Psak Din[im] 5757/1997-5769/2008

Beth Din

יראה העם וישפוט

“After the first session, the Beth Din ruled (Erev Rosh Chodesh Tammuz, 5756-1996) that all members of the camp administration are equally “within” and that all decisions must be made by the whole committee (following the majority).” However, Spritzer and Schreiber disobeyed this Halachic Ruling, never calling Hershkop or Hartman to any meeting, and deciding everything on their own.” (from PMM booklet)
everybodys-in

English

psak- 6-16-96 english

No Party is to take this case to court. A very short time after this Psak, Spritzer goes to Federal court and starts the RICO case, in an attempt to steal the camp. You”ll find, that the only one making a Joke and a mockery of Bais Din is Yaakov Spritzer and his “Koved Harabonim” friends. Even now, Spritzer continues to make one big joke of the Bais Din.

Psak

“On 10 Kislev. 5757 (1996), the Beth Din issued a ruling emphasizing that this “only referred to the management of the camp (not the financial aspects, for which there has to be a separate session).” Based on opinions expressed by several educators, they ruled that Spritzer should administer the camp rather then Meir Hershkop or Hartman.

At that Din Torah, none of the original members of the camp’s board of directors – Shmuel Heber, Mendle Hershkop or Yosef Goldman – Participated except for Spritzer, and neither the Din Torah nor the ruling dealt with ownership of the camp” (from PMM booklet)

My humble opinion on this “Psak” in the comments.

psak-din-pg1-hebrewpsak-din-pg2-hebrew

psak-english

JUDGEMENT

Before us, a Tribunal (in the seat) of three, came these two parties: On one side R’ Meir Herschkop and his son in law R’ Levi Hartman, and on the other side R’ Yaakov Spritzer and R’ Meir Schreiber and the undersigned have accepted us to pronounce judgment or mediate between them and they committed themselves through the procedure of the ritual of handing over an object (before a respected Rabbinical Court – thus making the agreement binding), and they also signed with their own hand signature to fulfill our verdict. After listening to the arguments of both sides we have come to a decision:

This judgment concerns only the administrative aspect (and not the financial aspect which requires a separate judgment)

The “Chinukh” wrote in the middle of Mitzva 550 “which deals with the prohibition to plough with an ox and a donkey together” (and the Chid”a brings it in the Birkei Yoseph Choshen Umishpat Chapt. 7 parag. 35) and stating as follows: And every wise person will take a moral lesson from this not to ever appoint two people of all things who are disparate in their nature and different in their behavior etc. end of quote, (and see another such a line of reasoning in the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Umishpat Chapt. 7 parag. 8).

We have hereby been convinced from the attitude that preceded the period of the camp, during the period and after the period, that the two parties are polarized in their opinions and approach, when they came to litigate before us (among other things) about administrating the camp each one answered when we asked them (and thus on several occasions) if they are in the opinion that they can work together or not and the reply was a clear no and that it was up to us to settle the issue clearly and unequivocally.

The suggestion that one side will administer one year and that the second year the other side will administer (and so on and so forth) does not appear to us as a solution neither between the parties nor for the welfare of the camp (and such a line of reasoning should be pointed out in the Rambam Laws of Kiel Hamikdash Hamikdash Chapt. 4 Law 15 – and on behalf of the Yerushalmi) and it is not for this that we requested expert opinion, and where we did request the opinion of several experts in the area of education (which is the essence and purpose of the camp issue and they are familiarized with the camp during the two years that they worked there) was (since, as was mentioned above, the above parties are in disagreement etc.) so that they may vote in a secret ballot which of the above parties is better fitted to administer etc., and indeed they voted as was mentioned above, and besides three who had a blank ballot all the rest (which is the majority) voted for Spritzer (and his colleagues).

And therefore our determination is that the administration of the camp and all the expenses emanating thereof (based upon the above mentioned educators) will be in the hands of Spritzer and his colleagues and no one else is authorized to raise funds etc. And G-d willing in the near future (when the preparation of the accounts will be completed) we will make a ruling about the second phase “Financing”.

An additional thing that the above mentioned educators (even those who abstained) wrote on the ballot was that the status of the camp should be public, and they also expressed their view that the institutions (meaning engaged in education) will be involved in the spiritual aspect of the camp, and we hereby notify that we are also of the same opinion as was mentioned above.

