Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Chasidus bans “informers” from using its facilities
- This topic has 69 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by n0mesorah.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 31, 2020 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #1866194commonsaychelParticipant
@n0m I was going make a comment about the bucherish mentality however I will answer in hopes that you will mature.
The Mosod control the gemach therefore the informer needs to come to the mosed to borrow the money, to rent the low cost hall they to reserve the place thru the shamas.
So no, this has teeth in it and from what I hear in bnai breq other mosdos are following the leadJune 1, 2020 1:21 am at 1:21 am #1866244skripkaParticipantNow if only we could get mosdos to ban people who don’t give their wives Gittin….
June 1, 2020 1:21 am at 1:21 am #1866266n0mesorahParticipantDear Common,
On the gemach, point taken. On the low cost hall, you rent the hall and agree that you did not moser. You pay the janitor. Your guest is one of those who called police. If you get found out, you just ask for your money back. Though it seems like you know a lot about this chassidus. And it seems to be a prudent group. If that is correct, than my reply to your comment was lopsided and immature. And I would not think they are playing games with these bans. But then it is not so comparable to what played out in other communities.P. S. Can you please tell us how they set up their corona-minyan?
June 1, 2020 1:21 am at 1:21 am #1866268Avi KParticipantCommon, it is not a matter a public record. I checked and found that the poster does not name names. I simply says “whoever”. Here is the Hebrew (I copied and pasted from an Israeli site):
מטעם ההנהלה הננו להודיע לכל מי שהיה לו או לביתו יד במסירות ובמלשינות, לאלו שהתפללו במנין, או בבית המדרש, או הליכה למקווה וכדומה, בין בקהילתנו ובין בקהילות אחרות, ואף על פי שקיבלו איזה שהוא היתר. אנו אוסרים עליו בכל תוקף דיני התורה, מליהנות מכל ענייני המוסדות לכל פרטיה.
Obviously they have no idea who called the police. They don’t even know if it was a member of their Chassidut or even a Litvak. Just as obviously no one will admit it. Thus, their declaration is a silly exercise that maybe makes them feel good but has no teeth.
June 1, 2020 7:27 am at 7:27 am #1866300n0mesorahParticipantDear Avi,
Even more problematic, is that they are talking about policing that happened in other communities. That does not seem responsible. They have no idea of the context in other places.BTW, What dinei hatorah are they referring to? Niddui, Neder, or Mesira?
June 1, 2020 8:20 am at 8:20 am #1866361commonsaychelParticipant@ av, its just the verbiage they use in Hebrew, they know EXACTLY who made the calls:
In Israel, the Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998, supported by the Freedom of Information Regulations, 5759-1999, controls freedom of information. It defines the bodies subject to the legislation by a set of listed categories – essentially, most public bodies – and provides for the government to publish a list of all affected bodies.
They filed FOILS and know who made the calls,
PS people are filing FOILS in the US as wellJune 1, 2020 11:48 am at 11:48 am #1866431Avi KParticipantWe do not rely on miracles. Who can say that he has such merit (see Iggrot Moshe Orach Chayyim 4;48 regarding buying life insurance)? Even if he is going to do a mitzva the merit does not help where danger is prevalent (Kiddushin 39b). Even Shmuel haNavi had to worry (Shmuel Alef 16:2). Besides here all of the people with whom he comes in contact require that level of merit.
June 1, 2020 2:44 pm at 2:44 pm #1866524commonsaychelParticipant@Avi K that’s in the eyes of the beholder, other people put informers at the level of lowest of the low.
And he can use merits for find a new gamach [if one will service a snitch] or a new social hallJune 1, 2020 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #1866609n0mesorahParticipantDear Common,
You advanced a narrative that Bohush was prudent about the risks. Then you spread the argument to everywhere else. Now that they seem brash, you put it back on the other side; how bad it is to inform.
Now that I saw a copy of the sign, I disagree. I have no reason to accept that they were spared. And the part about k’chol dinei hatorah has no obvious meaning. It sounds like every community were yidden made bad choices while others were sick and dying. Seems like an attempt to save face.June 1, 2020 6:54 pm at 6:54 pm #1866649commonsaychelParticipantDear N0m, I have neither the time or inclination to be busy with someone who keeps repeating himself. Unlike a bocherisher mentality of being busy with saving face or beating the system in the adult world people do things based on principle.
