מכתב חריף ביותר נגד הרב אליעזר ברלנד שהודה והורשע במעשים חמורים מתפרסם הערב בחתימתם של גדולי הדיינים בישראל הקורא לציבור להתרחק ולהישמר ממנו | זאת לאחר שנה וחצי של חקירת עדים ומתלוננות שהביאו למסקנה אחת ברורה; שעשה מעשים חמורים ביותר
אברמי פרלשטיין, כ”ז אייר תש”פ 21/05/2020 20:00
פסק דין חריף וחסר תקדים מתפרסם הערב (חמישי) מטעם שלושה בתי הדינים החרדים הגדולים בעולם, נגד הרב אליעזר ברלנד שכותרתו: “שומר נפשו ירחק ממנו ומחוייבים לפעול בזה”.
לאחר גביית עשרות עדויות וראיות שונות על הרב אליעזר ברלנד ובדיקה יסודית של עדות העד המרכזי בפרשת הרב ברלנד, שהורשע והודה במעשים חמורים ובתום סדרת דיונים שנמשכה קרוב לשנה וחצי – מפרסמים היום דייני בית הדין המיוחד: הגאון רבי שריאל רוזנברג, אב בית דין צדק בני ברק, הגאון רבי שמואל אליעזר שטרן, מגדולי הפוסקים ודיין בבית דין צדק ‘זכרון מאיר’, מיסודו של הגר”ש וואזנר זצ”ל ורב מערב העיר בני ברק, והגאון רבי יהודה פישר, דיין חשוב בבית הדין העדה החרדית בירושלים, החלטה נחרצת וחד משמעית.
לאחר תיאור תוכן העדויות בלשון נקיה כ”מעשים שלא ייעשו ומעשים חמורים ביותר” קובעים הדיינים: “ברור שעפ”י דעת תורתינו הקדושה מי שאינו שומר על דברים שהם מג’ חמורות ואביזרייהו שומר נפשו ירחק ממנו ומחויבים לפעול בזה”. להחלטה מצטרפים גאב”ד העדה החרדית הגאון רבי יצחק טוביה ווייס, ראש בית דין העדה החרדית הגאון רבי משה שטרנבוך, וגאב”ד זכרון מאיר הגאון רבי חיים מאיר הלוי וואזנר לצד רבה של בני ברק הגאון רבי שבח צבי רוזנבלט.
הצורך בהקמת בית הדין המיוחד התעורר לאחר שחסידיו של הרב אליעזר ברלנד טענו כי הרשעתו בבית משפט חילוני אינה קבילה מבחינה דתית וכי הרינונים אודות מעשיו הינם תוצאה של סכסוך פנימי בתוך חסידות ברסלב.
מתוך מודעות להיקף העצום של הבעיה ולצורך ביצירת סמכות דתית בעלת השפעה מוחצת, התאחדו שלושה בתי הדין החרדים הגדולים בעולם להקמת בית דין מיוחד לבירור הפרשייה.
ל’בחדרי חרדים’ נודע כי מתוך חשש לתגובות אלימות מצד חסידיו של הרב ברלנד הוזמנו העדים והמתלוננות בשלב ראשון למסור את עדותם ללא ידיעת הרב וחסידיו, רק לאחר שהתגבשה תשתית ראייתית מספיקה הוזמן הרב ברלנד רשמית לעימות חזיתי עם המתלוננות והשמעת טענותיו להאשמות נגדו, כשאת מכתב ההזמנה מגבים עוד תשעה מפוסקי הדור החשובים, המביעים את אמונם המלא בבית הדין המיוחד.
עוד נודע ל’בחדרי חרדים’ כי הרב ברלנד הביע את הסכמתו להתדיין בבית דין זה בתנאי שיפורסם מכתב שיורה על הפסקת ההשמצות נגדו, הדיינים הסכימו לפרסם את המכתב, אך הרב ברלנד לעומת זאת גרר רגליים ולא הסכים להופיע בעצמו בפני בית הדין, במקום זאת הוא ייפה את כוחם של שני נכדיו חיים רייכר וצפניה שינפלד, כטוען רבני גייס את הרב אבא טורצקי.
לצדם של העדים והמתלוננות הופיעו הרב צבי צוקר, חתנו של הרב ברלנד, והרב יום טוב חשין, רב בחסידות ברסלב ואחד מהאנשים הקרובים ביותר בעבר לרב ברלנד שעזבו את הרב.