And on this we came to undersign,
Signature:         (Signature) Rabbi Yehuda Kalman Marlow
Signature:         (Signature) Rabbi Avraham Osdoba
Signature:         (Signature) Nissan Mangel


[For Sprizers version of the above Psak (the one he tried to submit in to court as evidence) scroll to the bottom.]

A short while (May, 2nd, 1997), after the above Psak Din, which gave temporary control of the camp to Spritzer. Spritzer summoned the original members of the camp’s board of directors and others to a non-Jewish court, (even after the Beth Din wrote clearly that this case was not to be taken to a non-Jewish court). It’s important to point out that as much as the original directors of Machane Menachem did not like the (even) temporary Psak Din, they nevertheless abated by it. They did not mix in to the going on of the camp for the remaining of that summer season (waiting for the continuation of the Din Torah). After almost 10 years in court, the original directors requested from the Beth Din to continue the Din Torah.

The Bais Din’s Latest Psak Regarding Machane Menachem

Rabbi Raitport Psak

Rabbi Segal sends out a notice to the Bais Din of Monsey about this case:

rabbisegalmonseyAll the proceedings thereafter (with the Bais Din of Monsey) will G-d willing be posted in the near future.

Meanwhile, here is Spritzers version of the Psak (10 Kislev ’96) submitted to the Federal Court.

Spritzer knows the Bais din didn't give him the camp, thats why He tried to fool the court by amitting a few details from the origanol Psak.

Spritzer knows the Bais Din didn't give him the ownership of the camp, thats why he went to court, to attempt to kick the other directors out! A move that failed him. Time to face up!

16 Responses to Psak Din[im] 5757/1997-5769/2008

  1. machanemenachem says:

    Responds to the above “Psak Din” of 5757

    whats happening with the din Torah now, I will g-d willing post in a different post.

  2. camper says:

    in the first Psak Din above (dated כ”ז תמוז תשנ”ו) the Bath Din writes that this case should only be judged in a Beth Din.
    spritzer clearly went against that Psak by taking the other parties to court.
    he claims he got permission from Beth din, then the question remains, can’t the beth Din make up it’s mind, one day no the next yes (what type of beth din is that?).

    or it could be that as always Mr.spritzer is lying and the beth din never gave him permission and he, the man claiming to be a big “koved harabonim” is the one and ONLY disrespecting the beth din and doing as he wishes.
    He talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.

  3. machanemenachem says:

    disrespecting?
    I’ll show you disrespecting!

    Mr. spritzer had the Chutzpa to forge fake Psak Dinim and tried to fool the court with it claiming the the beth din Paskend for him.

    The judge didn’t even want to look at that “psak” and didn’t even put it in his folder.
    He totally disregarded it, seeing it for what it was, a fake written by spritzer himself.
    (coming up)

  4. daas hakohol says:

    daas hakohol the “people” who pretend to be “koved Harabonim”
    when only it fits their agenda Etc…VDAL.

    Just see what a joke they make of themselves
    http://www.daashakohol.com/OLDindex.php/archives/155

  5. daas hakohol says:

    DH wrote:

    “To fully understand the significance of the Camp’s opening some history is in order. Over a decade ago, Meir Hershkop and Yankel Spritzer started a camp, called Machne Menachem to benefit the community by offering low-cost camp tuitions to community residents. Within several years a struggle for control of the camp took place in the Beis Din of Crown Heights, and, amidst charges of refusal to comply with the psak din, landed in the secular Court system. This struggle has continued over the last 10 years.”

    I want one example of a time the Hershkops, Heber and Goldman the original directors of Machne Menachem did “not Comply with the psak din”?!!

    For a story that took over ten years, I must say I’m very impressed that DH who by the way is ran by Yaakov Herzog one of the Mossrim that tried to falsely testify against the Rightful owners of the camp, was able to describe the whole 10 years in just 7 lines (each line must be against each year this case was in federal court). I wonder what he might be leaving out (perhaps a few but small details).

  6. Camper says:

    How is it that the exact people who preach and “hold the badge” of “koved Harabonim” are the only ones responsible for the destruction of the Rabonim?

    Don’t believe?

    Just look back at every Machlokes made in the name of the Rabonim (who are the people involved)?.
    Just look at who in realty don’t listen to the Rabonim.
    Just look at who keeps going to court,
    after the same Rabonim they claim to be respecting and even spilling Jewish blood in the name of “koved Harbonim” say they can’t and should not go to court!

