Random Thoughts On The Torah Scroll Dispute

Posted on December 27, 2010 by Luke Ford

* Rita Pauker interview. Rabbi Samuel Ohana interview.

* In an offer attached as Exhibit B to R. Ohana’s first pleading filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court in this case, R. Ohana offered to give Rita Pauker all four sifrei Torah (Torah scrolls) by delivering them to the RCC on condition that Rita Pauker sign a release and confidentiality agreement that she would:
1) Observe absolute confidentiality about the matter from that time on (with an agreed penalty for violation – standard for a confidentiality clause), and
2) Never sue R. Ohana over the condition of the four sifrei torah (none of which are currently kosher, two scrolls are reparable), because it would be logical for Rita Pauker to figure the lawsuit against R. Ohana for the cost of repairing the four scrolls was worth more than the scrolls themselves.

* Rita met Rabbi Norman Pauker when she worked as his secretary at Congregation Judea on Fairfax Blvd. When Rabbi Pauker left the shul, it folded into part of Bnai David.

After Rabbi Pauker left his first wife and got fired from Congregation Judea, he married Rita (circa 1969), they moved to the San Fernando Valley. Rabbi Pauker took over Rabbi Leder’s shul (Mishkan Israel) and Rabbi Leder retired and moved to Israel.

* Rita Pauker, to the best of my knowledge, has never been observant of Jewish law. She would drive to shul on Yom Kippur and the like. If she were observant, R. Ohana would not have had a problem in giving her the four Torah scrolls formerly in the custody of her late husband.

* Rabbi Sholom Tendler, the RCC dayan in this case, awarded the four Torah scrolls to an entity not a party in the dispute — the tax avoidance entity Mishkan Israel (controlled by Rita Pauker). There has been no Mishkan Israel shul since about 1994 when Rabbi Norman Pauker developed serious health problems.

The RCC arbitration agreement states that the case is between Rita Pauker and R. Samuel Ohana, who’s representing Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel.

* In his last years, Rabbi Norman Pauker tried to sell the four sifrei Torah, which is illegal. You can’t sell the property of a non-profit corporation and personally pocket the proceeds. The four sifrei Torah were not kosher (two can be made kosher).

* Three of the four sifrei Torah were definitely donated and dedicated (and one of the scrolls appears to have survived the Holocaust). When someone dedicates and donates a Torah scroll, they retain ownership of the Torah scroll. If Joe donates a Torah scroll to Beth Jacob, Joe and his heirs have the right to take the scroll with them if they move out of the community.

These four sifrei Torah were never owned by a congregation. They were donated to a congregation to be used in the memory of certain people. That is the reason why most sifrei Torah are written — in the memory of loved ones.

* One of the scrolls appear to have come from the Westminster Synagogue project.

* According to Rita Pauker, Norman Pauker came out from New York in the 1950s with the four sifrei Torah. Assuming they were all kosher, they would’ve been worth about $100,000 in today’s dollars. Few people could afford to own so many Torah scrolls. Usually sifrei Torah reside in a shul. People don’t normally keep them in a closet.

There were four sifrei Torah in Rabbi Leder’s shul Mishkan Israel that Rabbi Pauker took over circa 1970. Nobody knows if these four Torah scrolls in question are those four scrolls.

* Rabbi Sholom Tendler’s psak sounds correct by Jewish law in that if Mishkan Israel is a shul, it can ask for the Torah scrolls back (though for the last 15 years or so, Mishkan Israel has been but a tax deduction entity).

* Rabbis Nachum Sauer and Sholom Tendler are first-class Torah scholars but they don’t have much experience serving on a Bais Din (Jewish law court). They may not be temperamentally suited to such work.

* It is common for RCC judges to talk about cases in advance, often with each other. This just shows how incompetent and corrupt this organization is.

* All you are supposed to do as a judge when you read a brief is to acquaint yourself with the facts. You’re not supposed to form opinions and to discuss your opinions on the brief. If you have spoken publicly on a matter before you to judge, you have to recuse yourself.

* For the second Beit Din on this case, Rabbi Union ruled there were only five competent dayanim to sit in judgment (if rabbis Union, Bess, and Sauer are excerpted). There’s Rabbi Nissim Davidi, who’s not the brightest star in the firmament of Torah and a full-time employee of Rabbi Union as the RCC’s kashrut administrator. He’s never going to rule against Rabbi Union. Rabbi Asher Biron is another. He’s the gabbai in Rabbi Gershon Bess’s shul (Rabbi Bess is the main rabbi behind the RCC). Rabbi Yitzhock Adlerstein recused himself. He is R. Nachum Sauer’s chevrusa (study partner).

Then there’s Rabbi Berish Goldenberg who testified in a secular court on another case that the courts threw out an RCC decision. That was a child custody case. The mother was a teacher at Bais Yaakov who had flunked Rabbi Avrohom Union’s daughter. And R. Union says that won’t affect Rabbi Goldenberg’s perspective. He’ll be a dayan (judge) in the case.

Shockingly, the father was awarded sole custody and the mother only got monitored visitations with her baby boy.

Rabbi Union was certified to serve as a dayan by Rabbi Zalman Nechamiah Goldberg (on the Bais Din HaGadol). When Rabbi Goldberg found out about this particularly case, he wrote a letter to the secular court entered into evidence that the RCC psak (ruling) should be void because the dayan is prejudiced.

In his testimony, Rabbi Berish Goldenberg said that he did not look at anything, he just signed whatever R. Union wanted him to sign.

* RCC‘s Rabbi Avrohom Union fears and hates Rabbi Samuel Ohana. Rabbi Union attacks every other Beit Din in the city and many people have listened to him, but no matter how hard Rabbi Union tries, he can’t discredit the conversions and divorces and other work that Rabbi Ohana does. Rabbi Ohana’s conversions and the like are accepted everywhere. Rabbi Ohana is a far more learned man in Torah than Rabbi Union. This is an oozing sore in Rabbi Union’s psyche.

Because of Rabbi Ohana’s credentials, Rabbi Union can not attack him directly. It would be like an ant using a pea shooter against an elephant. Instead, Rabbi Union uses indirect attacks like the Rita Pauker case to try to demolish Rabbi Ohana.

When Rabbi Shlomo Amar is out of office in three years, Rabbi Union might go on direct attack against Rabbi Ohana.

Rabbi Amar is not a heavyweight and the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Yona Metzger, is a nothing. What these two have ruled can be overturned overnight if their successors have learning and gravitas.

It does not matter to Rabbi Union that Rabbi Ohana only does a few conversions a year. The threat is that there is someone out there doing what the RCC does. Rabbi Union would be happy to do no conversions to Judaism. He makes the process as difficult as possible and will expel people for every reason under the sun (including a truly righteous man such as myself in 2001).

Rabbi Elazar Muskin at YICC is happy to have a shul with no converts and no baalei teshuva (with few exceptions). When a would-be convert comes to Rabbi Muskin, he ships them to the RCC who then drums them out of the process within a few months (99% of the time) and these rabbis no longer have to be bothered by icky converts.

The RCC doesn’t want to do conversions, but more importantly, they want to stop anyone else in the Western United States from doing conversions.

Conversions are not Rabbi Union’s primary objection to Rabbi Ohana. The big issue is gitten (divorces).

The late Rabbi Shmuel Katz used to do about 15 divorces a week for the Los Angeles Beit Din (now run by Rabbi David Rue), charging about $300 each. Most of those divorces came from the non-Orthodox world and everyone accepted Rabbi Katz’s divorces.

The RCC believes it alone should have this business. That’s why Rabbi Union sends out hundreds of faxes to non-Orthodox synagogues telling them that only the RCC‘s divorces are guaranteed to give Jews a divorce accepted everywhere in the Jewish world. In these faxes, Rabbi Union states that the gittin (divorces) of the Los Angeles Beit Din and the Beverly Hills Beit Din are not acceptable.

Rabbi Katz worked hard at maintaining good relationships with Reform and Conservative rabbis so that they were comfortable sending him their people for a divorce document (get).

When you have the attitude and manner of Rabbi Union, you’re not going to have Reform and Conservative rabbis sending you anything. When Rabbi Union yells and screams that nobody else is acceptable, it discourages non-Orthodox rabbis from sending their people to any Orthodox rabbi for a divorce.

The Los Angeles Beit Din (Rabbi Rue) and the RCC now do about a divorce a week. Rabbi Ohana does more. Rabbi Teichman does about 20 a year. Rabbi Gavriel Cohen does about 200 a year. Rabbi Cohen was close to the former Chief Rabbi Mordecai Eliyahu. The Israeli consulate would send Israelis to him for a divorce.

Rabbi Avraham Teichman charges $1,000 for a get. The RCC charges about $550 for a standard get (divorce document). The Los Angeles Beit Din charges $400.

A competent rabbi will need 90 minutes to draw up a get.