השניים התחייבו בסכום של מיליון שקל כל אחד, אם הדיינים יתרשמו שהעדויות או הראיות אותם הביאו לבית הדין אינן אמיתיות.
היום, לאחר קרוב לשנה וחצי של גביית עדויות בדיקתם והצלבתם, יוצא כאמור בית הדין בפסק דין דרמטי: העדויות התקבלו, המעשים נעשו והם אכן חמורים ביותר, על כל אחד ואחת להתרחק ממנו ולפעול להרחקת הציבור ממנו.
הרב ברלנד נמצא בימים אלה במעצר בשל פרשה אחרת שבה הוחלט להגיש נגדו כתב אישום בגין עבירות מרמה מתוך כוונה להתחמק ממס, עבירות על חוק איסור הלבנת הון ועבירות נוספות, בכפוף לשימוע שייערך לו. בפרקליטות ציינו כי הוא עסק במתן שירותים כמו פדיונות נפש, ייעוץ גיוס תרומות וחוגי בית תמורת תשלום ונמנע מלדווח על הכנסות אלה לרשויות המס, ואף פעל להסתיר את הרכוש האסור.
“It’s a boy!” announced the doctor as he delivered the Jacobs’s first child.
“Baruch Hashem!” exclaimed Mr. Jacobs. “We get to do a bris and a pidyon haben!”
A week after the bris, Mr. Jacobs began arranging the pidyon haben. He bought five Silver Eagle U.S. dollars for the occasion, and arranged with his close neighbor, Mr. Cohen, to serve as the recipient Kohen.
During the course of the festive meal, Mr. Jacobs introduced Mr. Cohen to his brother-in-law and sister, who was holding a newborn.
“They also just had their first boy,” Mr. Jacobs said. “B’ezras Hashem, they will also be doing a pidyon in another two weeks!”
“How nice! Mazel tov!” exclaimed Mr. Cohen. “Do you live in the neighborhood?” he asked.
“Not at all,” laughed the brother-in-law. “We drove three hours to join in the simchah!”
“Indeed, a pidyon haben is a special simchah not frequently encountered,” commented Mr. Cohen. “It seems to run in your family, though.”
Mr. Cohen was also pleased to meet Rabbi Dayan, who attended the pidyon. They sat together at the head table, along with Mr. Jacobs and the grandparents. *
When the pidyon celebration was finishing, Mr. Cohen approached Mr. Jacobs. “I’d like to return the coins to you,” he said. “You can give them to your brother-in-law to use for his pidyon.”
“Thank you for the offer,” said Mr. Jacobs, “but how can you do that? If you return the money, my son won’t be redeemed anymore!”
Rabbi Dayan overheard the discussion. “What’s the issue?” he asked.
“I offered to return the coins to Mr. Jacobs,” Mr. Cohen said, “but he’s concerned that it would invalidate the redemption.”
“That’s not a problem,” replied Rabbi Dayan, “although it’s questionable whether it’s proper to return them on a regular basis.”
“I don’t understand” Mr. Jacobs wondered. “How is my son redeemed if Mr. Cohen returns the coins?”
“The Mishnah (Bechoros 51a) teaches that the Kohen is allowed to return the coins as a gift to the father,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “Once the Kohen receives them, they are his and the son is redeemed. The pidyon payment is not annulled when it is returned as a gift (C.M. 189:1; 245:10; Y.D. 305:8).
However, the Gemara relates an incident about Rabi Chanina, who would often return the money when the father lingered around, indicating his clear expectation to receive the money back. Rabi Chanina commented that this father did not give with full intention, so that the son would not be redeemed, because from the beginning the pidyon payment was never given sincerely, even for the moment (Taz and Shach, Y.D. 305:6).
Nonetheless, the Gemara (Kiddushin 6b) teaches that something given on condition to return (matanah al menas l’hachzir), is considered as having been given. For the duration of the giving, the intention is to grant full ownership. Thus, if the father explicitly stipulated with the Kohen that he is giving the coins on condition that he return them, the pidyon haben is valid. This is similar to the common practice of giving the lulav and esrog on the first day of Yom Tov as a matanah al menas l’hachzir (C.M. 241:6; Rashba, Responsa 1:198)
Shulchan Aruch writes, though, that the Kohen should not consistently return the money nor accept it with a stipulation to return it, so as not to cause a loss to other Kohanim. This can also lead to a situation that the father does not give with full intention or thinks that he only has to hand the money to the Kohen as a formality (Gra, Y.D. 305:13-14; Aruch Hashulchan 305:27).
