The "Fall" Guy plays Simon Says

David Stav - Chief Rabbi of Shoham

Before I wrote my primary posts about the Malka Leifer episode, I wrote two preamble posts to set the stage. The second of which is titled Thinking Like a Jew. This is basically a digest of all the Halachic concepts that relate to this case, with sources and everything. It was meant to serve as what people call a “moral compass”. If one reads and understands the Halachic foundation, all of the positions I make fall into place with Halachic support.

This is not the only time I have written such a digest. Way before I wrote Thinking Like a Jew, I wrote a very comprehensive two-part Halachic digest on the halachos of mesira – the 3 Ps and the 3 Cs. And, even before that, I wrote a comprehensive digest on the halachos of rodef titled Blood Labels.

The purpose of writing all these posts is two-fold: (1) To help the reader understand all the relevant halachos that apply to these cases. (2) To dissuade dissenters. Once these halachos are cited and catalogued, we have established what a dissenter must dispute if he thinks otherwise. This ups the ante and makes life harder for him.

Any lawyer, posek, dayan, or toen knows that anything he writes as a claim or a ruling must reference the exact legal or halachic source material. If one wants to file a lawsuit, he must write in the suit that the defendant is in violation of Article 7, Section 2a, Subsection 8, Paragraph 6, Line C, twelfth word, indicated by the comma, of the criminal code or the tort law or whatever. He is even expected to quote it. And a respondent must do the same.

Same goes for Halachic litigation. The nitvah should say, “I am not obligated because the Rema in Choshen Mishpat 123:4 (according to the SMA’s clarification) clearly states that this is called an asmachta…” or say “kim li like the distinction of the Noda Beyehuda cited in Pischei Teshuva 15 in siman 87:6 which says that the Shach is really arguing with the Mechaber…”

When a legal professional states: “The law says…”, or a posek says “the Halacha is…” and they cannot quote the law or the Halacha, it’s as good as saying “Dr. Seuss says…” or, as we did in nursery school, “Simon says…”

A lawyer or judge who cannot quote the law is a fraud and a “Rabbi” who cannot source the Halacha is an am haaretz – especially if the true Halacha says differently. Hence, when a genuine Orthodox Jew says “Halacha”, he means what is stated in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Berura and all those teshuvos seforim from renowned poskim – those guys. When an “open” Orthodox Jew (i.e., a Hellenist) says “Halacha”, he means what it says in “my book”.

In my travels through the laws of rodef, mesira, and extradition, I have stumbled across a few charlatans who cannot quote Halacha. The main culprits to date are the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (RCANZ) who range from Open Orthodox to quite Modern. These am haaratzim released a ridiculous statement in June of 2017 that posited my “Halachic assertions” to be “fundamentally flawed” and “misguided”.

When I asked them very nicely to point out the “fundamental flaws” and explain what is “misguided”, they went eerily silent and remain so to this day. I am still waiting for them to explain or retract.

Well, it looks like the RCANZ has a sister MO/OO organization here in Eretz Yisroel and it is called Tzohar, run by David Stav, Chief "Rabbi" of the settlement of Shoham. Like most of the RCANZ members, I cannot call this fellow a “Rabbi”. A Rabbi is one who knows and disseminates actual Halacha.

David Stav is an ultra-liberal left wing “Rabbi” who is a colleague and disciple of ultra-liberal Shlomo Riskin (Mr. Marriage Annulments). He serves in the spiritual advisory board for Rabbi Riskin’s Ohr Torah Stone Institution. In 2013, David Stav announced his candidacy for Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of the Israeli Rabbinate, R”L. At the time, he claimed, “I am flexible with people, I am not flexible with Halacha.” Seems like he’s changed his spots.

The Sapper sisters who just now concluded their visit, are having a hard time contending with folks like me who can point out the Halachic infractions they are violating (as well as encouraging others to do). To offset this, they are searching for someone who carries the title of Orthodox Rabbi who can overlook everything it says in Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and Chofetz Chaim and make up new halachos. And one who has very little regard for the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel, owing that it is an essential factor in this case. They certainly found one in Israel Chief Rabbi candidate David Stav who seems to have become a bit more flexible with Halacha since 2013.

After a meeting with the Sapper sisters, David Stav wrote a letter he should be totally ashamed of. The letter was posted in Dassi Erlich’s Facebook page and hardly anywhere else. It is not on Tzohar’s FB page, not on their web site, nor is it on David Stav’s FB page. I couldn’t find a copyable version, so I needed to use Google Voice Typing (a great tool!).

As I have done in the past, I will first post the entire letter and then rewrite the key points with my comments. Here is the letter:

Following a meeting with Dassi Erlich, Nicole Meyer and Elli Sapper, three sisters from Australia who have accused Malka Leifer of sexual abuse while the three were her students, the Tzohar Rabbinical Council issued the following statement:

Halacha does not allow us to forgo the pain of victims nor can we shamelessly protect the actions of an accused criminal who has not been forced to face a system of justice. Halacha requires that the accused be afforded a fair trial but that if proven guilty they must be punished for their crimes. Halacha also mandates those who are aware of abuse of any kind, to report this to the relevant secular authorities.

In today's day and age, it is the responsibility of secular authorities -  the police and the secular courts -  to enforce and prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place. In this case, in the interests of Halacha and caring for Torah values and the integrity of each and every person, we call upon the Israeli authorities to immediately allow for Malka Leifer’s extradition to Australia.

The pain that these sisters, and others, have experienced at the hands of this woman require that all who appreciate justice and love their fellow man, support this campaign.

We call upon all fellow rabbis, In Israel, Australia and across the diaspora to join us in this effort and together bring Justice to the accused and a measure of closure for the victims.