In this case they felt it appropriate to deny any benefit of its services to someone who they felt hurt them regardless of what motivated to do that.
FYI I got an email to stop supporting a certain charity founded by a Doctor and a certain charity founded by a Rabbi who encouraged meserah, I forward the email to my contact listJune 1, 2020 7:52 pm at 7:52 pm #1866695n0mesorahParticipantDear Common,
I am aware of your opinion. It ignores context. You find others with the same opinion, and then justify their context. Finally, you apply that logic everywhere, and you have a convincing case. I disagree. Here is the question on your opinion. If the informer gets no benefit (Nor does he want to harm another Jew.) can he be called a moser? Without hezek there can be no moser.June 1, 2020 9:25 pm at 9:25 pm #1866712commonsaychelParticipant@n0m, your know what? your 1000% right, they are just fine upstanding people who are civic minded.
And now bh these fine people will be banned from utilizing the services of this and two other mosdos who joined them.
Maybe next time the “fine upstanding civic minded people” will think twice before they do their thing.June 1, 2020 9:45 pm at 9:45 pm #1866724SchnitzelBigotParticipantRULE OF LAW!!!
Anyone trying to create anarchy and lawlessness by intimidating whistleblowers should be held accountable!June 2, 2020 9:22 am at 9:22 am #1866809n0mesorahParticipantDear Shnitzel,
Like our President.June 2, 2020 10:24 am at 10:24 am #1866855n0mesorahParticipantDear Common,
I do not dispute your stance about informing, I am unsure if I disagree with that part. From this conversation “they have every right to deny access”. I do not know of any right here.June 2, 2020 10:25 am at 10:25 am #1866852SchnitzelBigotParticipantDear n0mesorah:
Oh yeah? What about Benghazi?
June 2, 2020 10:34 am at 10:34 am #1866887n0mesorahParticipantDear Shnitzel,
1) YES! 2) Benghazi was a total disgrace. It is still mostly ignored. Thank you for bringing it up.June 2, 2020 11:36 am at 11:36 am #1866896MilhouseParticipantKechol dinei hatorah is very obvious — the right of a property owner to forbid others to derive benefit from his property.
And that also answers the question of whether this has teeth. By making this proclamation, any mosser, whether they know about him or not, who uses their facilities in any way, is a rosho and Hashem will punish him. If he at least pretends to himself to be an observant Jew, he will refrain of his own accord from using their facilities, just as he refrains from eating pork.
Ubiq, you are correct that R Chaim did say that those who ignore the guidelines, relying solely on Divine protection, are rodfim, but that is in the context of the previous question which was about those who break quarantine. Everyone knows that when you conduct a poll the order of the questions matters, and previous questions set the context for later ones. Respondents’ answers to later questions are influenced by the previous ones. So having first been asked about those who knowingly break quarantine, R Chaim’s mind was still in that context.
Even without that, there is a huge difference between someone who has made his own decision that what he is doing is not endangering anyone, and someone who merely says “Hashem will protect me”. It’s obvious that the latter is acting with complete hefkerus, and can therefore justly be called a rodef, while the former simply has a different opinion on the risks involved, which in hindsight can be said to have been proven correct.
June 2, 2020 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm #1866901MilhouseParticipantSkripa, the vast majority of those who don’t give their wives gittin are correct. Their wives are not entitled to gittin. Unless you’re one of those apikorsim who think that every wife is always entitled to a get whenever she wants one. That’s not how the Torah works. Even under NY law a person is not entitled to a divorce without cause; kol shekein under Torah law.
A woman (and since Rabbenu Gershom, also a man) who gets married is making a lifelong commitment from which, under normal circumstances, they can never be released without their partner’s free and willing consent. To break that they need special circumstances, and the accepted halocho is that a beis din may not order a man to give a get, or a woman to receive one, unless the case is one of those authorized in the gemoro. In all other cases, if someone wants a get they have to persuade their partner to agree, which means giving them whatever they’re demanding.
June 3, 2020 7:39 am at 7:39 am #1867323n0mesorahParticipantDear Milhouse,
“right of a property owner to forbid others” Neder? It is not a public building? Niddui? Was one made? Tnai? Do they write it into the contract? (It is not simple to give these halachic teeth.) -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.