Sunday, June 23, 2013

Analysis of the Pashkvil "From Under the Desk of the Badatz"

Analysis of the Pashkvil

We are presenting here some answers to the recent pashkvil that was disseminated as part of the series of personal attacks on Rabbi Braun called “From Under the Desk of the Badatz”. The pashkvil is full of such outright, and easily disproven, lies, distortions, and calumnies, that it should require no response. Yet, based on the principle that “the bigger the lie, the more some people believe it”, it would seem in order to point out its deceptions clearly. Most of the issues it raises are clearly shown as lies by simply referring to the documents already on the site.

It should be pointed out that many people feel it is common knowledge who the author of the pashkvil is, and that he is a signatory on the Shtar Birurin. If so, he would appear to be “m'sarev the Beis Din," for this pashkvil, as well as many more matters.

Charges Made in the Pashkvil

I. Fitness to be on the Beis Din

    1. Rabbi Braun does not have Semicha
    2. Rabbi Braun does not have shimush.
    3. There was no letter of recommendation.
    4. He did not meet the age requirement.
    5. He left his position in Sydney against the Rebbe's instructions.

Answer: All these objections were made to the Rosenberg Beis Din Zabla. All five Rabbonim heard the issues and discussed the case. All parties agreed to be bound by the decision of the Rabbonim and signed on the Shtar Birurin which can be found in the tabs on top of the screen. The Psak Din is also found in the tabs on top of the screen. In brief, it says that Rabbi Braun's semicha is valid, and that he was properly elected. Furthermore, all the Rabbonim must serve with him, and the kehilla is obligated to give him the proper kovod as Rav.

  1. Rabbi Heller was thrown off the Beis Din.
It is interesting to read this section of the pashkvil, as it says nothing. Who exactly is being accused of throwing out Rabbi Heller? How?

Answer: It is well known that Rabbi Heller resigned from the Beis Din many years ago, [as is even recounted in the pashkvil in the prior section!] and, despite many attempts to bring him back, including just before the elections, he refused. Furthermore, anyone can ask him directly, and Rabbi Heller will tell them this.

III.  Rabbi Zinner's letter of semicha was forged, and Rabbi Zinner confirmed this.

This section also accused Rabbi Rosenberg somehow of complicity in fraud, as well as that the psak din confirming the semicha was only from Rabbi Rosenberg.

Answer: This is the same answer as point I. Above. The complete Psak Din is in the tab at the top of the screen. It should also be noted that continuing to make these charges after the psak din was issued, and in light of signing the Shtar Birurin, amounts to being in the category of mesariv the Beis Din. It should also be noted, that when Rabbi Zinner was asked about Rabbi Braun's expertise in Torah and ability to rule on Torah law, he answered “Maybe better than me.” Anyone can verify Rabbi Zinner's opinion of Rabbi Braun's qualifications by asking him directly.

However, when Rabbi Zinner was put under tremendous pressure by certain elements in the community, he asked that the Semicha that he gave not be used to contribute to machlokis in the community. This issue was adjudicated by the Beis Din Zabla (see the Psak Din above) and it was ruled that the semicha is valid.

  1. Rabbi Rosenberg resigned from the Beis Din Zabla, and “members of the community” had the right to go to a different Beis Din. Specifically, they were allowed to call Rabbi Braun to the Beis Din of Rabbi Kraus.
Answer: Rabbi Rosenberg did not resign, on the contrary, he committed himself to continuing the Din Torah. However, he made several conditions. First, he wanted everyone to be present in person, (not to hold hearings on the phone,) all the Rabbonim and both sides. Second, he wanted all parties to agree to come, not that hazmonos would need to be issued. Third, all issues that either side wanted to bring up would be heard and rulings issued. In fact, a date in mid-August was agreed to by all parties.

This means that there is an ongoing Beis Din that is in the midst of adjudicating all issues and that both parties accepted their authority. Obviously, any claims to the contrary are false, and no other Beis Din can interfere, and certainly not issue binding hazmonos or rulings.

  1. Rabbi Braun, after Rabbi Rosenberg allegedly resigned from the Beis Din, served Rabbi Osdoba with a lawsuit.

Answer: Although the pashkvil is full of outright lies, this is probably the biggest among giants. The only legal actions pending are:
  1. The motion to record the Rosenberg Beis Din findings in the Courts, which the Beis Din explicitly specified, and which Rabbi Osdoba is fighting in the Courts. See the tabs above.
  2. A lawsuit that Rabbi Osdoba filed against Rabbi Braun. See the tabs above.