A rabbi from Bet Shemesh, Rav Pinchas Shapira, an Av Beis Din of a beis din in RBS C (Gimmel), issued a psak regarding the death of Rav Chaim Meir Wosner.

I saw a very interesting psak written on a sign in shul (it is an advertising sign that has a section with a discussion of halachic issues), and Bechadrei is reporting on the same psak.

An incident happened in which someone collecting tzedakka money abroad for an Israeli yeshiva was mugged. The driver had dropped him off at the guest house where he was staying, and on his way up with his case containing the money he had collected 2 muggers attacked him and ran off with his case.

He called for help and people from around came over to assist him. He pointed at the muggers running away and said throwing his hands up in despair that he has been destroyed, all the money is lost.

A few of these avreichim chased after the muggers, and actually caught them and obtained the case of money which was returned to the grateful meshulach.. One of the avreichim mentioned, explaining how much of a chessed it really was, that because the meshulach had given up hope, really when they retrieved the case of money they could have kept it for themselves. Giving it back to the meshulach was really a tremendous chessed.

Upon the meshulach's return to Eretz Yisrael, he went to Rav Wosner to ask about that.

Rav Wosner paskened that it was not a chessed, but was rightfully his. his despair had no affect on the status of the money, because he had no authority to give up hope. The money was not his that his despair would change its ownership status. Because the money belonged to the yeshiva, only the owners of the money, the yeshiva administration, can give up hope and make it hefker, but because they had not even known about it, the money belonged to the yeshiva all along and those avreichim would not have been allowed to keep it.

It is not addressed in the psak, but I wonder about the percentage taken by the meshulach. if he takes 40% (or whatever the actual number is), perhaps 40% of the money returned should be considered a chessed. It might depend on whether all the money goes to the yeshiva, and then the yeshiva pays the collector his commission, or if the collector takes his commission off the top.

Owning an iPhone has been a source of conflict in the haredi community. It has even previously come to the point of such a person being disqualified as a witness for a wedding. Now, with the latest incident, one cannot even get an aliya in shul if he owns an iPhone.

Bechadrei is reporting that on Simchas Torah in Rav Wosners yeshiva in Bnei Braq, Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin, someone purchased the aliya of "Kol HaNe'arim" for, reportedly, $10,000. Someone else stepped forward and told Rav Chaim Wosner (the son of) that the buyer was the owner of an iPhone. Rav Chaim Wosner immediately cancelled the sale and ordered it to be auctioned off again.

I am still surprised that people who are such devoted followers of those rabbonim, the guy must have been a pretty devoted follower to be willing to pay $10k for the aliya in Rav Wosner's yeshiva, who hold such positions still are willing to not actually listen to them.

And, I wonder if they also refuse to accept donations from people with iPhones...


------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

Kikar is relating a story worth reading:
(my translation)

A shidduch was made in a hassidic community in chutz laaretz. Shortly after the shidduch was made, the groom discovered he had a serious illness. It was thankfully caught early, and a series of treatments was able to cure him.
The grooms family went to the family of the bride and offered them to back out of the shidduch - they would understand not hold it against them or bear a grudge.
The kalla, surprising everyone, said she refused to back out of it, as such a disease is not up to him. She could back out, find a new chosson, and who knows what will happen with him, how long he will live...
The chosson's family were happy to hear this, but still insisted she back out. they said that her agreement to continue is because of her sensitivity, but really she has the right to, and she should, back out of the shidduch.
Not being able to come to a decision agreeable to everybody, they decided to go to the beis din of Rav Wosner in Bnei Braq. When Rav Wosner heard what the case was about, he was so amazed that they would bring such a case to be debated that he said he insisted on sitting in the panel of judges hearing the case, despite not having done so for  along time already.
The families flew to Eretz Yisrael and appeared before the beis din, led by Rav Wosner himself.
Each side present told over the story and their perspective. Rav Wosner then said that because the kallah is healthy and the chosson went through the terrible experience of the sickness, clearly the shidduch was not made with the knowledge of the sickness in mind, so the kalla has the right to back out without any second thoughts.
The kalla got up and asked if she is obligated to dissolve the shidduch or only she can if she wants to. Rav Wosner answered that of course she is not obligated to back out, and if she insists on continuing with the shidduch she would be allowed to.
She said that if that is the case, she wants to continue the shidduch, but that she wants him to bless them that the shidduch should be successful and that the chosson should have a long and healthy life.
Rav Wosner broke down crying and said that a kalla like this "does not need my bracha". After such a heroic incident, "I dont need to bless you, but I want you to bless me that I should live long and merit to continue disseminating Torah."