If you get a conversion or a divorce through the Los Angeles Beit Din, you will have problems with certain Orthodox rabbis in Israel and you will not have problems with other Orthodox rabbis in Israel.

Rabbi Union and many of his RCC colleagues want to live in a ghetto where they can ignore secular law. That’s why so many RCC rulings are overturned in secular court.

* Steve Friedman, an attorney for Rabbi Samuel Ohana, is one of the top 50 attorneys in the state of California. He learned with the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the Rav Yosef Baer Soloveitchik. He bills at over $1,000 an hour.

* The RCC is the only major Beit Din in the United States that declares in its arbitration agreements that it does not have to explain its decisions and also provides for no avenues of appeal. That’s why so many of its rulings are challenged and overturned in secular courts.

* In Igrot Moshe, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein often disagrees with a Beit Din decision. He does not use the language of “appellate court” but he acts as an appellate court.

* Pulpit rabbis don’t want the tsures of going up against the RCC, but they rarely send arbitrations to the RCC. Not even Rabbi Muskin. They don’t want their congregants coming back yelling at them. For a major Beit Din, the RCC does little arbitration work.

Posted in R. Avraham Teichman, R. Gavriel Cohen, R. Nachum Sauer, R. Samuel Ohana, R. Sholom Tendler, R. Yitzhock Adlerstein, RCC, Steven Friedman | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Random Thoughts On The Torah Scroll Dispute

An Interview With The Former Mayor Of Beverly Hills

Posted on December 26, 2010 by Luke Ford

Here’s an excerpt from Mark Egerman’s bio on his law firm website:

MARK EGERMAN was born on August 18, 1942, at Los Angeles, California. He is married to Dr. Lynn Egerman and has two children, Kim Nemoy and Lee Egerman, both attorneys practicing in Los Angeles, California. He is the proud grandfather of twin eight year old boys, Will and Max Nemoy, and Evan and Aidan Egerman, ages three and one.

Mark Egerman completed the four year course of study for a B.A. degree in 1963 at UCLA in three years. He completed the three year course of study at UCLA School of Law in two and one half years and received his Juris Doctorate in February, 1966. Mr. Egerman finished first in his graduating class at UCLA School of Law, was a Senior Editor of the UCLA Law Review, and was awarded the highest law school scholastic honor of Order of the Coif. Mr. Egerman is admitted to practice before all courts of the State of California, the United States District Court, Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court.

…Mr. Egerman served as Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills in 2004-2005 and 2001-2002. He served two terms on the Beverly Hills City Council from March, 1997, through March, 2005.

I call attorney Mark Egerman Thursday afternoon, Dec. 23.

Luke: “When you were a child, what did you want to be when you grew up?”

Mark: “Aside from when I was a young child, the usual thing of policeman and fireman. When I got a little older, I did want to be a lawyer.”

Luke: “How did you come to realize that law was your career?”

Mark: “My father was a lawyer. I grew up in a household where I was told, ‘You can be any professional you want — doctor, lawyer or engineer.’ It was very clear that schooling was key in the household and that it would be a choice among professions rather than a trade.”

Luke: “Where are you in the birth order?”

Mark: “I’m second. I have an older sister.”

Luke: “What was your reputation in [Beverly Hills High School]?”

Mark: “A serious kid. I was a good student. I was on the swim team and water polo team but I was in the group of kids considered more quiet and more serious.”

Luke: “Were there any particular moments that swayed your life?”

Mark: “In high school, I learned that education could be fun and that if you did work hard, you could get it. You could do well. Doing well was not a mystery. I met my future wife in high school. That meeting caused me to accelerate my education in college and graduate school.”

“I loved law school. It was the old style, the Socratic method, which they don’t generally follow in today’s law schools. Every class would be conducted by the professor by asking students questions. I found that challenging and exciting.”

Luke: “When did you realize that you could be really good at this profession?”

Mark: “Hard to say. I did well in law school but through most of my career, I have felt concerned, am I prepared enough? Am I ready to go? Generally, I would get comfortable once I felt that I was prepared.”

Luke: “My sister is a barrister in Australia. Do you ever wish you could wear a golden wig?”

Mark: “If you ever saw my hairline you would know that the answer to that question would be absolutely yes.

“There’s just something so wonderful about barristers. They sound so intelligent. Always so on point. They portray the legal profession wonderfully.”

Luke: “How did you find your niche in the legal profession?”

Mark: “I started in my father’s law office. He was a general practicioner. As a young attorney, I would do anything. If the client came in the door, it didn’t matter what the problem was, I would learn it and do it. Fairly early on, I started gravitating to areas of the law involving real property, usage of real property, landlord/tenant.

“My wife is a physician so a lot of our friends were physicians. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, doctors would invest in any real estate venture that promised substantial tax relief. So, in the good years, I would be representing them going into deals, and in the bad years, I’d be litigating them out of bad deals.”

Luke: “When did law schools stop using the Socratic method?”

Mark: “Both my daughter and my son are lawyers. They had a more traditional lecture-type learning experience than I did. They are both very good lawyers, so I guess both teaching methods work well, but the Socratic method really made you prepare for class. If you were asked a question and gave an unsatisfactory answer, you would be roasted publicly. That happens less these days.”

Luke: “What did you think of the movie The Paper Chase?”

Mark: “I liked it.”

Luke: “Was that anything like your law school experience?”

Mark: “Not really. Not as dramatic. Law school for me was challenging intellectually but a lot of hard work. You read a tremendous amount. You had to be prepared each day. I ended up briefing all the cases in the case book before I went to class. It was a combination of a grind with exciting classroom time.”

Luke: “Have you lived all of your life in Los Angeles?”

Mark: “Yes. Technically, I was not born in Beverly Hills because there were no hospitals in Beverly Hills, but my family was living in Beverly Hills when I was born, and I grew up here and have lived a full life here.”

Luke: “When did it occur to you to become involved with the Beverly Hills City Council?”

Mark: “I blame my political career on my wife. Our children had started elementary school in Beverly Hills and there was a program called the School Improvement program. My wife was made president. This was a program where added money was given to kindergarten through third grade and it had to be administered by parents.

“[Around 1980] my wife came home and looked at me and said, ‘Mark, there are no fathers in the program.’ And I being a very bright and accessible husband said, ‘I’d like to volunteer.’ So I became secretary.

“Then our school system was facing a financial crisis, which the general public did not believe because we were named Beverly Hills. So I ran for the school board in view of the declining resources. I was elected in 1983. When I left the school board a few years later, I went into public works. Then a friend of mine suggested I run for council.”

Luke: “How did you come to serve as mayor?”

Mark: “The mayorship of Beverly Hills, by tradition, is a rotating position. You get elected to the city council and you serve four years. And there’s a system to determine seniority based on the amount of votes you get. Each year, the mayorship changes and the next most senior person becomes mayor.

“You serve as a councilman and you rotate in one year as mayor. And then you rotate back out.”

Luke: “How much time did it take from your typical week to be on the Beverly Hills City Council?”

Mark: “It increased dramatically during my last four years. Because of the rotation system, I ended up being mayor in the first year of my second term and the fourth year. In the fourth year, we had the Montage Hotel development. I was probably spending about 35 hours a week during my last year in office.”

Luke: “How did you keep a legal profession going when you had to spend so many hours on city council stuff?”

Mark: “I’m fortunate. I have a family partnership. I’m partners with my brother-in-law and with my son. During that time, I was just reading all the time or conducting hearings. We had one hearing where we had 106 people who wished to speak on the Montage project. These were exciting times and I was burning the candle on both ends.”

Luke: “What surprised you from your time serving on the Beverly Hills City Council?”

Mark: “It was a pleasant surprise to find that if you are willing to work hard, our government does work. Our representative system of government can get things done. It is a good way to allow people to express themselves. We’re a moderately small city. People will come to council meetings. They will complain about potholes, garbage, trash, traffic, water bills. If you try to explain to them what is going and why their utility bill is higher than last year, they may not be pleased that their utility bill is higher, but they will listen to you. I have a lot of faith in government having had this experience.”

Luke: “How active are Beverly Hills people with Beverly Hills city government?”

Mark: “As is common with most communities, there is a group that is extremely involved. These are the individuals you see at, if not every council meeting, then every other one, or every third one. They are keeping on top of all of the issues.

“If it is a major issue such as the Montage Hotel project or other major projects, our citizens do participate actively in the elections.”

Luke: “How do you put up with listening to so many fools?”

Mark: “If you run for government and you are lucky enough to win, the first thing you have to recognize is that we are in a democracy and everyone has the right to speak. It is your obligation to listen. You may be surprised because you may learn something from the person speaking. Sometimes, it does get tiring, but that’s your job and that’s what you signed up for.

“There are limitations. When we had the 106 speakers, I was mayor and I was running the meeting, and I patiently explained to everyone that rather than the normal three-minute limitation, because of the number of people, I was going to cut it down to two minutes because it is not fair for those at the end of the line to wait until 11 p.m. at night and not get a chance to speak.”

Luke: “What were some of the smartest and what were some of the dumbest things you did while you were on the city council?”

Mark: “We didn’t anything too dumb. We had a good council. One of the things that kept us on the right track is that we had a superb professional staff. If the council was getting near areas that were not sound, you’d have our city manager or police chief or fire chief or heads of the department say this is a difficult place to go for these reasons. We had such respect for our staff, we generally stayed out of trouble.”

Luke: “And what were some of the smartest things you did on the city council?”

Mark: “A few areas. Big ticket projects. We totally rebuilt our second largest reservoir in the city. We installed fibre-optics throughout the city. We now have an infrastructure in fibre-optics that gives us great opportunity in the future for communications on devices that I am so old it is difficult to imagine how much communication you can get so easily. The Montage Hotel project was an unbelievable development. We did the Crate & Barrel project. We redesigned our downtown center city.

“We have been the number one city in supporting our school district. School districts are an independent state entity, but percentage-wise, Beverly Hills gives a higher percent per pupil support monetarily than any other city in the state.”

Luke: “Were you in town the night of the LA Riots and do you have any memories of that?”

Mark: “On the evening of the Riots, my office was Mid-Wilshire. I watched an incident of vandalism across the street at Bank of America. We dismissed our staff and made sure that all of them got to their cars. And then I started driving home. I hit a roadblock. The Beverly Hills police department closed the city. I told them I was going home. I gave them my address. They checked my license. And I was allowed in. But I was never concerned [for Beverly Hills]. Our police department is fantastic, extremely polite but very thorough. We had no incidents at all in Beverly Hills.”

Luke: “Is there anything you miss about being on the city council?”

Mark: “I miss the process. I miss having the ability to help good projects move forward. I’m still engaged with the city but the position on the council allows you the opportunity to have the greatest effect on improving the city.”

Luke: “Do you have any interest in pursuing further political office?”

Mark: “Absolutely not.”

Luke: “Where did you learn to play nicely with others?”

Mark: “Depends who you ask. Some people may not feel that way. One thing I picked up in practicing law and working out settlements, I realized early on that litigation is a very inefficient and expensive method of resolving disputes. If you can get the parties to agree to an imperfect compromise early on before they’ve spent huge sums of money, everyone is probably better off. I think I developed some skills in group process and realized that particularly in government, the worst thing is doing nothing. If you can get a project and it is only 80% right, that is good and you move forward. If you are going to be successful in a group process, nobody gets everything.”

Luke: “What do you see as the biggest problems facing Beverly Hills today?”

Mark: “It is the same thing as is facing every other city and county in our state — there are insufficient financial resources to maintain the current level of service. The primary reason for that is that because of the structure of the system, expenses are going up faster than income. One example that is being changed throughout all cities and counties in the state, you have a pension system that was believed at one time to sustain a growth rate of over 7%. If you look at historical growth, that just doesn’t happen but the cities have contractually agreed to pay those kinds of rates. You have to change the system.

“The second major problem you have is that you’ve tied the hands of those elected to govern. The city council can not raise a tax. You have to put it on a ballot. That’s a terrible way to govern.”

Luke: “What is your outlook for California?”

Mark: “I am quite hopeful. We’ve got some major problems. Everyone now recognizes that there are major problems and there are going to have to be some major decisions made. Those decisions will be raising taxes and cutting programs and fixing things like the pension system because otherwise we are not going to function.”

Luke: “Do you think Los Angeles will go bankrupt in the next three or four years or that it will pull its act together?”

Mark: “Legally, they have to pull their act together. They don’t have a choice. They are up against the same thing the state is — substantial cuts to service, new fees. You can’t raise taxes. That has to go to a vote of the people, but you can adopt fee structures to cover the cost of the delivery of services. So you are going to have increased fees and a decrease in programs and services. I hope the economy will turn around, which will create added income with your business license fees and development fees. Certainly the city of Los Angeles has a much more serious problem than Beverly Hills.”

Luke: “Would you like to see a subway running to or through Beverly Hills?”

Mark: “I was co-chair of that sub-committee. I am a big fan of the subway. I love the 30-10 plan of having it in place in ten years because I might get a chance to ride it then. In 30 years, I won’t be here.”

Luke: “What do you love and hate about your practice of law today?”

Mark: “The good thing about getting to my age is that I don’t do anything that I hate. My practice is primarily a land-use practice and estate planning.”

Luke: “What makes you angry, if anything, about the legal system you experience first-hand?”

Mark: “It’s much too expensive. Unless you are very rich or poor, the cost of engaging in the legal process is very difficult to sustain for most people.”

Posted in Beverly Hills | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on An Interview With The Former Mayor Of Beverly Hills

Rabbi Samuel Ohana Interview

Posted on December 26, 2010 by Luke Ford

Fluent in French, Hebrew, Yiddish and English, Rabbi Samuel Ohana has lived in Los Angeles since 1972.

He is 75 years old. He runs the storefront synagogue Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel (13312 Burbank Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401 (818) 901-1598) and operates his own Beit Din, which does conversions, divorces and the normal stuff of Jewish law courts.

Rabbi Ohana studied under many prestigious East European rabbis at yeshiva in London from 1951-1957 and his students include many top rabbis, including R. Shlomo Amar, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel.

Rabbi Ohana’s conversions and divorces are universally accepted (including in Israel).

We talk Sunday afternoon.

Luke: “Why do you want to keep the four Torah scrolls?”

Rabbi: “Very simple. I was assistant rabbi to Rabbi [Norman] Pauker for 18 years. On the high holidays, I used to replace him when he took a large minyan in the Jewish Community Center on Burbank Blvd. In 1994, he became sick. He decided to close the synagogue [Mishkan Israel]. He gave the machzorim (High Holiday prayer books) to Rabbi First. The sifre Torah (four Torah scrolls), he put them in his garage.

“Since he was a close friend, I kept visiting him regularly in his home. He normally wouldn’t venture out.

“After about one year, he told me, ‘Rabbi, I have a guilty feeling about the sifrei Torah sitting in my garage gathering dust. Take them to your synagogue.

“I had opened my Sephardic synagogue. He had made a request when I opened, ‘I want the name Mishkan Israel to survive but I am keeping the name Mishkan Israel for me in case people want to donate something for my maintenance, they can get a tax deduction.’ He had no more income.

“That’s why I added the name ‘Beth Midrash’ to Mishkan Israel.

“He told me to take the sifrei Torah to my synagogue. I said, I’m not buying them. He said, ‘Take them. Use them in your synagogue. It is assur (forbidden) to have them gathering dust.’

“The sifrei Torah were taken from his home in the presence of Rita Pauker. I took them one by one to my car and she was standing there holding the door for me.

“For the next four years, Rabbi Pauker would come to daven in my shul on the yartzheit of his parents.

“After he passed away, I ran into Mrs. Pauker. She asked if the sifrei Torah were taken care of. Were they insured? I said, absolutely.

“A few weeks later, she says, I want the sifrei Torah. I said, ‘Mrs. Pauker, what do you need them for?’

“She said, ‘I want to sell them. They can bring $18,000 a piece.’

“I said, ‘Mam, the sifrei Torah are not mine. They were not Rabbi Pauker’s. They were donated with the intention of being used in a shul.’

“She said, ‘No, no, no. These are for my retirement.’

“I had never heard of that, that a rabbi would own sifrei Torah.

“Since she was a widow, I wanted to help her. I asked the congregation and the congregation agreed to give her $12,000. I proposed that to her and she refused.

“I had an inconvenience. Why would I hold these sifrei Torah? I called Rabbi Nachum Sauer. Two times. Finally, Rabbi Sauer was adamant — do not return the sifrei Torah to her.

“She went to the police and said I stole them. After the police investigated her and me, the investigator found out that the sifrei Torah were taken by permission. So the investigator told her, lady, there is no theft here. It is simply a dispute of ownership. Let it go to the courts.

“She called the television. She called the Daily News. And she called me a thief. I didn’t want to pay attention. It was not to my level to dispute with her.

“Finally, she found an attorney, Baruch Cohen, who she paid a lot of money. They asked me to go the RCC (Rabbinical Council of California). I went. I showed them (rabbis Avrohom Union, Gershon Bess and Nachum Sauer) the rings on the wooden Torah scrolls which showed who donated them. One was donated by parents in Los Angeles in memory of their son who died in their lifetime. The second one was donated by a Mrs. Walter in memory of her husband who died in California. The third one doesn’t say who donated it but it says Los Angeles. The fourth one came from the Westminster synagogue in London, England, from sifrei Torah left from the Holocaust.

“I told Rabbi Sauer, ‘What are you doing here, rabbi? You already paskened.’ He didn’t stare me in the eyes. He said, ‘I don’t remember.’

“For me, it was so obvious that the court would decide the sifrei Torah have to stay where they are that I didn’t bother.