“Some Acharonim recommend, nonetheless, that nowadays the Kohen should return the money,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “since the priestly lineage has become weak, he could be withholding money not rightfully his. However, others refute this opinion” (Pischei Teshuvah,Y.D. 305:12).
Verdict: After the Kohen receives the coins as a sincere pidyon, he can return them as a gift to the father.
_______________________________
*Editor’s note: This was BCE: Before the Corona Epidemic
ATLANTA, GA—CNN has retracted a recent report related to President Trump after realizing the article was 100% factual and as such did not reflect the editorial standards of the news organization.
CNN’s regular readership took to social media to demand a retraction after finding no obvious bias or slant to the piece.
“We just reported on what Trump did and things that were said,” Brian Stelter said in an on-air apology. “We realize now this was not consistent with what we’ve done in the past or who we are as a news organization. It was dangerous and irresponsible.”
All links to the piece were quickly pulled, and CNN assured its readers that it would never happen again.
Note from Daniel Alman: I originally made this blog post on May 5, 2020. At the time, there were 34 things on the list. Since them, on multiple occasions, I have added other things to the list. The last time that I updated this list was on May 22, 2020.
1) Sweden did not have a lockdown. Experts predicted that it would have 40,000 COVID-19 deaths by May 1. The actual number was 2,769.
4) Dr. Deborah Birx admitted that the lockdown was based on a false, gross overstatement of the true fatality rate.
These are her exact words:
“I think we underestimated, very early on, the number of asymptomatic cases. And I think we’re really beginning to understand there are people that get infected — that those symptoms are so low-grade that they don’t even know that they’re infected”
“The COVID-19 death risk in people <65 years old during the period of fatalities from the epidemic was equivalent to the death risk from driving between 9 miles per day (Germany) and 415 miles per day (New York City)”
Note from Daniel Alman: The above may be a good reason for a lockdown in the New York City metro area (which includes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut), but certainly not for the rest of the U.S. And certainly not for Germany.
9) A report by the United Nations cites the predicted harm that will happen to tens of millions of children in low income countries as a result of the COVID-19 global wide shutdown.
Examples of this harm to children include increases in malnutrition, loss of education, increased rates of teen pregnancy, reduced access to health care, reduced rates of vaccination, increased rates of infectious disease, increased rates of water borne illness, and increased rates of death:
14) As of April 22, 2020, New York and New Jersey, combined, accounted for more than half of U.S. COVID-19 deaths. Both of these states require nursing homes to admit patients who have tested positive for COVID-19. In my opinion, this policy constitutes mass murder. Instead of shutting everything down, New York and New Jersey should stop committing mass murder.
As of the afternoon of April 22, 2020, the U.S. has had a total of 46,771 deaths from COVID-19.
20,167 were in New York.
5,063 were in New Jersey.
In other words, as of April 22, 2020, these two states, combined, accounted for more than half of all COVID-19 deaths in the entire country.
Here’s a link to my source, with a screenshot. The screenshot was taken on the afternoon of April 22, 2020:
New York and New Jersey both have ordered nursing homes to admit patients regardless of their COVID-19 status.
In my opinion, this policy constitutes mass murder.
Nursing home patients are elderly. And they have major health conditions. No one is more vulnerable to dying from COVID-19 than people in nursing homes.
Ordering nursing homes to admit patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 is an extremely mean, dumb, stupid, irrational, irresponsible, and insane thing to do.
This policy has already killed a huge numbers of people.
And who knows how many more will die as a result.
Instead of shutting everything down, New York and New Jersey should stop committing mass murder.
15) Cancer surgeries and organ transplants are being put off for coronavirus
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY, 14th District) has called for nation-wide rent control. AOC’s plan is to not allow rent increases larger than 3% per year. This is somewhat surprising, given that she majored in economics at prestigious Boston University. I – along with virtually every other economics professor in the country — am always at great pains to present in my introductory to micro-economics courses the familiar supply and demand diagram. It demonstrates that rents below equilibrium levels create shortages. I suppose she missed that lecture. If so, she really should have obtained the class notes from someone else, and/or perused her introductory textbook.