    Spritzer keeps laughing and spitting in the Rabonims faces yet parents will send their kids to the camp he stoled because he is a Rabonim Man? Does that make any sense to you?

  7. no need to know says:

    question 1:
    why was the psak on the nihul only temporary, who decides that?
    question 2:
    I looked into the cast spritzer brougnt to the goyishe courts, its not about the camp, its a money issue (even if he’s wrong about that, what’s that have to do with the camp administration?)
    question 3:
    from all the above piskei dinim, I see that spritzer is the administrator and director… so what’s this website all about?
    I thought you were going to prove that the camp belongs to you…
    question 4:
    the fact that the judge didn’t respect the psak shows that its forged?! also, why don’t you have Rabbi Osdoba or Rabbi Mangel sign a letter stating that it’s forged?!

  8. machanemenachem says:

    This (bellow) was already written above, with the Psak (but some chose to not read and just comment).

    “On 10 Kislev. 5757 (1996), the Beth Din issued a ruling emphasizing that this “only referred to the management of the camp (not the financial aspects, for which there has to be a separate session).” Based on opinions expressed by several educators, they ruled that Spritzer should administer the camp rather then Meir Hershkop or Hartman.

    At that Din Torah, none of the original members of the camp’s board of directors – Shmuel Heber, Mendle Hershkop or Yosef Goldman – Participated except for Spritzer, and neither the Din Torah nor the ruling dealt with ownership of the camp” (from PMM booklet)

    The Din Torah was not addressing the board of directors. Meir Hershkop and Levi Hartman were not part of the board of directors (at the time of the Din Torahs and Psak), S. Heber, M.Hershkop and Yosef Goldman were not even by any of those Din Torah, therefore the “psak” is not including them (for they were not part of the Din Torahs to begin with).
    To use this Psak as a proof that spritzer got the camp is stupid, as spritzer knew himself and that is why he went to court, to gain full control (and try to throw out the other board of directors).

    The argument about “Niyol” or Balos” is therefor irrelevant (to the actual board of directors of the camp, S. Heber, Y.Goldman and M.Hershkop).

    Again, I remind people to read EVERYTHING before you start with your comments and questions.

  9. machanemenachem says:

    Reminder:
    If Spritzer would have not went to court (and lost)
    he would have had the camp Machne Menachem till today (if the Din Torah would for some reason or another not have continued).

  10. noneedtoknow says:

    to MM:
    Based on what you wrote above, maybe Rabbi Raitport’s psak isnt revelent as well, because spritzer wasn’t there when they made the psak….
    Duuuhh… you don’t have to BE THERE to validate the psak, the beis din SENDS you the letter and thats fine…

    also, what are you trieng to say by saying that spritzer would still be the owner…

    another thing, in spritzer’s “mesirah” – as you call it, it mentions the freezing of accounts… is that made up as well? the court proboly didn’t follow up on it, even thou in the courts runling clearly states that they must unfreeze the accounts…
    abviulsy, there was something before that your hiding..

  11. machnemenachem says:

    to: noneedtoknow

    you need to go back up and read every single Psak and letter line by line, if you have to read them four times, then read them four times.

    All the So called “good questions” you have, were already brought by spritzer himself, in front of the Judge in Federal court and denied.
    It was brought by Spritzer in front of the Crown Heights Bais Din, and it was denied (he was sent to a Din Torah, nevertheless).
    All these complaints and Taynes were and are being brought in to the Monsey Bais din, and being denied.

    Let the man himself come in front of a Bais Din and say what he has to say, in person.

    No matter what you say or ask and no matter how good your point might seem, the real question will always remain…you got it all figured out,
    Why not come to Bais Din and state your claims?

  12. Camper says:

    ….That examination, too, explored the implications of rulings of the rabbinical court (Beth Din) which were disputed and which this Court characterized on previous occasions as being vague, ambiguous and of questionable efficacy for a bearing upon the discrete issue before this Court. (Tr. Oct. 15, 2001 at 95).

    (From Judge Glasser Verdict) –

    read the whole thing, it’s worth the read,
    Plus you will learn a lot.

  13. noneedtoknow wrote

    …abviulsy, there was something before that your hiding…

    Everything that happened in court is public record, anybody can obtain them.