“Six months later, Rabbi Avrohom Union notified her in advance that she had won the case. Then he sent me the psak (ruling) that I had to return the sifrei Torah to her.

“Shabbat. I come to my synagogue and I found pasted to all the windows the psak of the RCC. The night before when I davened, there was nothing. So somebody hung them on Shabbat.

“I called Rabbi Union. I said to him, I have no objection to returning the sifrei Torah, even though I disagree with your psak. With one condition. You take them and do with them what you want. But I won’t give it to her to sell. I don’t have that right.

“His answer was no. You give them to her and you obey our psak or it will cost you aggravation and money.

“Before I knew it, he sued me in the Los Angeles Superior Court to force me to obey the RCC. Two nice attorneys, Scott Sobel and Steve Friedman, said they will represent me for free. They went to court and the judge said, Rabbi Sauer should not be there. Automatically, it is not a Beit Din according to the laws of Judaism. Therefore I can not force Rabbi Ohana to give back the sifrei Torah.

“Baruch Cohen insisted we go back to the RCC. I said fine. Rabbi Union proposed six rabbis to choose from for a Beit Din. I accepted two of them, including Rabbi Sholom Tendler. I said the third one, I have the right to bring one. I presented him with six Sephardic rabbis of high calibre. He said all six are no good. They are not qualified.

“We accepted Rabbi Sholom Tendler alone. I called an expert sofer (scribe), Rabbi [David] Rue, a Torah scholar.

“After many months, Rabbi Tendler came with his psak. I call it a kvetch.

“Rabbi Tendler says the sifrei Torah are not Mrs. Pauker’s. They belong to Mishkon Israel, which only exists as a tax deduction. Since she is the woman who controls Mishkon Israel, therefore the sifrei Torah should be given to her.

“My opinion is that Rabbi Avrohom Union wants to crush every competing Beit Din. He targets me because I have my Beit Din. I have my semicha (rabbinic ordination) from Ashkenazi rabbis (as well as Sephardic rabbis). I have a semicha from the Israeli Chief Rabbi as a dayan. He looks at me as competition.

“Rabbi Union took this case just to start crushing rabbis.

“She is not the heir of the sifrei Torah. Any sefer Torah in the shul, when the shul closes, the sefer Torah belongs to the rabbi. It is unheard of for the sifrei Torah being inherited by the wife or children. I’m disappointed in Rabbi Tendler, who I consider a talmud chacham (Torah sage). The same thing I thought about Rabbi Gershon Bess, who did not have the guts to stand up to the lowly opinions of Rabbi Union.”

Luke: “Are you still a member of the RCC?”

Rabb: “As far as I know, yes. I was thinking of resigning, but I don’t want Rabbi Union to be there at the top.

“I was a member of the RCC in 1972, before Rabbi Union came to this place. I started Adat Jeshurun. After one year, after I couldn’t make a living out of it, I went into business. I had six children.

“When I told them I was becoming active, Rabbi Baruch Kupfer and Rabbi Union told me no, we can not take you back. Why? Because you speak your mind. Rabbi Sugarman intervened. So they had to accept me. Maybe I am behind [in the dues] for a year or two.

“Why do the RCC attorneys call me names? They don’t hurt me. Why? Because I don’t live off of nobody. If I live off social security, it is money I have earned. If I do a wedding, it is money I have earned. Nobody feeds me. I speak my mind.

“My semicha comes from Ashkenazi rabbis and from Sephardic rabbis and I am at the level of anybody here.”

Luke: “Is it true that Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi in Israel, was your student?”

Rabbi: “Yes. For a short time. Some of the dayanim in Israel were my students, such as Rabbi Amram El Hadat (sp?). He was my student for three years. He left Morocco at age 17. His basic training in Talmud and halacha was from me. Rabbi Nissim Adabu (sp?), who was the dayan of Paris, he was three years in my classes. Rabbi Benyamin Abdahag (sp?), who was the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Argentina, was also my talmid.

“When it comes to knowledge of Talmud and halacha, I can sit with important people. I know my trade.

“All the time, Rabbi Union has been calling me directly and through Rabbi [Nissim] Davidi to give him any information, any disagreement said against Rabbi [Gavriel] Cohen [of the Beit Din of Beverly Hills] so that he will disqualify him more. I said no. You are a big organization. Do what you have to do. Don’t come to me.”

Luke: “Rabbi Union wants to crush all other Beit Dins in Southern California.”

Rabbi: “That is what he is doing.”

Luke: “I asked a rabbi, why does Rabbi Ohana want the tsures that comes with these Torah scrolls? And he said to me, if Rita Pauker were observant, it wouldn’t be an issue.”

Rabbi: “That is right.”

Luke: And if Rabbi Pauker were alive?

Rabbi: “I would give them to him.”

Luke: “Did the four Torah scrolls come from Congregation Judea?”

Rabbi: “No. I believe they belonged to Rabbi Leder. When Rabbi Pauker left Congregation Judea, he didn’t leave with any honor. He had to make a livelihood and get away from the city. Rabbi Leder had a shul. He wanted to go to Israel. I believe there was a transaction between him and Rabbi Leder. Rabbi Pauker is turning in his grave. He knows the sifrei Torah didn’t belong to him.

“I called Rabbi Mayer May. I said, I am ready to give the sifrei Torah to you. Rabbi May said, ‘No, I do not want to get involved.’

“All of them are scared of Rabbi Union. He’s a tyrant. Somebody has to stand up to him. After 13 years, he has to sit down.

“The only zechut (merit) I can think of for Rabbi [Sholom] Tendler is that he has started a yeshiva (Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok) and he doesn’t want Rabbi Union on his back.

“I don’t have the time to waste with this. I’m 75 years old.”

Posted in R. Avrohom Union, R. David Rue, R. Nachum Sauer, R. Samuel Ohana, Steven Friedman | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Rabbi Samuel Ohana Interview

This week’s parsha is Va’era (Exodus 6:2-9:35)

Posted on December 26, 2010 by Luke Ford

Watch the whole show.

I discuss the weekly Torah portion with Rabbi Rabbs every Monday at 7pm PST on my live cam and YouTube.

This week’s parsha is Va’era (Exodus 6:2-9:35).

* Is it permitted for a Jew to wish a goy a “Merry Christmas”?

* How should Jews refer to black people? As African-American or black or colored or shvartze?

* Should a beit din (Jewish law court) provide avenues for appeal? Should a beit din have to explain its decisions? Is it permitted for a Jew to appeal a beit din ruling to a secular court? May a Jew sue another Jew in secular court? Can you sue a non-Jew in a beit din?

* At the end of last week’s parsha, Shemot, Moses rebukes God. Abraham asks God questions, but Moses dresses Him down. God never punishes people for getting angry at Him.

* A lot of Jews are atheists because they are angry at God.

* Artscroll: “God speaks harshly to Moses, comparing him unfavorably to the Patriarchs, who maintained their faith without complaint…” Huh?

* Ex. 6:3. What does it mean that God did not reveal himself as HaShem to the patriarchs? How is the God of Moses different from the God of the patriarchs? Why did God perform more miracles for Moses and the Israelites than He did for the patriarchs?

We are more similar to the Jews of Egypt than the patriarchs, who saw God in every act. Jews in Egypt didn’t see God everywhere. If they did, He would seem a slavemaster.

* Artscroll on Ex. 6:4 “Because the patriarchs attitude toward this world was that they were but temporary sojourners, and that their true residence was in the Heavenly world of the spirit.” Huh?

* It is hard to love God and to love people. If you love people, you feel bad for their suffering, and it is hard to love God. If you are in love with God, and your relationship with Him, it is easy to care less about people.

If you study Torah eight hours a day, those are hours you are not helping people, visiting the sick, earning money to give or lend to people who need it. That’s love of God more than love of man. What is your ratio of love of God to love of man? Is it ten to one for God?

* The Lubavitch chumash I studied said that Moshe’s relationship to God was primarily intellectual while the patriarchs’ relationship to God was primarily emotional.

* What is the purpose of the plagues? To teach the Israelites as much as the Egyptians the nature of God. His unity is just one thing. A major theme of the Torah is that God rules nature. Do not worship nature. Worship the one true God. I had a girlfriend named Holly, a photographer, who told me that my urges were natural, as though that made them OK.

* The Torah is opposed to magic and superstition because that stuff implies limits on God’s power. Black cats and ladders have no power. God runs the show. So why are Jews so superstitious?

* Have you ever encountered a magician who could turn your rod into a snake?

* Why would God have Moses and Aaron start out with a trick that Pharoah’s magicians could duplicate?

* “Harden” Pharoah’s heart could also be translated as “strengthen.”

* All the plagues take on Egyptian gods.

* How do you react when people say, God told me XYZ? Spirituality without organized religion is dangerous because you hear what you want to hear.

* How comes the Torah records nothing about Moshe’s descendants?

* I enjoy anonymous commenters as long as they add to the discussion or as long as they amuse me. It is easy for people such as myself who lead solitary lives to speak freely. We’re not married with kids. We don’t have employers. Most people have no such luxury, so if they are going to participate in public chat, they will need to use an anonymous handle.

Posted in Torah | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on This week’s parsha is Va’era (Exodus 6:2-9:35)

Is A Jew Permitted To Wish A Goy “Merry Christmas”?

Posted on December 25, 2010 by Luke Ford

I’ve always wished the goyim a “Merry Christmas” because that’s just the kind of guy that I am — always full of good cheer and bonhomie.

Today, I was in shul and I was about to wish the Mexicans cleaning up a very “Merry Christmas” but I stopped because it did not feel right. By wishing them a “Merry Christmas”, I was implying that there was some religious truth to what they were celebrating.

So I’ve started asking Orthodox rabbis if it is permitted to wish a goy a “Merry Christmas”.

Traditional Orthodox rabbis say no. It is not permitted.

Some of the more modern Orthodox rabbis say it might be permitted. “Probably permitted,” says one. “It also depends on the person. Believing Christians that feel it is an important religious festival would be more problematic, but people that view it as a day off and fun presents, it should not be a problem.”

An Orthodox rabbi tells me: “Happy holidays is much better. I don’t like the Christ part of Christmas.”

I’d like to get a cheter from a major rav permitting me to say “Merry Christmas!” Until then, let me just wish one and all a happy holidays, including you baby Jesus.

An Orthodox friend says: “I wish all the goyim a “Merry Christmas,” sincerely and enthusiastically. And if anyone doesn’t like saying the “Christ” part of Christmas, then why do they refer to “Judeo-Christian” ethics, or call them “Christians???” Ever hear anyone call ’em “Xtians?” Not me!”

Mark says: “Sometimes it seems like you just sit around making up provocative things about Orthodox Judaism.”

Greg Leake emails:

Hi Luke,

We’re doing great in the religious world, are we not? Jews against Christians, Christians against Jews. Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. Islam against Christians and Jews, Christians and Jews against Islam (fortunately).

When it comes to religion we’re really knocking it out of the park, aren’t we?

One of the unfortunate by-products of this Orthodox view is that Orthodox apparently are in theological sympathy with liberals. We’re constantly having fights with the secular domain in education and commercial life over Christmas. They want to call it a Winter Festival. Traditional Americans (often irrespective of their religious orientation) prefer to continue to call the season Christmas. This is the first time I have discovered that the Orthodox community stands against American conservatism on this flashpoint issue. One of the few things I have appreciated about the Orthodox community is our agreement on conservative values. it seems to me that Dennis Prager is correct, and there should be a genuine, if casual, acknowledgment of Christmas and Hannukah.

In my neighborhood Orthodox Jews go as far as they can in the direction of acting like non-Orthodox people simply do not exist. I said ‘Happy Hannukah’ in the supermarket the other day, and they looked me up and down with a paranoid, quick appraisal and reached for the shibboleth “Happy Holidays”.

(Actually, i was hoping for a ‘Merry Christmas in exchange for my Happy Hannukah… hands across the water.)

Since becoming familiar with some elements of Orthodox Judaism, my appreciation for Jesus has increased. If for no other reason, he came along and freed my ancestors from the necessity of being bound to all of these traditional obligations. As someone whose family came to the US during the time of Plymouth Rock, naturally freedom is high on my personal agenda. And I am happy that I do not have to punch in with ecclesiastical authority about every bite I take or every girl I dated or every religious obligation. I’m very fond of the Catholic Church but if Protestantism had not freed us from the Catholic disposition, the United States would not exist as we know it. (And that we are fighting to get back.)

Luke, and I’ll mention to Rabbs that although your family was not persecuted by the Nazis, there is a good chance that some of your ancestors lived in the shadow of the Inquisition. If Torquemada got hold of some of our people, they might as well have been persecuted by the Nazis.

You know, Rabbs has mentioned that Jews tried to integrate themselves in Germany and did it not forestall the horrors of the holocaust. However, in the United States Reform and Conservatism are robust, and as far as I can tell, this has not hurt them in any way from the point of American secular society. I’ve come to believe that a portion of frum Judaism is as much about trying to retain an identity as it is specifically about G-d. As someone with Cherokee blood, I am not completely unmindful of the desirability of tryhing to maintain a unique culture. But the price can be pretty high.

Luke, my view is if ever Conservative Judaism becomes conservative politically, you might consider jumping ship. Furthermore, it would give you a better shot with Tamara and that is not something a heterosexual can dismiss lightly.

(Mark, actually you are correct: Luke is an online provocateur. It’s part of his gift. But you know in all walks of life we need guys to break a few windows and let in a little air.)

JEFF EMAILS: He’s right on several points. Emile Fackenheim makes a similar point as well about the attempts of the charedi world to blame “secular” and “assimilated” Jews for the Shoah. Their (more assimilated Jews in Germany and Austria) survival rate was much higher overall, and they successfully fled the country for the most part (kindertransport, etc). And many were hidden even in Berlin by their neighbors, whereas R. Elchonon Wasserman and similar Rabbanim told their disciples and students to stay. So if Gd was punishing the secular/zionist/reform/whomever, the numbers don’t work.

Also, it is remarkable that people are quoting this statement of yours about Merry Christmas as some kind of actual truth. Obviously, there are good reasons for Jews of Eastern Europe to not look at Christmas as a day of rejoicing, given how much Jewish blood was routinely spilled as part of the festivities in those countries (though more likely mostly the Jan 6 version of it), but anyone with sense recognizes that this world we are in now is a different one altogether. Oddly, many Russian Jews, even more educated ones, have trees, even in Israel, and they claim that its a sign of solidarity with the anti-communist groups (as the communists, who killed their share of Jews, banned Christmas trees, etc.)

The world is a complicated place, and up until recently, Orthodox Judaism was a religion of practice, not dogma. I for one am not convinced that the current changes, mostly picked up from the Evangelical world, are for the good.

RABBI RABBS EMAILS: Greg, you mentioned my name so I will respond. First, I want you to know that there are Torah Jews that do wish Merry Christmas to non-Jews, and yes, it is consistent with conservative values. Here is a fine article written by a frum rabbi who encourages all Jews to wish Merry Christmas to our Gentile friends.

And, if you wished me happy Chanukah, then I would be honored to reach across the water by wishing you a Merry Christmas.

Next, you mentioned the holocaust. Jeff added, “So if Gd was punishing the secular/zionist/reform/whomever, the numbers don’t work.”

The numbers are irrelevant, as it says in Mechilta, Shmos 12:22, when the destroyer is let loose, it does not discriminate between the righteous and the transgressors.

Thus, even if 99% of the frum world were killed while 99% of the frei (secular) world were saved, that would not contradict what our Torah leaders have said as to what caused the Holocaust.

JEFF EMAILS: When R. Hutner wrote his article in the 50s making this claim about the Shoah, there was an uproar and a flurry of dissenting articles. One of my roshei yeshiva from Mir said that it was the arrogance of the yeshiva world that brought about the Shoah, and he remained a prominent rosh yeshiva in Jerusalem. Frumkeit was determined by action and study. Now it is dogma. So the way to be considered religious and an authority is to say things like “Daas Torah” and “I believe in the Gedolim.”

Now, of course, one of the Gedolim also said that the Shoah was the tikkun for sinners of previous generations who needed to die by seraifah. So which is it? R. Zadok Hacohen famously argued that catastrophes were brought upon the Jewish people as a result of shfichas zera l’batala. Nowadays, I suppose, one doesn’t need to think, learn, act, just say, ani maamin b’ artscroll u’b’gedoylim.

Funny, in Israel, Christmas is not really a subject of discussion, many religious Israelis go down to the Old City to see what the Christians are doing much like one would go see a Native American ceremony, but generally it wasn’t viewed as a threat or anything (other than by American olim). However, New Year’s Eve, or Silvester, as its known there, retaining the German name of the day, is a prime target for Rabbis at yeshivas to attack, the secular hedonism of “parties” based on an early semi-mythologized Pope’s Feiertag…

RABBI RABBS EMAILS: Jeff, there is plenty of room within Torah for many reasons behind events and all of them can be true. Any newbie that spent even six months in yeshivah knows that there can be dozens of kosher explanations behind something that G-d did, and we treat all of them as true.

So, a dozen different Gedolim might attribute different reasons behind the holocaust, and their doing so doesn’t automatically mean that one of them is wrong. They could all be correct.

But, I’m sure you know better, as I clearly don’t think and learn.

Posted in Christianity, Orthodoxy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is A Jew Permitted To Wish A Goy “Merry Christmas”?

Random Thoughts On Steven Friedman’s Ouster From Sunday Morning OU Panel

Posted on December 25, 2010 by Luke Ford

Background on the case.

