentenced to flogging may give forty gold coins instead of the flogging.²⁴MaHaRIW s. 147 and R. Menaḥem of Merseburg — G. , Ket. 46a where a monetary fine is designated as flogging. This is, however, not stated as a law, only that they decided thus because [of the needs of the] hour, but [in reality] the Court of Law has the authority to flog him or to confiscate [his] property as they see fit according to the matter [in hand] in order to safeguard a cause.²⁵ infra § 425 Gloss — G. On the significance of the principle ‘to safeguard a cause’ (למיגדר מילתא), v. Yeb. 90b.

Rabbi Horowitz found not liable after naming & shaming sex offender Yona Weinberg

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/315390

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, an American Orthodox rabbi and child safety advocate, was found not liable in a 200,000 ILS ($62,212.66) libel lawsuit filed against him by Yona Weinberg, a convicted sex offender.

The suit was filed following a 2015 tweet posted by Rabbi Horowitz, in which he urged parents of the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem to protect their children from Weinberg and to treat him “like a terrorist with a machete.” Thus ends a five-year-long legal saga during which the pedophile attempted to thwart the rabbi’s efforts to host an abuse-prevention lecture in Har Nof by filing a restraining order against Rabbi Horowitz in Israeli court.

The verdict delivered in the Jerusalem Magistrate Court by Justice Michal Hirschfeld declared that the main warning made by Rabbi Horowitz against Weinberg is both true and an expression of his opinion in good faith, which is fair grounds for dismissing the central complaint.