Senator Bernie Sanders has, if anything, done her one better: he is calling for a national rent control policy. California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law a policy along similar lines: rent increases shall be limited to 5% annually, in addition to any inflationary increases; this is coupled with making it more difficult to evict tenants.
Present New York City policy is very much in keeping with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s plan. It has recently worsened its previous rather Draconian rent control legislation. The presumed aim is to help tenants. But, there is something in economics called “unintended consequences.” Translation: “the plans of mice and men often go astray.”
Suppose, instead of exacerbating its rent control regulations, that the city council of this great city had tried this sort of thing with a different consumer good. Suppose the Big Apple had passed a law placing a ceiling of $1 on a fast food meal.The obvious result would be that McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s and their ilk would pretty much vacate the entire city. Posit that the city council mandated that gas stations charge no more than $1 per gallon. A similar result would ensue. Denizens of the New York City would be greatly inconvenienced.
Mr. DeBlasio would never institute any such ridiculous initiative. He would be laughed out of office if he did. Why, then, does the mayor think he can get away with inculcating analogous rules for residential real estate? This is because while burger and gas emporiums can easily locate elsewhere, the same is not true for buildings. If the owners had their ‘druthers, and this were economically and legally possible, they would hoist their real estate holdings upon onto giant wheeled vehicles, and roll them out of the city as soon as possible. New York City would then have no more accommodation for tenants than it would have fast food outlets or gas stations, under our hypothetical contrary to fact scenarios.
Of course, landlords can do no such thing, much as they would like to; heck, they would give their eye teeth to be able to cock a snook at the politicians in this manner.
But this inability of landlords does not mean that rent controls have no adverse effects upon local residents. They can certainly build less new capacity than would otherwise be the case. They may be legally compelled to upkeep and maintain presently existing apartments, but they will do so only reluctantly. “The customer is always right” which prevails in most industries, and will continue to do so for commercial and industrial real estate, which lack such unwise price controls, but will not apply to residential units. They will fight like the dickens to convert their holdings to condominiums and cooperatives. They will have incentives to – how can I put this delicately – not to be too unhappy if their buildings accidentally catch fire. Do we really want to promote such incentives, whether or not they actually become implemented?
Vacancy rates will plummet even further, with these new dispensations. This will have negative repercussions on labor mobility, when occupants fear to give up their rent controlled units. There will be a tendency to convert apartments to stores, to industrial and commercial uses. New laws will have to be enacted to prevent this, and will not be totally successful. Landlord – tenant relations will plummet even further (not of course for non-controlled, non-residential units.) New York City already has special courts charged with solving these confrontations. This is something not at all needed in any other industry. These costs are substantial, and the money misallocated in this direction could have been far more wisely spent.
The economics profession is not unified on too many issues, but this one is an exception. Opposition to rent control stretches all the way from Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek on one stretch of the political spectrum, to several scholars on the very opposite side. For example, in the view of Nobel Prize winner in economics Gunner Myrdal, “Rent control has in certain western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.” And according to Assar Lindbeck, a Swedish economist, “In many cases, rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city except for bombing.” Almost as a follow up, Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach averred: “The Americans couldn’t destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by the very low rents.”
It is urged in favor of this policy that tenants are poorer than property owners, and, often, are compelled to spend an inordinate percentage of their salaries on rent. But, with fewer buildings being constructed, and more of them falling into disarray due to reduced maintenance, upward pressure on rent levels, paradoxically, will tend to be the result. It is an economic truism that the less supply, other things equal, the higher the price. There are no exceptions for housing, or based on the fact that this expenditure plays a large role in the budgets of poor and middle class householders.
In any case, we do not single out textile manufacturers and insist they alone help clothe the impoverished, that only grocers and restaurants feed them, that automobile, air conditioner and television purveyors all on their own make these products available to those who cannot afford them. All of these income transfers come out of general funds. I do not at all favor any of these policies, but fair is fair. Why should housing be any different? Why should landlords, alone, have to bear the entire burden of housing the poor?
Not only should these latest violations of private property rights be rescinded, but the entire notion that rent control can alleviate housing shortages and high fees should be confined to the dust bin not only of history, but of economics too. From a legal point of view, this is a taking. Landlords should be compensated for this seizure of the (value of) their property.