* A source says:

The right story is that the OU canceled Steven Friedman. Why? Think. Why did the OU cancel it’s own speaker?

Baruch Cohen is NOT that powerful and he’s not the story.

The OU did not know about Friedman’s challenging of the Beit Din’s psak (ruling). Once they knew, once they got calls of protest from various rabbis and leaders in the Orthodox community in Los Angeles, they pulled him from the panel.

The OU is a TORAH organization that must uphold Torah and Bais Dins. It cannot condone Friedman’s actions of challenging in a secular court a Beit Din (RCC) ruling. It did the right thing pulling him from the program.

The focus of the program isn’t even about Steven Friedman either. It’s about Torah standards and upholding them.

* It is unusual for Orthodox Jews to appeal a Beit Din’s decision to a secular court as has Rabbi Ohana’s legal representatives in his case with Rita Paukert, but the RCC , alone among the major Beit Dins (Jewish law courts) provides for no avenue of appeal and also claims it does not need to explain any of its decisions and in this case, Rita Pauker’s legal team twice appealed to secular court to enforce the RCC ‘s decision (Petitions to Confirm Arbitration Award).

* The explanation I have that best fits this OU decision is that Rabbi Steven Weil has always caved to his right-wing and to Rabbi Union.

* I can recall no precedent for a Jewish organization removing an attorney from a panel for representing his client within the bounds of the law. The RCC has no seiruv (finding of contempt) against R. Samuel Ohana, let alone his legal counsel Steven Friedman and Scott Sobel.

* Rabbi Sholom Tendler, who was the dayan (judge) for the RCC in the Paukert-Ohana case, rarely functions as a dayan.

* A rav tells me Saturday night: “[OU rabbi] has admitted that it is terrorism by the RCC and that he has to give into it.”

* According to a sofer who examined the four Torah scrolls in question, none of them are kosher and the four of them have a maximum total worth of $20,000. Two of the scrolls are reparable.

* Rabbi Alan Kalinsky, West Coast director of the Orthodox Union, is a master fundraiser. Rabbi Steven Weil is a master fundraiser. Neither would be in their position except for their ability to shmooze rich people.

* I don’t believe that the RCC accepts the kashrut of the Orthodox Union on all foods (particularly meats).

* A friend calls. “You can’t be an attorney who publicly shmutzes (tarnishes) a Beit Din, appeal its ruling to a secular court, and then speak for an organization that claims to uphold Torah values.”

Posted in R. Samuel Ohana, Steven Friedman | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Random Thoughts On Steven Friedman’s Ouster From Sunday Morning OU Panel

Orthodox Union Removes Attorney Steven Friedman From Sunday Morning Panel

Posted on December 25, 2010 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Steven Weil, the Orthodox Union CEO, and Rabbi Alan Kalinsky (West Coast director of the Orthodox Union) have removed attorney Steven Friedman (I believe he charges his clients over $1,000 an hour but would’ve been doing this OU event for free, he’s also representing Rabbi Samuel Ohana pro bono) from their Sunday morning legal seminar.

Replacing Steven Friedman will be Rabbi Michael Broyde, who served as a witness for Rita Paukert in 2009 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Here’s a link to the program, including this offering Sunday: “For attorneys, Esther Macner and Steven Friedman will present, with David B. Gardener to moderate, two public sessions on Sunday morning at the Young Israel of Century City, 9317 W. Pico Boulevard, from 9-11 a.m. discussing, “Everything You Need to Know About Halachic Pre-Nups but Were Afraid to Ask,” and “The Imprimatur of the State on Halachic Agreements and Beit Dins: Current Problems and Trends of Enforceability.””

I did an interview Thursday night with the widow Rita Pauker, who’s mad she can’t get her late husband’s Torah scrolls back from Rabbi Samuel Ohana.

Attorneys Steven Friedman and Scott Sobel represent Rabbi Ohanna. Background on the case.

I was waiting to run this Rita Pauker interview until after I had interviewed Rabbi Samuel Ohana, but with this OU development, I am running the interview now.

Rita: “I am so angry. I have spent the last eight years trying to get my Torahs back from Samuel Ohana. I can’t call him rabbi. We went to a Beit Din (RCC). I won the case. We went to [Los Angeles Superior] Court to have him turn them over to me because he wouldn’t. He said that one of the rabbis on the Beit Din said to some reporter, well, a person can own a Torah and lend it to a synagogue. That’s acceptable.

“Now that I’ve heard that, I feel that this is not a decent verdict. So the American judge threw it out. Now, a $1,000 later, we went back to the first Beit Din (RCC). It’s an unwritten law that if you are a rabbi and you are called to a Beit Din, you go.

“The first one we called years ago, he said he wasn’t ready. He only had the Torahs for about five or six years. He wasn’t ready?

“I called Rabbi Shlomo Cunin. He said, you start all over and you have them recall him. He can’t say no.

“I have a lot of respect for Rabbi Cunin.

“We started all over. We had to pay about $600 each for a Beit Din. And Ohana said, I don’t have the money.

“I said to the Beit Din, I will pay his $600.

“That was the first hearing. The Los Angeles Superior Court said no.

“Ohana no longer wanted three rabbis at the tribunal. He went through the list and he picked who he wanted. We only went with one rabbi, Rabbi Sholom Tendler. Rabbi Tendler awarded me the Torahs as the agent for our synagogue.

“And now to enforce it, we had to go back to the same judge in the American court. The judge awarded me the Torahs and gave him ten days to turn them over.

“Before ten days are over, I get a paper in the mail from Ohana and his retinue saying they weren’t going to turn them over, they were going to enforce judgment again.

“The judge finally signed the order for the Torahs. They were due back on Dec. 19.

“Now I get another paper on Dec. 16. They’re asking the court for all kinds of information. Stalling, stalling, stalling. When one of my attorneys called them, they said, we’re not considering returning them. They’re going to court again.

“Either we will be going in and getting them with the sheriff’s office…

“All this time I’ve been saying the rabbi is…lying about Torahs. My husband was a well-rounded man. We had wonderful relationships with the Catholic church, especially with the Benedictine monks in Little Rock.

“I’m mad because I was notified that Steven Friedman, Ohana’s lawyer, has defied the [RCC] Beit Din to this minute, and he’s going to speak to the Orthodox Union this weekend on the subject of Beit Din. He’s working hand-in-glove with Ohana.

“Because of what happened, Ohana has been ousted from the RCC. They have not made that public. When I asked about it, I learned that they didn’t want to make it public until my case was over.

“When we said that we would like you to chase Steven Friedman off the OU guest list… I left a message for Rabbi Alan Kalinsky. And the answer we got was, well, he’s on the program already.

“This is a disgrace. It aggravates me. It burns me. It kills me. This is an insult to the Beit Din and to the Los Angeles Superior Court.”

“I win every case and I don’t get my Torahs back. I promised these Torahs to my nephews. Ohana won’t give them back to me because he has no Torahs.”

According to Rabbi Ohana on Saturday night, he is still a member of the RCC.

AN ORTHODOX RAV TELLS ME:

I know about the following case in detail, and it is clear to me that Rabbi Sauer talking to the reporter before the Din Torah is a violation of Torah Law so great as to render him invalid to ever sit as a Dayan. I also talked to a Dayan from the Beit Din HaGadol who agreed with this.

Many times I have had Dinei Torah where the claimant did not prove their case but it did seem that there was another party that they could in fact claim damages from, and this is stated in the Pasak Din. We cannot give an award to someone (or entity) that was not in the room. Granting the Sifrei Torah to Mishkan Israel, a defunct synagogue that exists only for tax reasons for Rita Pauker, and was not a party to the arbitration agreement is on its face invalid and by Halacha does not have to be obeyed.

There was an issue 300 years ago of a couple who wanted to make Aliya from Czechoslovakia and the people of the city took them to a din torah to stop them with the claim that it was dangerous and if they went other young people might want to follow. The Pitchei Tshuva records that if because the Beit Din clearly was improper in issuing a restraining order that it did not have to be obeyed. The most simple understanding of this case shows that the Beit Din erred. Even the simplest of people you would think can understand that a Beit Din may not make an award to someone that is not a party in the case.

The “Baruch Cohen” mentioned in some of the following emails is the attorney representing Rita Paukert. Baruch Cohen probably argues more cases before the RCC Beit Din than anyone. He also does a lot of bankruptcy work in secular court.

Here is his LinkedIn profile:

I am your first line of defense and offense in any litigation, bankruptcy or bais din matter. Why? Because I have over 15 years of experience trying cases in front of the Los Angeles Superior Courts, the U.S. District Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts and before Bais Dins across the country.