    Now (you made a statement),Please, tell us, what is it that you thing I might be hiding?
    I’m waiting!

  14. Camper says:

    “Fear and anxiety are magnified when there is more than one option open to us”.

    If Spritzer thought that “the cat was in the bag”, that the camp was %100 his (fair and square), then he would be more then glad to come to a Din Torah and get it over with.
    Since he knows that there is a big chance he would loss, he is trying to avoid any true judgments.

    I’m ready to bet, he will never go to ANY Din Torah, no matter what!

  15. Rambam says:

    הלכות סנהדרין פרק שלושה ועשרים
    ט. כל דיין שאינו דן דין אמת לאמתו גורם לשכינה שתסתלק מישראל וכל דיין שנוטל מזה ונותן לזה שלא כדין הקדוש ברוך הוא גובה ממנו נפשות שנאמר וקבע את קובעיהם נפש וכל דיין שדן דין אמת לאמתו אפילו שעה אחת כאילו תקן את כל העולם כולו וגורם לשכינה שתשרה בישראל שנאמר אלהים נצב בעדת אל ושמא יאמר הדיין מה לי ולצרה הזאת תלמוד לומר ועמכם בדבר משפט אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות

  16. Chaim H. says:

    “There are those who say that asking Rabbonim for an explanation of their Psak Din is a Chutzpa, and they owe no one a mehaichan dantuni. Where do these prople find a source in Shulchan Aruch for their position? On what basis do they make the claim that a Rov does not have to answer for his actions? I hear this Sicha being quoted and that Sicha being quoted; the Rebbe said such wonderful things about the election of Rabbonim, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless the Rebbe did not create new standards Chas V’shalom for these Rabbonim. The Rebbe desired and demanded thet they conform to the same standards of Shulchan Aruch as all Rabbonim and Gedolei Yisroel have for thousands of years. One of those standards is that when a Rov is asked mehaichan dantuni he must respond and show sources. To say otherwise is to put the Rov on a pedestal which is even higher then the Shulchan Aruch, G-d forbid. To say so in the Rebbe’s name, is dishonest and the antithesis of his stated position”.

    That being said let’s examine the Psak Din of 10 Kislev 5757 (Nov 21, 1996)…

    The Bais Din Writes…

    This judgment concerns only the administrative aspect (and not the financial aspect which requires a separate judgment)

    From What I was told and from [actually] listening to the recordings of the Din Torahs (what ever was left of them anyways), that does not seem to be the case, that is not the fact of the matter. The Din Torahs were about the “financial aspects” of the camp. The rightful owner’s [initially] took Mr. Spritzer to a Din Torah with the claim that he was stealing money. How did the Din Torah turn in to one “concerning only the Administrative aspects”?

    The Bais Din Writes…

    and it is not for this that we requested expert opinion, and where we did request the opinion of several experts in the area of education… so that they may vote in a secret ballot which of the above parties is better fitted to administer etc., and indeed they voted as was mentioned above, and besides three who had a blank ballot all the rest (which is the majority) voted for Spritzer (and his colleagues).

    Were these so called “experts” by the Din Torahs? Did these so called “experts” hear from both sides (Hershkop and Spritzer)? Did these “experts” ever work for both Hershkop and Spritzer (and are now basing their “expert” opinion on actual experience)? Are these “experts” experts in Halacha/ Shulchan Aruch? What was their reasoning behind this bogus decision?

    The Bais Din Writes…

    An additional thing that the above mentioned educators (even those who abstained) wrote on the ballot was that the status of the camp should be public…”

    What gives them the right to make this additional decision? Are they part of the board of directors? Did they invest money? What is the basis of this decision?

    Bederech Agave…
    Listening to the tapes, I noticed that Spritzer suggested they do all the things they did above, (asking outside “experts” what to do etc…). It seems that Mr.Spritzer was running the Din Torah and ordering the Rabonim/Bais Din what to do next. And that they did!

    Also, What ever happened to this ruling of the “status of the camp should be public”?
    What ever happened to all the other rulings of the Bais Din Demanding Spritzer give books a records? etc…

    [Hopefully soon (with Hashems help) you will have the opportunity to listen to these Din Torahs for yourselves and come to your own conclusions].
    Hopefully soon Spritzer will man-up and actually, finally show up for a proper Din Torah to face true justice [for all]!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: