Comments on: HaRav Kupshitz Shlita Shuns Beit Shemesh Police Chief

By: emunah613

emunah613 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:43:16 +0000

The title of the article is not accurate if he did indeed meet with the police after interference from askanim. It makes the rav look wishy washy-he takes a stand and then capitulates. Obviously he only temporarily shunned the idea. I think it might have been worded in a way which was less inflammatory. “Rav reconsiders decision and decides to meet with police”.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 04:41:33 +0000

So you think you know better than the rov?!

By: emunah613

emunah613 — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 01:05:00 +0000

What a wasted opportunity! If the media were there, the residents of Nachal Umenucha could have made a huge kiddush Hashem by inviting them into a tisch, offering them a drink or a snack and showing them some true chesed! The only way to convince the secular media is by showing them how frum people really practice acts of kindness. Hopefully they will still have opportunity to do so, because after the Meah Shearim demo, the media will definitely return to BS. Imagine the headlines “we came to find fault and they overwhlemed us with kindness!” Every difficulty is an opportunity in disguise!

By: NotFrum

NotFrum — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:22:15 +0000

Cantoresq is both ignorant and foolish:

1. Israel has no constitition.

2. Haredim do have the right for tolerance, not anti-Semitism, from hilonim in a state founded as refuge for Jews of all types (not just for leftist hilonim).

3. The hilonim shuld have had the decency to observe the status quo with respect to the sign and buses, rather than taking perverse joy in trying to force haredim to violate their minhagim.

4. I am secular, but agree that the hilonim are going far out of their way to provoke (and defame) the haredim.

By the way, there are single-sex vehicles in a dozen countries, including Jpan and Mexico. The logic is that separating the sexes keeps men from getting misbehaving thoughts or actually misbehaving. The feminist left thinks this is good because it was proposed by the feminist left.

In Israel, there are mehadrin bueses. The logic is that separating the sexes keeps men from getting misbehaving thoughts or actually misbehaving. The feminist left thinks this is bad because it was proposed by haredim.

The feminist left are authoritarian hypocrites.

By: cantoresq

cantoresq — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:24:29 +0000

Actually, New Square has no legal right to segregate the streets as they do. Do not confuse the lack of a challenge to it, with legal authority. I’m confident that were anyone to challenge that ordinance in a court, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. But I’ll take keepsmiling’s logic at face value, and ask him/her the following: Do you support the right of a secular neighborhood to ban the construction of a schul, or to ban religious Jews from moving into the neighborhood, as part of “. . .every right to set rules according to the wishes and sensitivities of its inhabitants. . .?”

By: keepsmiling

keepsmiling — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:13:53 +0000

That the sign was hung unlawfully for 10 years is irrelevant. No one, not even the rabbi of the neighborhood, has the authority to limit public access to a sidewalk. Individuals do not own the streets. A reporter was perfectly within his rights in reporting this unlawful act. The police were within the law in taking down the sign. It ends there. No one should try to defend the indefensible. How might people here feel if there were a sign in front of the Meretz headquarters asking that chareidim not pass on the sidewalk and that they cross the street?
“Cantoresq” Excuse me, but what absolute nonsense, do you write?!?
This is a area designated to Charedi residents only, and has every right to set rules according to the wishes and sensitivities of it’s inhabitants, in the same way that US LAW has no problem with the fact that in the town of New Square, they have men on one side of the road with women on the other so that no man has to walk in a way that a women is walking facing him,it is self understood that a closed neighborhood such as ‘nachla umenucha’ beit shemesh has every right to act proudly a tru torah Jews and protect themselves in any way that is necessary. A shame to all those commenters that have trouble in understanding such basic values and are just into buying every piece of garbage the secular media is selling you….

By: lebidik yankel

lebidik yankel — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:27:10 +0000

Why does it seem to me that American Jews are lecturing their Israeli counterparts about acceptable behavior? Would it be appropriate if Rabbi Kopshitz would lecture American Jewry about their politics???

By: concernedbh

concernedbh — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:22:14 +0000

The reason this sign even came to the attention of anyone after 10 years is because of the chilul hashem being perpetarted by some nuts outside the Orot girls school. perhaps if that craziness was stopped before it got out of hand there would have been no reason for the secular media to come snooping around the sign 9as did not happen for the past 10 years apparently). In order to get the secular spotlight off the neighborhhod it would be good for the neighborhhod to strongly, uneqivocally, publicly and finally put a stop to the sikrikim whose disgusting uncivilized behavior no one supports. They are the ones who brought this upon the peaceful heliga neighborhhod -oy lerosho oy leshcheno.

By: rbsyid

rbsyid — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:55:05 +0000

Cantoresq, you obviously never saw the sign. There was nothing illegal about it and all it said was that women should not hang around on the sidewalk where the men come out of 3 shuls there.
The men want this and the women have no problem with it.

This is not New York. This is a totally chareidi neighborhood where everyone understands such a sign and respects it.
You have to understand that this incident was a totally anti-chareidi move and had nothing to do with law and rights etc..

By: oi way11

oi way11 — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:26:15 +0000

have you ever seen the sign? it respectfully asks the women not to stand in front of the shul that’s all. there is no limitation for anyone to walk there.
No one is getting upset at the separate toilets or dorms that men and woman have? every one can understand that. but that people make it more comfortable for women on a bus bye giving them the back seats, so not every proste guy has to stare at them, no now we men are fighting for our own right to stare at every married or unmarried women.