I am an aggressive trial attorney. I take pride in the integrity and passion I instill into each case and every client; whether it is skillfully settling cases, or taking the cases all the way to trial, my number one concern is my client’s best interests. On the other hand, my briefs reflect my “take no prisoners” approach to litigation, some of which I have posted in the filing cabinet below. One particular motion that I authored, was a motion to recuse a federal bankruptcy judge in the Billy Preston bankruptcy, which became the impetus for a Los Angeles Daily Journal cover story entitled: “Late Musician’s Lawyer Wants a Recusal; Bankruptcy Judge For Billy Preston’s Estate Under Fire For Possible Conflict” and a FOX News segment entitled: “Billy Preston: Will He Go Round in Circles?” (If you go into my file cabinet to take a pleading, I would appreciate you letting me know and dropping me a line as to how it went).

I take only those cases I truly believe in. I have demonstrated time and again, my willingness to take a case all the way to trial if that is what it takes to obtain the best possible result for my client. I have obtained outstanding results for clients who had been turned away by other firms — for some of whom I was able to obtain million dollar verdicts or settlements.

If you are in need of focused and aggressive representations in the areas of corporate chapter 7 bankruptcies, bankruptcy litigation, business litigation, serious and complex personal injury or wrongful death, please call me.

Excellence, state-of-the-art technology, creativity, integrity, and personal service are the hallmarks of my legal practice.
Baruch C. Cohen, Esq.’s Specialties:

Business Law • Corporate & Partnership Disputes • Fraud • Unfair Competition • Competitive Business Practices • Poaching & Raiding Lawsuits • Defamation • Libel • Slander • Breach of Contract • Collections • Anti-SLAPP Motions • Bankruptcy Litigation Law • Creditors’ Remedies •
Corporate Chapter 7 Bankruptcies • Alternative Dispute Resolution • Bais Din • Serious and complex personal injury or wrongful death

Here is Baruch Cohen’s blog in defense of Israel.

Baruch Cohen has had a complicated history with the RCC. In 1997, he led a fight against them on behalf of Rabbi Yehuda Bukspan.

Most of the following letters were sent on the Sabbath. Why would anyone think that sending an email on the Sabbath is a good way to sway a Torah organization?

Julia Dyachenko emails [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]:

The Orthodox Union is hosting an event this weekend in Los Angeles. This conference is to include many panels and discussions. See the OU West Coast Convention. One such panel occurring on Sunday is entitled “Impramatur of the state on Halachic agreements and Batei Din; current problems and trends in enforceability.” The panel is set to discuss the trends related to Jewish law and the enforcement of Jewish contracts in California courts. Steven R. Friedman is set to be one of the speakers on this panel. The Orthodox Union has been approached by Baruch Cohen who has asked to remove Steven Friedman from the panel because Mr. Friedman represents a rabbi in the Los Angeles Jewish community. Mr. Friedman is one of two attorneys representing this rabbi in a civil dispute. Baruch Cohen is seeking to remove Mr. Friedman for simply doing his job and providing this rabbi with representation. The Orthodox Union is proposing to remove Mr. Friedman from the panel based solely on the protest of Baruch Cohen.
Many of you know Mr. Friedman and the great work he has done for the Jewish community and many other communities across Los Angeles, California, and the United States. Steven Friedman has represented many community leaders and those in need for free. He has spoken for those who are unable to speak for themselves and he has done this all without ever asking for thanks or recognition. In fact it is Mr. Friedman’s humility and unimpeachable sense of justice that attracts those seeking justice to him. Mr. Friedman’s track record is exemplary and his pursuit of justice admirable.

Jonathan Mann emails Rabbi Weil and co:

Dear Respectable Members of the Orthodox Union,

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.

Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.

Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.

The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.

If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.

Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

When Jonathan Mann writes to the “Respectable Members of the Orthodox Union”, who is he talking about? Who are the respectable members of the Orthodox Union? Names please.

Jacob Zodieru, a student at Southwestern Law School, emails Rabbi Weil and co:

Dear Members of the Orthodox Union at Los Angeles,

My name is Jacob Zodieru and I am a student at Southwestern Law School. It is to my understanding that there is an idea to remove Steven R. Friedman, Esq. from the panel regarding Jewish law and how it relates to contractual obligations in California. It is also to my understanding that the idea of dismissing Mr. Friedman from the panel is entirely based on his representation of Rabbi Ohana in his dispute against Rita Pauker about claim of ownership for four Torah scrolls in the Jewish community. I do not personally know Mr. Friedman, but I am a fellow student and good friend of his son at Southwestern Law School, and I heard about this issue through him.

I do not see why Mr. Friedman cannot speak at the panel. Is it not ethical under Jewish law to allow everyone fair and equal representation, no matter what the issue can be? I can imagine there may be a conflict if this was a dispute over an attorney’s representation of a Holocaust denier or serial killer, but over a claim of right ownership for Torah scrolls? As far as I am concerned, that is not enough to warrant dismissal from speaking on a panel. If there is a stronger reason, please let me know. Otherwise, I am compelled to share my opinion on the matter with you.

Personally, I desire what is best for everyone, and I believe everyone has the right to speak. Under Jewish law, a controversial issue should not be the sole grounds for violating a personal right to free speech. I implore you to let Mr. Friedman speak on the panel.

Aimee Weiss emails:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.

Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.

Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.

The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.

I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.

If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed. Please do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Channah Barkhordari emails:

Dear Rabbi Steven Weil, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Rabbi Alan Kalinsky, Mr. Baruch Cohen, and to whom it may concern,

It has come to my attention recently that Mr. Baruch has approached the Orthodox Union requesting that Steven R. Friedman be removed from a panel discussion to take place on Sunday, December 26, 2010, namely for representing a certain rabbi in the Los Angeles community. With regards to Mr. Friedman, I would like to begin by assuring that each of you knows of whom you speak.

Mr. Friedman is an indisputable pillar of justice and service to the Jewish community of Los Angeles. Each of you owe him a debt of gratitude in one regard or another, whether cognizant of it or not. His attenuation to the needs of others and sincerity in seeking justice and pursuing it are unparalleled. It is with absolute conviction and certainty that I attest his reputation for moral veracity and fortitude is wholly untainted. And there are thousands of people who are ready and willing to attest to that fact as well.

And yet, incredulously, with seeming flippancy you seek to remove him from a panel in discussion of the enforcement of Jewish law and contracts in California courts. Ironically, you break Jewish law in the process three times over. The first: listening to the bearer of tales. Does it not say in Vayikrah, “A tale bearer should not go among you”? (19:16) I ask, who is the bearer of tales here? And by listening to such tales, are you not a mekabel motzi shem rah, one who has listened and accepted a tale without precedent?

Second: slander in the highest degree. Removing him from said panel would be equivalent to maligning his reputation as an honest and credible Jew, when he is indeed beyond reproach in this regard. In Yirmiyahu, the prophet admonishes slanderers to the utmost, descrying those “who go about with slanders and who speak iniquity” (Yirmiyahu 9:2-4). And yet you have chosen to listen to Mr. Cohen’s slander, and in turn multiply it tenfold by removing Mr. Friedman from this panel. You give credence to the unjust and defamatory opinions of Mr. Cohen and break a direct biblical commandment. And as God says in Yirmiyahu, “Shall I not punish them for these things?” (9:8)

Thirdly, you embody a negation of the command to pursue peace, and bring conflict to the families and community involved. As it says in Tehillim, “Flee from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it” (34:15). In deliberately choosing to remove Mr. Friedman, you are bringing conflict and personal politics into a public affair and splitting the members of your community.

In addition, you bring shame and lashon hara upon yourself. As the Orthodox Union, a respected establishment of religious Judaism, this action reduces your authority to the level of petty internal interests, and proves you as antithetical to the tenants of Judaism as a whole. It raises questions of the intentions of your establishment and demarcates you as an institution that responds to the pleas of the attempt by one Jew to attack another rather than the call of the Almighty.

I resolutely advise you to reflect upon the foundations of the Orthodox Union and reinstate Mr. Friedman to the board as a means of maintaining your integrity.

I hope you will succeed.

Channah Barkhordari

Founder-President, Ariyot

Joseph K. Berman emails:

To Whom it May Concern-

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.

Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Marcus Velelis emails:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.
Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Marcus Velelis
Internship Director
USD/Hagshama – World Zionist Organization

Bethany Carroll emails:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.
Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

[email protected] emails:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of
Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday
December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has
proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations
of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure
and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I
want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of
terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand
strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper
influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right,
then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an
honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure
is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the
strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for
doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is
entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to
represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a
client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the
Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The
proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of
injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to
remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr.
Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for
free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no
charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He
has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to
say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand
on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a
neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all
those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by
those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this
injustice, then evil has already triumphed.
Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Jacklyn Mishal emails:

Dear Rabbi Weil, Rabbi Weinreb, Rabbi Kalinsky, and Mr. Cohen,

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.

Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.

Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.

The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.

If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.

Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Danna Rubin emails:

Dear Mr. Baruch Cohen

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.

Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.

Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.

The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.

I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.

If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.

Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Jake Gardner emails:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.
Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Shani ([email protected]) emails:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.
Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Mom ([email protected]) emails:

To: The Orthodox Union:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.

Melissa Solin emails:

Shavua tov.

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the proposed removal of Steven R. Friedman from the Orthodox Union’s panel scheduled for Sunday December 26, 2010. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Union has proposed to remove Steven Friedman based on the unfounded accusations of a blog and a single attorney.
Every day I face pressure to bow to the terrorism of peer pressure and fearmongering. I choose to stand tall against the such threats. I want to condemn this decision by the Orthodox Union in the strongest of terms. I expect my community and my Jewish organizations to stand strong against the threats of intimidation and the pressure of improper influences. If the Orthodox Union will not stand up for what is right, then they do not represent my generation. Proposing to remove an honorable and selfless attorney as a result of unfounded peer pressure is not something I agree with and is something I condemn in the strongest of terms.
Mr. Friedman is being subjected to baseless mudslinging simply for doing his duty and representing a party in a lawsuit. Every person is entitled to representation, especially those who are not able to represent themselves. Persecuting an attorney because he represents a client is wrong and antithetical to the values of America and the Jewish People. God commands us to relentlessly pursue justice. The proposed removal of Mr. Friedman is the Orthodox Union’s endorsement of injustice and I will not stand for this injustice.
The Orthodox Union does not speak for me when they propose to remove a good hearted, champion of justice based on mudslinging. Mr. Friedman has selflessly represented members of the Jewish community for free for over twenty five years. He represents these people at no charge and at great expense to himself and his other commitments. He has fought for justice for others and now we must stand up for him.
I strongly encourage the Orthodox Union to stand up for justice, to say no to those who peddle fear and intimidation and to choose to stand on the side of right. Inaction or removal of Mr. Friedman is not a neutral decision. It is an admission that the Orthodox Union, and all those who it represents, can be bullied into accepting “the big lie” by those who yell it loudest and most often.
If the Jewish community does not stand strong against this injustice, then evil has already triumphed.
Do not remove Steven R. Friedman from this panel.

Gary Konecky, CPA, emails:

Dear Rabbis,

One of the biggest sins confronting this generation is the sin of Loshon
Hora.

I do not know either Mr. Baurch Cohen or Mr. Steven R. Friedman. I know that the internet has accusations that sound like Loshon Hora involving these men. I know these accusations reflect on the character of these men, and of Orthodox Union itself.

You must consider your course of action very seriously. If you choose
to act on the accusations (which might be Loshon Hora) without first
investigating the facts, you will be committing a grave violation of
Torah law, as well as possibly damaging the reputation and livelihood of
an innocent man.

As you decide if Mr. Steve R. Friedman is to serve on the panel, please
consider these thoughts and their implications.

Posted in Baruch Cohen, Orthodox Union, R. Samuel Ohana, RCC, Steven Friedman | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Orthodox Union Removes Attorney Steven Friedman From Sunday Morning Panel

Will Judaism Destroy The Jewish State?

Posted on December 24, 2010 by Luke Ford

Orthodox rabbi Gil Student writes in the Jewish Press:

Over the past weeks, many rabbis in Israel have publicized halachic rulings forbidding Jews to rent or sell homes to non-Jews. Doing so, they argue, violates Torah prohibitions and causes the deterioration of Jewish neighborhoods. Jews move away from communities when gentiles – in this case, Arabs – move in, leaving neighborhoods and cities transitioning from Jewish to gentile majorities. This is halachically, socially and nationalistically unacceptable. To prevent this, the rabbis insist, Jews must refrain from renting or selling homes to non-Jews.

The halachic basis of these pronouncements is complex and debatable. In theory, gentiles living in Israel have the option of becoming a ger toshav (resident alien) and acquiring full citizen rights under the Torah (as opposed to Israeli citizenship, which is entirely different).

However, according to many authorities, technical reasons prevent anyone from becoming a ger toshav today. Others hold that these technical reasons can be bypassed. If authorities rule strictly, they create a dilemma for gentiles in Israel today. These Israeli citizens cannot rent or buy homes because they are not gerei toshav – but due to no fault of their own they can never attain that status. What are they to do?

The problem is that even discussing this issue in anything other than a theoretical context damages Israel on multiple levels. Yes, the halachic issues are worthy of serious exploration. But they must be seen as hilchisa dimeshicha, rules that will become relevant only in a messianic world. Any other perspective amounts to discrimination, an attitude that supports Israel’s opponents, drives even more American Jews away from supporting Israel and cools the enthusiasm of many of Israel’s unquestioning supporters.

Who can defend such blatant unfairness? Particularly to Americans, such discrimination is distasteful and embarrassing.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Judaism Destroy The Jewish State?

Merry Christmas!

Posted on December 24, 2010 by Luke Ford

From DennisPrager.com:

Friday, December 24, 2010 Radio Show
H1: Where’s Santa
Prager H1: With Allen giving Santa updates from NORAD, Dennis reflects on various aspects of Christmas.

Friday, December 24, 2010 Radio Show
H2: Happiness Hour: Thinking about Christmas
Prager H2: Dennis talks to Dr. Stephen Marmer, psychiatrist in private practice in Brentwood, CA and member of the clinical faculty of UCLA medical school, about how Christmas can be used as focal point for meaningful personal reflection.

Friday, December 24, 2010 Radio Show
H3: Open Lines
Prager H3: Per usual, callers set the agenda. Issues raised include: how should we honor our parents; how will Jews recognize the Messiah; how did Dennis and Dr. Marmer meet.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Merry Christmas!

Do Men Respect Scantily Clad Women?

Posted on December 24, 2010 by Luke Ford

Tamara is a 20-something third year law student. She writes a dating blog for the Jewish Journal called Tattletales.

Watch our complete interview.

Luke: “How often do you find that your thoughts are not taken seriously because you are attractive?”

Tamara: “Often. It depends on where I meet people. If I meet people at a bar…”

Luke: “They’re less interested in the cognitive ability than some of your other attributes?”

Tamara: “I think so, especially because I can dress pretty scandalously, a tight dress, a short skirt, five-inch high heels, and I’m out at a bar and not every guy is expecting to hear someone’s Supreme Court analysis who just goes to law school as a hobby.”

Luke: “Do you expect men to relate to you the same way if you dress conservatively as opposed to scandalously? Do you expect them to be equally interested in your mind?”

Tamara: “I expect the same respect, regardless of how I’m dressed.”

Luke: “Even if you are dressed like a hooker, you still expect to be treated like a Supreme Court justice?”

Tamara: “Yeah. If you are hooting and hollering on the street, I don’t think there’s any dress that says that’s appropriate.”

Luke: “So you’re walking down the street in a short skirt and ripped tights and a man goes, ‘Yeah, baby!’, that’s inappropriate?”

Tamara: “Why do guys do that? What do they want? I don’t think it’s respectful.

“I would dress that way to feel sexual and I would never ask a man to ignore that. I would never dress like that around my parents, but I am entitled to dress that way when I go out, but I don’t expect it to be ignored, but there is a way to be respectful. I think men just assume you are one or the other and they make that judgment quickly. I tend to be attracted to men who are smart. I think they’re more likely to respect me on an intellectual level.”

“If I am dressed sexually at a bar, I don’t expect someone to come up to me and start a conversation on Nietzsche.”

“You can be attracted to someone and relate to them purely on a purely sexual level and be respectful.”

Luke: “Really? You can be sexual and respectful? Interesting.”

Tamara: “Clearly it is not even an option in your world.”

“Sometimes I get pigeonholed the other way, if I know someone from law school or the writing world. They can be surprised negatively in what I might look like.”

Luke: “In a little skirt with ripped tights?”

Tamara: “Yeah.”

Luke: “Do you think they judge you?”

Tamara: “I’ve felt that at my Christian law school.”

Luke: “When you wear ripped tights and short skirts.”

Tamara: “But I have a right to wear that. I would never complain about someone looking at that but if I am sitting in class and I’m talking but you discount my opinion because my shirt is short, I don’t appreciate that.”

Luke: “And your tights are ripped.”

Tamara: “You can look and you can also listen to what I have to say.”

Luke: “Do your professors relate to you differently when you dress provocatively?”

Tamara: “Probably. Yes.”

“I think there’s nothing more powerful than feeling sexual as a woman and feeling respected intellectually.”

Luke: “Simultaneously?”

Tamara: “Yeah. That’s when I feel on top of the world.”

“I’m never more turned on than in those moments.”

Luke: “Do you think you are sexually harassing men who dress in a provocative way?”

Tamara: “They’re certainly not complaining to me.”

Luke: “I could take you to an Orthodox synagogue on Yom Kippur and you wouldn’t shame me?”

Tamara: “Yeah.”

Luke: “Have you been a victim of sexual harassment?”

Tamara: “No. Not that I have noticed.”

Posted in Tamara Shayne Kagel | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Do Men Respect Scantily Clad Women?