[Signed] Rabbi David Stav

Chairman of Tzohar

To lighten the mood, it’s time for a joke:

Four youths were brought to the security head of the local zoo for rowdy behavior. He wanted to create “records” of these guys so he could inform their parents and maybe ban them from future visits. So he asked each one for his name and why the security officer brought him here.

Says the first: My name is Steve, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.

Says the second: My name is Bob, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.

Says the third: My name is Ernie, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.

Says the fourth: My name is Pete, but all my friends call me “Peanuts”.

End of joke. [Laugh now!]

I gather that David Stav has a close friend whose real name is probably Simon who he likes to call by the nickname “Halacha”. So when David Stav says “’Halacha’ does not allow…”, “’Halacha’ requires…”, “’Halacha’ mandates…” he is really saying “Simon does not allow...”, “Simon requires…” – “Simon mandates…”

Simon says...

I am past nursery school so I don’t play this game. I don’t do things just because “Simon” says so even if he calls himself “Halacha”. Simon, or Halacha, needs to display his credentials and prove that he is authentic. David Stav doesn’t do this in his letter. He knows that the unschooled masses (Dassi’s supporters) will blindly trust him. But a genuine Torah scholar will not.

So let’s look at David Stav’s Halachic chiddushim and check out their credentials:

Halacha does not allow us to forgo the pain of victims…

What "Halacha" is he citing? Lets open Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and try to find out. I am thus far totally stumped. What does he mean by “forgoing the pain of victims?”

The true Halacha does not allow us to address anyone’s pain or injury at the hands of another without a din Torah.

ואצוה את שופטיכם בעת ההיא לאמר, שמע בין אחיכם ושפטתם צדק, בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו.
and
 כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים ונגשו אל השופט ושפטום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע. 

There are two parties at odds here and they are both just as Jewish. Halacha (real Halacha) does not allow us to lynch anybody just because someone cries foul even if there are grounds to believe them. But this is what spiritual advisor David Stav is “calling for”. (See my first preamble post - Justice is Blind) David Stav does not  claim that he met with Mrs. Leifer who is sitting put in Neve Tirtza. This is in Ramla which is a mere 16.5 km from Shoham (25 min in current traffic) and only 5 km (walking distance) from Lod where Tzohar offices are. Mrs. Leifer is very accessible and I am sure she would love visitors, especially if they are compassionate people and have any ahavas Yisroel.

Now I have seen many piskei din from Batei Din and they usually begin with “לאחר שמיעת הצדדים” which means “after we heard all the sides”.  David Stav’s Halachic claim makes no mention of such a thing. Note that the Chief Rabbi of Israel is expected to be a dayan and know how to conduct a dispute between Jews!

What’s just as important is that here is what the Halacha really says: If two people are having a fight and a third party intervenes in favor of one side and takes measures that do not need to be taken – i.e., below the belt (literally) – the interloper pays dearly for this. In fact, according to the Sifri, Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and other rishonim, the interloper is called a rodef!

This is in the Torah I live by (Devarim 25:11,12), but it must not be in David Stav’s Ohr Torah Stone edition.

Now, he may be referring to the Halacha of Lo taamod al dam reyecha, but it is hard to believe that even David Stav is that misguided. Lo Taamod simply means that we must come to the aid of a Jew who is in danger and make sure they are not harmed. Certainly, we cannot forgo their distress of danger and cry for rescue. But nowhere does “Halacha” say that we should not forgo someone’s lingering (self-perpetuating) pain for long ago events to help them harass and prosecute a fellow Jew. It doesn't matter what he or she claims the fellow Jew did ten years ago.

nor can we shamelessly protect the actions of an accused criminal who has not been forced to face a system of justice.

This one really baffles me.

When an accused criminal is actively engaging in criminal actions, we ought not protect those actions. However, if the accused criminal is no longer engaging in the criminal actions, then there are no criminal actions to “shamelessly protect”.

David Stav is reframing the situation in a very deceptive and distorted manner. This is disgraceful.

All this has little to do with the accused criminal himself (or herself). In today’s day and age, we have no authority to force anybody to face any system of justice. Today there are no punishments of knasos (punitive financial cases). According to the very first Halacha in Choshen Mishpat (1:1), we can only take a person to Beis Din – or any court – for financial disputes, unpaid debts, spousal payments, inheritances, and personal injury or property damage. We can also turn to courts to be mesalek (neutralize) an ongoing damage or threat. This includes reporting an active sex offender.

But for punishment or “justice” for bygone events, we have absolutely no authority or permission. We cannot try or report crimes that happened yesterday. Not in our generation. You don’t need to hear it from me. You can take it from HRHG Dovid Cohen, one of the leading advocates of turning in molesters, that we can only do this for protection and not for punishment (3:30 and 4:16).

It’s a shanda that Israel Chief Rabbi candidate David Stav does not know siman 1 of Choshen Mishpat and he doesn’t know siman 388, either.

Halacha requires that the accused be afforded a fair trial but that if proven guilty they must be punished for their crimes.

I dealt with this just a minute ago. There is no such Halacha in all of Shulchan Aruch. David Stav is living in the past. In the past, Beis Din (and BD only) was authorized to punish people for crimes if they were proven guilty. Not now. Regardless, we were never authorized to invite non-Jews to punish any Jew for a crime under any circumstances in all of our 3300 years of nationhood.

But, let me play along with this for a moment. My Torah tells us, even in the good old days, what punishments people get for whatever crimes. And it says that if a woman should engage in another woman, this is called “maaseh eretz mitrayim” and is punishable only by Rabbinic lashes after being warned to desist. If a woman “molests” another, it’s no more than personal injury from a Torah perspective. The Sappers and their supporters don’t like this, but this is what the Torah and poskim say. See Rambam Issurei Biah 21:8.

David Stav must have a different version of Rambam.

In any case, it is forbidden and disgraceful for any Jew to advocate using the goyim to carry out punishments for crimes at any time under any circumstances, and more so, if the punishments are way, way, way beyond what a Beit Din would do in Talmudic times. Prison is much worse than getting Rabbinic lashes and going right back home.

Halacha also mandates those who are aware of abuse of any kind, to report this to the relevant secular authorities.

“Halacha” mandates nothing of the kind. Perhaps Simon “Halacha” but not Shas and poskim. I mentioned Choshen Mishpat 388 which clearly states in seif 9:

It is forbidden to turn in a Jew to the hands of the non-Jews neither his person nor his property and even if he is wicked and even if he causes an individual personal distress…and anyone who turns in a Jew…has no share in the world to come.

This is the default. It was written a mere 500 years ago and nothing about it has changed. There are indeed conditions where we may overrule the default which basically hinges on the halachos of a rodef. So when there is abuse that meets the criteria of rodef, there is an exception to the law of mesira. But when it does not meet the criteria of rodef, it does not overrule the law of mesira. And one who performs it is subject to the repercussions stated in Shulchan Aruch (R”L).

This is the Halacha.

As such, David Stav is quite wrong when he writes that the Halacha mandates those who are aware of “abuse of any kind, to report…” It only applies to the “rodef” kind. Not the not-rodef kind. I already wrote why there is certainly no rodef in Australia (as if such a discussion should really be necessary).

What is just as troubling is that David Stav writes “those who are aware…” Now, a victim can be considered aware, but one who is not a victim is certainly not aware even if they heard things second hand or from a victim. The Chofetz Chaim writes this as does Rav Elyashiv, ZT”L. This is what is called Halacha.

Of course, we know that many governments mandate such reporting, but the Halacha does not. Mandated reporting is a very complicated sugya. I haven’t covered it yet, but it may be next on my list (I haven’t finished techeiles or prenups). In a nutshell, the halachos of mesira that I covered in my posts stand firm. When the mesira is permitted it is permitted with or without mandated reporting laws and when it is forbidden, it is forbidden with or without mandated reporting laws. One cannot be moser another Jew to keep himself out of trouble. This will obviously cause a number of cases of people in tight spots and in each and every case, a qualified Rav must be consulted. This is clearly stated by Rav Elyashiv ZT”L. There are no blanket global hetterim and no shortcuts. Sorry.

In today's day and age, it is the responsibility of secular authorities -  the police and the secular courts -  to enforce and prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place.

I do not think David Stav grasps that precisely because "it is the responsibility of secular authorities to enforce and prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place", that this is why the Halacha forbade us from voluntarily cooperating with these authorities. This is called “mesira” and it is unequivocally forbidden anywhere in the world for the sake of “justice”, punishment, or closure. It is only permitted for protection from continued activity, when there are no other options.

So, from our perspective, the hetter for mesira, when it is permissible, is on account of potential future activities, not past ones. Thus, the only secular jurisdiction that we are allowed to cooperate with is that of the potential future activities, not the secular jurisdiction of the past activities.

Now that we have cleared this up, here comes the most horrendously appalling issue with David Stav and what he calls “Halacha”.

David Stav actually once upon a time announced his candidacy for Chief Rabbi of Israel. Of Israel! Sounds a bit nationalistic, doesn't it? One would expect such a person to at least know the halachos that pertain to kedushas haaretz and harbor a love for this land. One who does not, sincerely deserves the epithet “am haaretz”.

So, all throughout this episode I have been incessantly quoting the Halacha clearly stated in Yoreh Deah 267:84-5. The Halacha clearly states as follows:

(84) A canaani servant who wishes to immigrate to Israel, we force his master to go with him…if the master wants to emigrate from Israel, he cannot force the servant to go unless he agrees. This law applies even in our times when the land is under the rule of the non-Jews.

(85) A servant who fled from the diaspora to Israel, we do not send him back. And this is the Torah prohibition of Lo Tasgir eved…

From these two Halachos together we learn that:

·         A “partial” Jew (canaani servant) cannot be forcibly extradited from the land.

·         This is not just a Rabbinic “Halacha” but an overt Torah prohibition (לא תעשה מדאורייתא).

·         This even applied in pre-1948 and certainly it applies after 1948.

A Torah prohibition on a partial Jew that is clearly in effect today! Is a full Jew any less protected?

In case you may believe so, in defiance of all logic (see Choshen Mishpat 420:1), let me cite another Halacha that I have thus far overlooked (hat tip my soldier son, Eli). It is not in Shulchan Aruch, it is only in the Rambam from the gemara Makkos 7a. Rambam states (Sanhedrin 13:8):

One who was convicted in a Beit Din in chutz l’aretz and he flees to another Beit Din in Eretz Yisroel, his verdict is automatically overturned and he must be tried anew [in Eretz Yisroel]…

Jurisdiction “in which the alleged acts took place”?? David Stav, are you kidding me? Even if the accused was totally convicted in the “jurisdiction in which the alleged acts took place”, if he comes to Eretz Yisroel, he gets a brand new trial here in Eretz Yisroel! How much more so if he (or she) was never tried in the first place and is now here in Eretz Yisroel!

Mr. Stav, do you have another version of Rambam? Do you have another version of gemara Makkos? Do you know any Halacha whatsoever?? (I am quite a bit perturbed at this point!)