When you consider that being in the hassidic community, and probably something close to Satmar if they flew to hear this in Rav Wosner's beis din, they probably had not met for much more than a very short time and probably only a couple of times (aka dates), it is unlikely their relationship was already at the point where she loved him, or respected him tremendously seeing his great potential or qualities.

To her he was probably a guy with a nice shidduch resume, maybe some yichus and a good reputation. She probably could have walked out and gotten more offers of guys very similar to him. She stood by him anyway.

She showed tremendous commitment and sensitivity in her decision.

I wish him good health and them a long life of happiness and fulfillment together.



------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

A few days ago I related a story that was spreading around Bnei Braq and had made it to the haredi websites. The story was of the mysterious death of a fruits and vegetables store owner who had refused to appear before Rav Wosner's beis din. The fellow died a few days later. The story was compared to the famous story of Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the divorce.

Well, it turns out, the story is not true. Not just inaccurate. Not true. Kikar is now reporting that the family went to Rav Wosner's beis din and requested clarification as to what happened. In response, Rav Wosner signed a document saying the story never happened at all, in any form. Rav Wosner writes, "Regarding what has been publicized recently as if the owner of a vegetable store had been summoned to a din torah and refused to appear. With this I want to clarify that this person had never been summoned to beis din, and he never refused to appear, and the entire story is completely false."

I guess the only true part of the story is that he died. I wonder if he was even harassing his neighboring store owner...

A spooky story reportedly happened in Bnei Braq recently.

According to Kikar's report, the City of Bnei Braq has been cracking down on shop owners who display their merchandise on the streets. This caused many stores to keep all their merchandise inside, to avoid fines, crowding the store. This is especially true of fruit and vegetable stores.

One such fruits and veggies shop made an offer to a neighboring store to buy his space so he could expand. Since he could no longer put his merchandise outside, his store was not big enough. Buying the neighboring store would allow him enough space to operate.

Despite various pressures applied by the fruit guy, and by known crime families on his behalf, the store owner refused all offers.

Eventually he could not take the threats any longer, so he went to Rav Wosner and laid it all out before him, describing the threats. Rav Wosner told him to open a case with the beis din and send a summons to the fruit guy.

The fruit guy refused to appear before the beis din, despite having been summoned a few times. All the while, he continued trying to put pressure and threats on the neighboring store to sell.

Rav Wosner's response to the refusal of the fruits guy to appear before beis din while continuing his harassment was to say "don't worry. If he refuses to be judged on this below, there is also a judgement up above."

A few days later the fruits and vegetables guy died of a heart attack.

This reminded me of the famous story of Rav Akiva Eiger, and Kikar compares it as well.

The story goes that Rav Akiva Eiger summoned a fellow who was refusing to give a get to his wife. The fellow came to hear Rabbi Eiger out, but he kept refusing to give the get. Rabbi Eiger told him there are three ways a man can marry a woman, by money, by contractual obligation and by sexual obligation, while there are only two ways to release a wife from marriage - by divorce or by death of the husband.

Supposedly, the story goes, that the fellow died of a heart attack on his way out of Rabbi Eiger's house.

