Comments on: Court’s Ombudsman Calls for Dayan Sherman’s Dismissal

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:57:36 +0000

It is worthwhile noting, that Rabbi Avrohom Sherman is a past IDF Rabbi and spent a sabbatical at YU. So we are not dealing with some chareidi Rabbi.

The whole business of the conversion business operated by the Israeli Rabbinut stinks to hugh heaven, and you don’t have to look past their own daled amos to see this.

This is regardless of whatever the halachic procedures being followed by these Rabbinut courts (by Rabbi Druckman or Rabbi Sherman) were proper or not (which I haven’t commented on here or previously.)

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:17:03 +0000

#5,

My point was her self-contradictory statement I made reference to in my first sentence.

By: cantoresq

cantoresq — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:59:00 +0000

I think it’s a mistate to further politicize this mess. There are better systemic ways to address the problems created by Dayan Sherman. If Dayan Sherman should be disciplined, it should be for deliberately issuing a ruling on a matter not before him; namely the validity of all the conversions performed by the Conversion Court, as opposed to the validity of the one case before him. But that, it would seem, is an internal matter best left to R. Amar to handle. That’s nto to say he should not be removed from the bench; but if he is to be removed, it should be R. Amar’s office

By: stan the man

stan the man — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:54:02 +0000

Justice “Tova” contradicts herself claiming “she is not at all entering into the legal or halachic aspects of Rabbi Sherman’s verdict” but that “she is of the opinion that Rabbi Sherman should have called for certain proofs and witnesses”. That IS entering into the legal or halachic aspects of the case.

Noting that a dayan does not listen to two sides or witnesses is NOT a legal or halachic aspects it is just using BRAINS. Rav Sherman could have gone about this in a proper derech hatorah and avoided all these complications.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:41:07 +0000

But then again, what more is to be expected from a secular court, with a woman “judge” to boot, thinking its opinions on halachic matters are of any relevance.