In this case, in the interests of Halacha and caring for Torah values and the integrity of each and every person, we call upon the Israeli authorities to immediately allow for Malka Leifer’s extradition to Australia.

No, my friend. You are not speaking in the interests of Halacha or kedushas Eretz Yisroel. You are speaking in the interests of yourself and of the Sapper sisters. And, don’t you dare speak for the integrity of genuine Torah observant Jews. 

The pain that these sisters, and others, have experienced at the hands of this woman require that all who appreciate justice and love their fellow man, support this campaign. 

Ahem, how do you know they suffered any pain at the hands of this woman? Were you there? Did you hear the case from both sides? Did this woman confess? Is there any physical evidence?

In any case, neither the Halacha nor their pain requires this campaign to violate our Halacha forbidding extradition.

I am done with this letter. But to conclude, I want to comment on what David Stav said in a J-Wire interview:

"I don’t have the words to express my embarrassment for people who would use Torah to defend the actions of people who have acted in such a way,” he said. Comparing sexual abuse to a type of emotional murder, Rabbi Stav said, “Those who prohibit a man or woman to complain to the police are responsible for future cases.  They will not be able to say we didn’t know.  The blood of the future victims is screaming from the earth to say ‘you are responsible’”.

I will, for now, skip the first line and deal with the rest.

Comparing sexual abuse to a type of emotional murder,…

Romantic comparisons are nice, but one cannot turn them into Halacha if they are not genuine.

Murder means when you kill someone and they are dead. Not breathing or eating or maintaining a normal family (re: Nicole), or jet setting and taking holidays to Ventnor, Phillip Island and going around making public appearances and TV documentaries. DEAD! These girls are very much alive physically and emotionally (though not spiritually, but that is their own doing). Nobody was murdered. Not physically, not emotionally. At best, injured, but not murdered.

The Torah compares some types of sexual abuse to murder to teach the laws of rodef but there are two main stipulations: it must be giluy arayos, and it must be forced. Neither of these apply here. 

“Those who prohibit a man or woman to complain to the police are responsible for future cases…etc.

It is the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and Chofetz Chaim and even Rav Elyashiv who prohibit a man or woman to complain to the police in cases such as this. If you wish to blame them for future cases, be my guest, but do so at your own riskin’.

Now, the first line:

“I don’t have the words to express my embarrassment for people who would use Torah to defend the actions of people who have acted in such a way,”

I do have the words to express my embarrassment for people like David Stav. Disgraceful, appalling and  מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה.

Here, once again, David Stav is reframing the situation in a very deceptive and distorted manner. This is equally disgraceful.

My friend, nobody is using Torah to defend the alleged actions of 2002-2007. I am only using Torah to criticize the actions of the Sapper sisters and their supporters in 2018 and to bemoan the wanton and unjustified chillul Hashem that is occurring as a result of these 2018 actions.

Sof davar, I call on (Rabbi) David Stav, if he has any Halachic integrity and any regard for kedushas haaretz, to either verify his Halachic assertions in the face of my challenges – i.e., refute my Halachic sources – or to retract his letter.

As for the Sapper sisters, if they want to make a Halachic case to justify their activities, they need to find someone who is really a Rabbi and really Orthodox.

כי הנה הסתיו עבר הגשם חלף הלך לו...וקול התור[ה] נשמע בארצנו!

The Strange Arm of the Law

About two months ago I had a very minor car accident wherein I basically relieved a 2015 Mazda of its right side mirror. Yes, of course, I got out of the car and we exchanged the relevant information. And I didn’t say, “I’m sorry. It was all my fault” although, it very likely was. (I was backing up!) I estimated the damage to be relatively low, somewhere between 500-1000 shekels.

A day or two later I was contacted by the “owner” of the car (the driver’s mother) and I told her that this seems to me to be a low priced damage which is certainly way beneath my deductible, so I would prefer to take care of it between ourselves. She said she cannot accommodate me because it is a leased car.

Fair enough.

All was quiet for quite some time. Then, about six weeks later I finally received a letter from the leasing company demanding payment for damage. Beneath that paragraph was a line that said:

Description of damage:

1.   Damage         1459 NIS

Total owed:  1459 NIS

Well, this amount exceeded my personal “estimate” and, in addition, there was no itemized description of the damage whatsoever. It did not tell me what this sum is based on. How do I know they didn’t replace the brake pads in the process?

While I do take responsibility for this damage, I am not in any hurry to pay it. For sure, I was in no mood to pay NIS 1459 which seemed to me an exorbitant sum for just a mirror. As such, I fired a letter off to the leasing company that I feel this sum is exaggerated and that their “Description of Damage” was not descriptive enough. They must furnish me with an appraiser’s report and/or the paperwork detailing what work was done and the costs of parts and labor. I ended off that for lack of these papers I am not willing to pay more than NIS 600 for this damage.

After patting myself on the back for my brilliant stalling tactic, I sat back to see what would happen.

It didn’t take more than a day or two that I received an email with a note and an attachment. The attachment was a very authentic looking copy of a very authentic looking invoice from a very authentic looking car repair shop in Talpiot. The invoice itemized the mirror at NIS 1389.40 plus labor at NIS 70 (very reasonable labor BTW) for a total of NIS 1459.40. It did not include a report from an official appraiser.

The note said, “Attached is the invoice for the repair of the mirror.” And it ended with these words: “Your request for a settlement (pshara) is denied.”

I read the note and looked at the invoice.  Even though I still thought the part was exorbitantly priced, I had to appreciate that they discounted me 40 agurot. All told, I said to myself, “My goose is cooked. I suppose I am going to have to fork over NIS 1459”. 