I also know a modern-day story that happened a few years ago very similarly. A certain rav in America had a similar problem. he eventually got the fellow to agree to come talk, hoping he could convince him to give his wife the divorce. he continued refusing. Eventually the rav told him the story of Rav Akiva Eiger, and the fellow still refused. A few days later the fellow died.

Someone paying attention to advertisements on Israeli websites might notice that Optica Halperin is running advertisements for a huge end of the summer sale. For one week only glasses are something like 50% off.


It looks like it is a shiva sale. The owner of the chain of Optica Halperin, Rav Raphael Halperin, just died and his family is sitting shiva. According to the halacha they should be shutting the business for the week, especially because the identity of the business is so closely identified with him. It is not really a shiva sale, but an end of the summer sale. The point of the sale does not make a difference, but the chain should really be closed for the week of shiva.

The problem with closing Optica Halperin for the week is that it would incur a tremendous loss by doing so.

The solution, to allow Optica Halperin to stay open, is to allow a form of "hetter mechira". The business cannot be open as long as it is owned by the Halperin family. They asked Rav Wosner what they could do,as it would be a tremendous loss.

According to Bechadrei, the psak Rav Wosner gave them was that they could open the stores and operate as normal if they would, for one week and one day, legally change the ownership of the business to the family lawyer, someone they would trust to transfer it back at the end of the period.

So they did, and so the chain continues to operate.

So, at times, the hetter mechira is even used in Bnei Braq.

The frum newspapers are always full of advertisements for frum vacation packages, also known as "chufshat mehadrin". They go all sorts of places, from taking over hotels in Eilat, Tiberias, Safed, and even locations outside of the country such as in Turkey, Italy, Switzerland and other places. They advertise that they "kasher" the hotel and make it mehadrin for the duration of the vacation package.

That all might be coming to an end.

The Rabbinic Committee for Vacation Atmosphere (what don't they have a rabbinic committee for??) has decided to put an end to such vacation packages billing themselves as mehadrin. They have gone to Rav Wosner and presented before him the facts of a vacation package billing itself as mehadrin claiming to have created a mehadrin vacation for women in Eilat. They have shown Rav Wosner that there is nothign mehadrin about the vacation except perhaps the food.

The hotel is not taken over completely by the group, but there are other guests there as well, in there immodest attire. In addition, there are televisions in the rooms. Along with other problems such as people's behavior in the area and being outside where the atmosphere is far from mehadrin.

Based on their testimony, Rav Wosner has decided to publish a letter saying that these packages should not be considered mehadrin and people should avoid them.

The issue discussed was specifically the mehadrin vacation package in Eilat, but perhaps it applies in general to the mehadrin packages ion other locations as well. I don't see why it should be any different. All the cities and hotels have pubs and discos in the areas of the hotels, they all have swimming pools and attractions, and they all have international guests doing what they want and like to do.

Should a package vacation be called mehadrin if one has the ability to see televisions and immodestly clad people in the area, and have access to inappropriate places? If one goes to a restaurant that has a mehadrin, near his or her own house, what guarantee is there that immodest people wont come into the same restaurant to have a meal? There are discos and pubs and movie theaters not far from most mehadrin restaurants.

So if people are trusted to live their lives not going to inappropriate places (as deemed by whoever sets mehadrin standards) because they want to live bny mehadrin standards, and mehadrin is basically providing supervision on the food alone and not onlifestyle, so why should a vacation be any different? Why should they do more than provide mehadrin food and allow those people who wish to live by mehadrin standards (whatever they are) police themselves? Someone who does not want to watch tv will not. If their lifestyle does not include bar-hopping, they won't go to the bars nearby.

Why must the mehadrin hechsher take all that into account on vacation but not in real life?

I have no idea if this actually happened as reported or not, but it is being reported in the news so I get to comment.. (I should probably add this caveat to every post, then again that should be taken for granted on any blog, as bloggers are just commentators and not journalists).