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

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)

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.

“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.

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

All 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 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!

Advertisement