NIS 1459 (just a bit over USD $400) is not easily missed in my meager budget and I am all for more stalling. To accomplish this, I immediately sent them a return email which said, “Thank you very much for the information. The price still appears to be exaggerated. I will check into this and get back to you.”

I let a week slide by. I wasn’t even sure it was worthwhile for me to check out the price. Everything looked real, so what would I achieve?  Still, I decided to show the invoice to Sholom, a body shop man in Givat Shaul that I used previously.

Oh boy, am I ever glad I did!

I asked Sholom if this price is realistic and I pessimistically expected him to confirm it as so. Sholom looked at the invoice and asked me, “What year is this car?” The answer is 2015. “When was the accident?” April 2018.

Sholom proceeded to tell me that they obviously used a genuine original part to repair the car and this is what parts like this cost. But then he said that the law says that if someone’s car is damaged, the owner is only entitled to use original parts to fix his car for up to two years from the year of manufacture.  After two years, the car is classified as a used car and any part of the car that was damaged in an accident is considered a used part. As such, the liable party only needs to shoulder the cost of a generic or used part for the repairs.

I asked him how much is a used part valued at? He answered that the appraisal protocol values non-original parts at 50% of the value of a genuine part. There may be an exception if the part is totally unavailable non-original but this needs the approval of the appraiser. As I wrote, there was no appraisal report included in the paperwork.

This was music to my ears!

I immediately went home and fired off a letter to the leasing company wherein I related everything Sholom told me. I told them I am prepared to pay 50% for the part – NIS 695 – plus the NIS 70 for labor for a total of NIS 765 and not a grush more. I ended the letter saying, “Your denial of my request for a settlement is denied!”

I expected not to wait more than another day or two to receive a notice that would either refute my law facts and demand full price or that would concede the facts and agree to close on NIS 765. But all this was almost two weeks ago and, so far, I haven’t heard a peep from them. End of story is that, to date, I haven’t even paid a penny for the accident and who knows if it won’t get lost in the twilight zone? What’s more, I am very confident that when I ever will pay it, it will not be for more than NIS 765.

And what is the moral of this tale?

It pays to know the law.

It could save you a bundle of gelt and heartache. Knowledge is power and knowing one’s rights and obligations by law will always give one a racer’s edge during runtime.

Probably, we all know this valuable piece of advice. For sure, anybody in any line of work knows the laws that apply to his day to day activities. But folks don’t know so much about things that are not everyday occurrences. And they don’t appreciate how much it can come in handy when they least expect it; hence, the lesson that I almost didn’t learn about car repairs. And I only learned it in the nick of time.

Now, many people think they know the laws about certain matters. But they are not scrupulous enough. This is a terrible trap. They may think they are “covered” by the law when they are really not – or that the other guy is not covered when he really is. And this can be needlessly costly. One needs to know the law well, with all its restrictions, exceptions and limitations. We know that nobody knows criminal law better than a professional criminal. An amateur criminal gets busted. So...Take a tip from Bill Sykes. He can whip what he likes…

Of course, this rule applies to any code of laws – secular or Halachic. For we who live in two worlds, we don’t always know when a dispute is going to go Halachic or secular.

Issues and disputes tend to catch us off guard. We can’t be expected to know all laws and Halachos of a mostly irrelevant topic. But a wise person at least knows that now that he is facing an unusual situation, it pays to speak with the experts about the laws and Halachos that apply. He is in for quite a few surprises. Some may be pleasant and others not. But it will help him tremendously to know. And this is why wise people will consult with lawyers, toanim, or dayanim when an unfamiliar situation comes up.

In some cases the advice costs money. This can be tricky and calls for a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the money at stake is worth the investment. If it is, it’s a good idea to shell it out. 

Thus far, in this post, I mainly discussed secular law. The story about the car repair involved secular law and it took me by surprise. I wrote a post a few months back about the laws of extradition. I’ve had readers complaining about misinterpretation and I even put in a few updates, but, by and large, we found a few surprises. The law is not as “smooth” as many of us would like it to be.

Likewise, as a writer on the Internet, aside from the journalistic ethics (which are not laws), it helps to know some of the laws about copyright infringement, good faith criticism, defamation and libel. I have been looking into some of these laws lately because I have been victimized by these.  Once again, some pleasant surprises and some not so pleasant.

Of course, the mandate of One Above and Seven Below and of my blog is to present the Halachic viewpoint. We are Halachic Jews after all (aren’t we?) and I have discussed numerous Halachic topics over the years. In order to do so responsibly, I need to research all of these topics at length.

Moreover, in my ongoing training as a Toen Rabbani (still not finished) I have had to learn a tremendous amount of Choshen Mishpat and Even HaEzer and, believe me, these are where the surprises are.

Consider the following.

Chaim lives in an average size apartment in Har Nof which he owns. His family is growing and he really would like bigger living quarters and he even has a nest egg of savings which he is willing to use for this purpose. He knows he can find a suitable solution by selling his apartment and moving to another less expensive location, but he loves his location and his building and neighbors. Everything is great right where he is except he needs more space.

One day his next door neighbor informs him out of the blue that he is moving. He was only renting and the landlord did not want to extend his lease. The landlord needed cash so he is now selling the apartment to a young family making Aliya from France.

Chaim is livid! If only he knew. Nobody told him! He would have been happy to offer on this adjacent apartment and combine it with his and it would be the ideal solution to his problem. Now, this potential opportunity evaporated to air and he is no closer to his dream than yesterday.

Well, Chaim may have been daydreaming when they were learning Bava Basra in Yeshiva, but if he paid attention, he may be aware that in Halacha there is a law of bar metzra. The law of bar metzra says that if one person is selling real estate, the one who owns adjacent real estate has priority to buy it as long as all other details are equal – at least the same price, at least the same terms, cash for cash, etc.

Even if the original seller and buyer have already gone to contract, the bar metzra can rush to Beis Din and petition them to nullify the contract and order the seller to sell to him. All this is in Choshen Mishpat 175. It’s worthwhile to know it.

So now let’s say Chaim got tipped off about his rights and runs to BD and makes his case.

Good for him.

However, Choshen Mishpat 175 is a very long siman. It comprises 63 articles and they all count. So, let’s say the couple from France doesn’t feel like starting from scratch and looking for a new place. The French husband goes over the siman and stumbles across article 47. Article 47 states:

If one sells to a woman or to young orphans, there is no counter claim of bar metzra…

The Rema gets a bit tougher:

If she bought it together with her husband, the bar metzra cannot even remove the husband.

Whoa! Mr. Frenchman is buying together with his wife. Looks like bar metzra doesn't count.

Poor Chaim. His dream is back in the clouds. He will miss his own bar metzra. Chaim is lost!

But wait! Chaim gets persistent and decides to really go over this siman. Or, he gets a hold of a toen who knows his stuff. Chaim introduces himself to the Rema at the end of article 49:

This is all if the buyer is from this city and cannot find a house anywhere else, but, if not so, the neighbor has priority over everyone else!

Ahah! The couple from France do not yet have a foothold in Har Nof. There is no reason they cannot search in Bayit VeGan (more French speakers there anyway). Chaim is back in business!

In truth, not all dayanim will look at these offsetting Halachos the same way, so it is not certain who will win this fight, but the point is, it pays to know the rules and know Choshen Mishpat 175.

Incidentally, once we are in the neighborhood (get it?), a few months back one of my sons WhatApped me about a scandalous occurrence in Kiryat Moshe (of all places) where, apparently, a dati person sold his apartment to an Arab because he got a great price. Naturally, all of the neighbors and Chardalniks (this is Merkaz HaRav territory) were up in arms with rage. But what could they do about it?

Well, some bright Talmid Chacham remembered Choshen Mishpat 175:40 which says:

If one sells or rents his property to a non-Jew, we put him in a shamta until he accepts upon himself all incidental damage that may arise from the non-Jew…and if a damage arises in the lifetime of the seller (and then he passes), his son must pay the damages from the seller’s estate.

Even this is not that simple. The very next article (175:41) gives a proviso:

This only applies if he is capable of selling or renting the property to a Jew for the same price but he is not obligated to sell it to the Jew for less.

Case closed? Not yet. This article continues:

But if it appears that the non-Jew is buying in order to disrupt the Jew’s settlement, it is all according to how the dayan views it.

Incidentally, all of this is meant to apply only outside of Eretz Yisrael because in Eretz Yisrael, it is prohibited to sell property to a non-Jew under all circumstances because of Lo Techanem (Devarim 7:2). Except that Lo Techanem is hard to enforce in today’s Eretz Yisrael. But it could be that trhe proviso of Article 41 that the seller does not need to sell for less will not apply in Eretz Yisrael because of Lo Techanem.

Anyway, I have no idea what became of that incident in Kiryat Moshe. But the bottom line is:

We all need to know the rules. It can save us a bundle of money and heartache.

This is what I had in mind when I first wrote my book and described the distinction between the “consumer” (amateur) and the “provider” (professional).

Over the years, I have written about many important Halachic issues and my purpose was to reveal some of the surprises to the “consumers” because it is so important to know the rules. Here are some examples:

·       Petzuah Daka – Anyone who needs prostrate surgery needs to get Rabbinic guidance (although in most cases, the standard surgery is permitted). Not only is it absolutely forbidden to undergo a vasectomy, but if one does so, he cannot remain married.

In my courses as a Toen Rabbani I am subscribed to an email group that sends us all of the latest rulings from the Beit Din HaRabbani. This covers all aspects of Even Ezer.

One recent ruling involved a woman who wanted to divorce her husband and to ensure this, she claimed he underwent a vasectomy in the US. The husband did not deny it but said he is willing to undergo a procedure for reversal. The Beis Din ruled that we do not look for the future and right now he is a Petzuah daka. He was given a ruling of Kofim LeGaresh which is the highest level and he can be forced with corporal punishment to divorce his wife.

·       Prenups – It is very difficult for a man to conditionally waive his rights to his wife’s earnings in advance. Either he does it unconditionally or it is not waived.

·       Molestation and Kehuna – As more and more incidents of this crisis arise in well-established Jewish families (R”L) and we are all concerned about the emotional welfare of the abused child, we cannot overlook the Halachic angle. If a young girl was molested with true sexual contact – front or back – by a father, brother, or non-Jew, she is forbidden to a Kohen. Any contact below the waste must be investigated and brought to a Rav.

·       Malshinus – These are the Halachos of mesira and rodef that I devoted so many posts to. The Halachos are right there where I say they are and even so, so many Jews cannot accept them.

·       Extraditing a Jew – This was one of the biggest chiddushim.  A Jew cannot be extradited outside of Eretz Yisrael even in our times of galus. It’s right there in Yoreh Deah 267:85. I suppose some prejudiced people can argue that it doesn’t apply to a regular Jew, only a slave, but it’s very hard to justify such a viewpoint.

I have one more topic to discuss.

I am studying to be a Toen Rabbani. In case you do not know what a Toen Rabbani is, he is a Halachic advocate. Just like it is a lawyer’s job to advise his clients of the laws that pertain to his case, and to argue before the judge to interpret the laws to the benefit of his client, a Toen Rabbani does the same in Beis Din when the code of laws in question is the Shulchan Aruch. The prime area where a Toen is needed is in the area of family law – shalom bayis problems and divorce. Especially because most of the people in Eretz Yisrael that show up to a Beis Din for family issues are secular Jews who do not know the first thing about Halacha. In Beis Din they will learn a bit about the Halacha for the very first time.

And they will be very surprised.

But sadly, even quite a few of those who are versed in Halacha show up to Beis Din HaRabbani for shalom bayis problems. And it’s heart-rending. The interesting thing is that we are now discussing people who know day to day Halacha. They know enough Halacha to keep Kosher and Shabbos, to daven and make brachos, and how and when to use the mikveh.

These topics are in Yoreh Deah and Orach Chaim. The sad thing is that they do not know much about Even HaEzer. Sure they learned a few prakim in Kesubos and Gittin when they were in yeshiva, but by the time these Halachos get into Even HaEzer they look a lot different.

These are learned people and, when they set out for Beis Din, they think they know what’s in store. But as I said, one needs to know the rules with all of the details. And when they get to Beis Din, they learn some rules for the very first time. Rules they should have known before. And if they would have known these rules up front, maybe they wouldn’t have to go to Beis Din at all and learn them when it’s a bit too late.

Here’s a true story.

A husband and wife were at loggerheads and were headed for divorce. In the interim they were together in one place talking to a counselor by phone. At one point, the husband was on the phone and telling the counselor his version of whatever. The wife wasn’t happy with what the husband was saying so she pulled the phone out of his hand while he was in mid-sentence. The husband was obviously quite irritated and angrily grabbed the phone right back.

Shortly after this incident, the wife related this incident to her lawyer (it may have been an inept toen). He told her that she has a case for domestic violence and she should immediately file a complaint by the police and request a tzav harchaka (restraining order). She did as she was instructed.

When the story got to Beis Din and BD could figure out that this complaint to the police was ungrounded, they slapped her with moredes and she lost all rights to spousal support and to her kesuba.

Well, maybe she can sue her lawyer for malpractice and get it back.

When even the most observant couples go to Beis Din, they commonly squabble about what he does or doesn’t do and what she does or doesn’t do. Oft times they are shocked when the dayan asks him, “Why do you think she is required to do that?” or he asks her, “What makes you think that he is not entitled to do that?”

They never really knew the rules. And if they did, maybe they wouldn’t be in Beis Din.

When I was a chassan more than 30 years ago, my chassan teacher taught me all of the Halachos of Taharas HaMishpacha like standard and gave me the standard pep talk about how to interact with my wife during the night and during the day. He also did one extra thing that I don’t think was standard. He told me to read over the Kesuba up front and make sure I understand what it says.

I am told that today, there is a little more training about worldly issues. But still something is missing.

The rules.

Chassanim are taught the relevant parts of Yoreh Deah 183-200 but they are not taught the relevant parts of Even HaEzer 69-90. This is where the rules are. I really think that Chassan and Kallah lessons need to include these Halachos.

I haven’t completed the Toen Rabbani course yet, and even when I will, IY”H, I am really not too eager to take on the job. It’s a very messy profession. Please, I don’t want your business. 

Learn the rules up front, boys and girls. Trust me, you don’t want to pay me big shekels to spring on you surprises.

Ohver L'Asiyasan

Somehow I got myself subscribed to a daily email post called "Daily Halacha"(I think somebody did it for me!) It seems to be a Spring Valley based service to be "mezakeh ess harabim". It is a pleasure to receive these emails and I recommend it to everyone who wants to assure themselves as "bnei olam habah" based on the well known midrash:

תנא דבי אליהו: כל השונה הלכות בכל יום מובטח שהוא בן עולם הבא.

You can subscribe to it at: dailyhalacha@aol.com

The current series of Halachos is on the subject of Chanuka and here is today's serving:

1610. The opinion of the Mishnah Brurah (really the Rema - YH) is that one should be careful to complete all the berachos before beginning to light the first ner because the beracha needs to be o'ver la'asiyoson (before the act of the mitzvah). However, other poskim disagree, and some have the minhag to say the second beracha while beginning to light. Shulchan Aruch with Mishnahh Brurah 676:1, Sefer Halichos Yosef 676:1

The issue that this halacha focuses upon is a component of Hilchos Berachos that we call "ohver l'asiyasan" which tells us that Berachos are to be made before one fulfills the deed that the beracha is consecrating. The best translation that I could get for the term "Ohver" l'asiyasan is "on the way to" doing the mitzvah.

We understand from this that we must recite a Beracha before a mitzvah is fulfilled. If the mitzvah is done, it is too late to recite the beracha.

But the question arises: at what point is it too late? Is it when the mitzvah is begun to be performed or is it okay to recite the beracha as long as the mitzvah is not totally completed?

Well, let's look at the Halacha quoted above. We note that it adds that there are those who only recite the second beracha after they begin to light (yours truly follows this opinion). Is this not a breech in ohver l'asiyasan?

And the easy answer is to say that there is a big difference between these two brachos. And this is that there are really two miutzvos involved with lighting Chanuka candles:

(1) Lighting the candles (הדלקה עושה מצוה ) and (2) Pirsumei nisa.

The first beracha applies to the lighting itself and so, to satisfy ohver l'asiyasan, it must be recited before we even begin to light. The second beracha is for the Pirsumei nisa. But, still, doesn't it also require "ohver l'asiyasan"? Don't you have to recite it before we even begin to perform the Pirsumei nisa?

According to the Rema, this does indeed seem to be the case. But the other poskim do not agree. Perhaps, their position is that the Pirsumei nisa is an ongoing mitzva and as long as it has not been completed, one may still recite the Beracha. The obvious ramification of this perspective is that in case one totally forgot to recite any Berachos and fully lit all the candles, he may still be allowed to recite the second Beracha as long as the Pirsumei nissa is in effect. Even 1/2 hour after he lit. Though, in this case, he most certainly will not be able to recite the first Beracha. It seems that even the Mishna berura agrees with this as he writes that if one forgot to recite the Berachos, he nonethelass can still recite the second Beracha.

We see a similar Halacha regarding the 4 minim on Sukkos. We all know the Halacha to initially hold the esrog in the wrong position and then to recite the Beracha on the 4 minim and then to rectify the esrog. This is because, technically, once one holds all 4 minim properly he has already fulfilled the mitzvah and if the Beracha has not yet been said, it would be a problem of ohver l'asiyasan.

Nevertheless, the Halacha states that if one neglected to recite the Beracha and took the minim in their proper position, he may still recite the Beracha as long as he has not yet completed the na'anuim. Here again we see that, b'diavad, one can recite a Beracha as long as the mitzvah has not been completed even though it has been fulfilled.

Now, it is not the main purpose of this blog to give Halacha shiurim. So why is this relevant?

It relates to a very interesting post which I posted over a year ago (October 2009 - click HERE) concerning what is widely known as the Nefesh B'Nefesh proposal. In the post, I embedded a video of a young Jewish man propsing to a young Jewish lady in public. For convenience, I will repost the video (note - the video may not be visible to email recipients):



After wishing the dear couple a hearty mazel tov, I went on to pose the question as to whether this proposal actually constitutes a valid Kiddushin d'oraysa. To date, I haven't been able to get a conclusive ruling. Some scholars think it meets the conditions of Even HaEzer 27:1,2 and she would be definitely mekudeshet. Others said that it meets the conditions of Even HaEzer 27:3 and she would be "safek mekudeshet". And there were some (clear minority) who wanted to maintain that she is not mekudeshet at all.

The obvious question at the time was: what difference does all this make?

And the most serious answer is: in the event that they do not go through with the marriage, would she require a get?

So now may be a good time to report that I did attempt to follow up a bit on this couple and from what I could discover, they are currently happily married (auf lange yahrin) and we can breathe easy.

But there were some other minor issues as I wrote then:

Now, assuming this radiant couple follows through to a typical marriage ceremony in the near future - and there is every indication from their enthusiasm that they will, IY"H, there are not many major ramifications to this question. The main issue is: should they conduct the erussin at the wedding with reciting the Birkat Erussin or not. If the erussin already took effect, it would be a bracha l'vatala. Another ramification is that according to many authorities (not all) the requirement for a married woman to cover her hair may already be in effect.

Now, the issue of covering hair can be put to rest because it is generally held that this obligation begins after the chuppa. But the issue of the Beracha is a little more tricky. Most people typically said that if it is only "safek mekudeshet" there are grounds to say that we could still make a Beracha but on the opinion that it is a fully valid kiddushin, it would be a Beracha l'vatala to make a second Beracha.

Indeed, Harav Ephraim Greenblatt from Memphis, Tenessee had recently made aliya and currently lives in Har Nof, and I asked him this question last year. He agreed that there would not be another Beracha and he brought down some source which, presently, I do not recall. And so, this is how I saw the Halacha...until about 3 weeks ago.

3 weeks ago was Parshat Chayei Sarah - shidduchim week - and I was attending the weekly Halacha shiur given by Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, Shlit"a. Harav Weiss based his shiur on the topic of performing a kiddushin by way of a proxy (shalich) and posed the question: if somebody makes a shaliach for kiddushin, who should make the Beracha (note - even though we don't practice it this way today, the obligation of the Beracha is on the one performing the mitzvah, i.e., the chosson).

There is no need to burden my readers with the intricities of the shiur, but he did bring down one opinion that was a tremendous chiddush. He said that this comes from the Teshuvos HaRivash.

Somewhere in his teshuva, the Rivash states that when one makes a kiddushin via a shalich, when the couple meet each other later on, he should redo the kiddushin with a Beracha!

The difficulty here is obvious. If the woman is already Halchically betrothed, how can one "do it again" and what can justify making another Beracha?

So Harav Weiss went on to suggest that the Rivash agreed with the Rif that the shaliach certainly can not recite the Beracha and since the chosson is not present, he cannot recite one either. As such, the kiddushin is effected without any Beracha at all. So why not make the Beracha after the kiddushin?

Well, we all know that we can't do that because a Beracha must be recited ohver l'assiyasan. Once the mitzvah is performed, it's too late.

But, here Harav Weiss wanted to suggest what we have said earlier. Even though l'chatchila the Beracha should be said before one begins the mitzvah, b'diavad, the Beracha can still be said as long as the mitzvah has not been completed. And so, he wanted to suggest that until the chuppa (nissuin) takes place, the kiddushin has not been completed. It may have the same status as taking a lulav but not yet doing the na'anuim or as the Beracha of SheAssah Nissim that we discussed here. Accordingly, as long the beracha has not been said at all, it can be said when the chosson does a "reenactment" before the chuppa.

Now, if this holds true, there is no reason not to apply it to our incident as well. And so, at least according to this opinion, it would appear that there is nothing wrong with making a belated Beracha at the "second" kiddushin even if the original kiddushin was 100% valid!

That said, I still want to leave my readers with the following Beracha:

May none of us ever need to make a kiddushin more than once.


ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר