How Corrupt Are Israel's Rabbinic Courts? Going To The Gutter With Haredi Rabbi Avraham Sherman

Very.

And here is a great example of that corruption involving none other than Rabbi Avraham Sherman, the haredi rabbinic judge who invalidated conversions done by the head of the Conversion Authority Rabbi Haim Druckman…

Ben Chorin reports:

One of the main arguments put forward by R. Avraham Sherman against R. Druckman's conversions is that R. Druckman signed on conversions at which he was not present. This was a technical matter since it is not disputed that three dayanim were present at each of those conversions.

As they say: kol haposel bemumo posel. I am holding in my hand a document written by the Commissioner of Complaints against Judges, Tova Strassberg-Cohen, and signed by her on March 31, 2008. The document is a response to a complaint against a panel of dayanim sitting on a case involving a divorce dispute.

The whole panel seems to have been out of control: they heard testimony in the presence of only one side, neglected to keep protocols, and so on. But the main complaints involve the aforementioned R. Sherman (RAS).

First of all, RAS failed to disclose that one of the lawyers appearing before him was at the same time representing his daughter in front of another court. When this was discovered, he was asked by Rav Amar to cease hearing the case. RAS simply ignored Rav Amar's request.

Second, RAS signed the ruling despite not attending a session of the court at which testimony was heard.…

Corrupt! Corrupt! Corrupt! A-donai Tzeva-ot, melo khol ha'aretz kevodo!

Comments

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.Moshiach.ws]

B"H
1) You owe me a hat tip for this story as I just emailed it to you.
2)the comments under the post on Ben Chorin shed extra light on that case.

[Smelly Tushie]

1. You're banned - go away
2. blah blah blah
3. yada yada yad

...ho hum...

[Garnel Ironheart]

It seems that for some, rules and honesty are for other people to follow.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I like Ariel, and wish he wasn't banned. But if you're going to ban him, and he is going to ignore you, why not delete his comments? You have to be more consistent in enforcing your rules.

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.Moshiach.ws]

B"H

1. You're banned - go away
2. blah blah blah
3. yada yada yad

...ho hum...

Posted by: Smelly Tushie | June 06, 2008 at 06:52 AM

Even if Shmaryah bans me from commenting
(which is not really so since as Yochanan points out he is not deleting my comments)he should still give me hat tips if I email him an article. I know he most likely got it from me 1st because the article has been posted on Ben Chorin on May 25 and I read it few hours ago and forwarded it to Shmaryah by email and he immediately published it.

[YDE]

Sokolovsky - you have a secured equity in all the disgusting Goebbelsian vomit spewed by the locals here on hourly basis. You seem to enjoy basking in it, eh ...

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

Please read the JPost.com article cited at the bottom of the 10:41 AM comment by "Ben Bayit" on the relevant Ben Chorin blog of 5-25-08:

May 31, 2008 23:48 | Updated Jun 1, 2008 5:23

Rabbi: Rabbinic courts unjust, corrupt
By RUTH EGLASH

...Bryskman said that several factors surrounding the three judges and their decisions raised serious questions as to the legitimacy and fairness of his son's treatment in the case, which was first heard by the lower Jerusalem Rabbinic Court in July 2005.

He pointed out that ombudsman Judge Tovah Strasburg-Cohen, who deals with complaints against rabbinic judges, has already investigated his son's case and severely criticized the fact that anonymous witnesses were called, outside of the usual procedure; the fact that one of the judges had approved the decision without being at the hearing; and that one judge, Rabbi Avraham Sherman, was employing the same lawyer for his daughter who was representing Meir Bryskman's wife.

...The rabbinic court responded, however,...

The spokeswoman also said that Sherman had no connection to the said lawyer in Strasburg-Cohen's report and that all the witnesses were heard following the court's normal procedure...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212041440001&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Shmarya]

Let's see.

One one hand we have a JPost columnist who has not seen the Strassbourg-Cohen document – she's only heard about it.

On the other hand, we have a blogger who has said document in his hand as he writes.

The blogger says the document names Sherman and reprimands him for failing to hear all testimony, for calling amny anonymous witnesses and for failing to recuse himself from the case when it was necessary.

You want us to believe the court spokesperson quoted (anonymously, no less) by the Post, but not the blogger holding the document in his hand.

Understand that.

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

I understand what you are saying, Shmarya.

I am merely pointing out that Eglash reported on JPost.com that "The [rabbinic court?] spokeswoman...said that Sherman had no connection to the said lawyer in Strasburg-Cohen's report..."

In journalism, that's what's called a denial, and it deserves to be reported, as Eglash did, although the denial should have been placed much higher up in the JPost article, immediately after the relevant accusation, claim or assertion by Rabbi Moshe Zalman Bryskman, whose son Meir is reportedly involved a high profile divorce dispute in Israel.

The relevant "Ben Chorin" blog of 5-25-08 is written in a casual and decidedly
non- journalistic style; "Ben Chorin" does not explicitly attribute the findings or allegations that he outlines on his blog to the document he says he holds in his hand "written by the Commissioner of Complaints against Judges, Tova Strassberg-Cohen, and signed by her on March 31, 2008."

Ben Chorin continues, "The document is a response to a complaint against a panel of dayanim sitting on a case involving a divorce dispute." Ben Chorin does not name the divorce case that he and the document are discussing, however. He does not say it's the Meir Bryskman divorce case, and maybe it isn't, although it seems likely that it is.

I am not disputing the claim that the document names Sherman, so why are you focusing on that?

I am not attempting here to defend or attack anyone or any position regarding the conversion validity issue, but rather to clarify the way this issue and the facts surrounding it are being reported here and elsewhere.

[Shmarya]

In journalism, that's what's called a denial, and it deserves to be reported, as Eglash did, although the denial should have been placed much higher up in the JPost article, immediately after the relevant accusation, claim or assertion by Rabbi Moshe Zalman Bryskman, whose son Meir is reportedly involved a high profile divorce dispute in Israel.

No.

I understand this stretches you a bit, but I'll try agasin.

The Post did not have access to the document. Ben Chorin did.

The document names Sherman.

There is nothing to deny.

What I could have done is showed how the court spokesperson lied to the Post, and was able to do so because the Post did not have the document.

Understand that.

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

Shmarya,

Whether the spokeswoman was telling the truth or not is a question of fact. The denial should be reported, however, in any event.

Maybe Mr. or Ms. "Ben (is that short for Benjamin?) Chorin", whoever he or she is, misinterpreted or misunderstood the document he or she read. Maybe he/she mistook an allegation for a finding of fact. You have no way of knowing that one way or the other at this point in time.

And yes, I know what Ben Chorin means...I think.

[Shmarya]

Again, the "denial" was not made in response to the document.

Further, the information linking Sherman to that document has been public for two weeks.

The Post, however, was unaware of it.

The only "denial" was given to the Post, but, again, not in response to the document.

And Ben Chorin is more qualified to read and understand the document and its context than any Post staffer is (outside of, perhaps, Matthew Wagner).

What you do not grasp is, I think, obvious to almost anyone else – a denial issued in absence of the facts is not a denial.

To report that "denial" as you wish it to be reported is not only wrong, but criminal.

Why?

Because the readers have the right to know that "denial" was made to a reporter who did not have the facts or the document.

Would the court spokesman have made the same "denail" if Eglash held the document in her hand while speaking to him?

Of course not.

If this is still too much for you, look at it this way.

A man, x, steals a car. A reporter, told by the car's owner that "x stole my car," asks x if, indeed, he did it.

x denies stealing the car.

Meanwhile, another reporter has clear surveillance video that shows x breaking into the car and stealing it, and he has a police report naming x as the thief. He reports this.

In your mind, you want the second reporter to report that x denied committing the crime. And, you want that denial to be given equal weight with the "allegations" as if either possibility – x is the thief or x is innocent – were equally true.

No responsible newspaper would do this. No journalism school teaches this.

Get it?

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

Shmarya,

What's obvious to me is that you have never seen the purported official document and are relying exclusively on the say-so of an anonymous blogger as to its supposed contents because that conforms with your a priori position.

Any spokeswoman's factual denial is therefore false, in your view, and need not and should not be reported.

The same JPost article that reports the spokeswoman's denial also first sets forth the claim by Rabbi Bryskman, who reportedly "pointed out that ombudsman Judge Tovah Strasburg-Cohen, who deals with complaints against rabbinic judges, has already investigated his son's case and severely criticized the fact that anonymous witnesses were called, outside of the usual procedure; the fact that one of the judges had approved the decision without being at the hearing; and that one judge, Rabbi Avraham Sherman, was employing the same lawyer for his daughter who was representing Meir Bryskman's wife."

Nevertheless, the JPost saw fit to print the spokeswoman's denial: "The spokeswoman also said that Sherman had no connection to the said lawyer in Strasburg-Cohen's report and that all the witnesses were heard following the court's normal procedure."

So you are now maintaining, based solely on Ben Chorin's May 25 blog, that the spokeswoman's denial was false and contrary to the facts, regardless of whether or not the spokeswoman was aware of the actual contents of Strasburg-Cohen's report.

[Shmarya]

Again:

1. The Post did not have the document.

2. Ben Chorin does have the document.

3. Any "denial" made to the Post – if it is reported – needs to be reported in its proper context, meaning the Post did not have the document or the evidence when the "denail" was made.

4. You want that denial reported out of context, in a way that favors Sherman and the religious courts.

5. The Post's report is a column. It is like a non-anonymous blog.

6. Ben Chorin, while anonymous, has been around for years and is extremely reliable.

7. Ben Chorin's report has been picked up by other bloggers, including Jeffrey Woolf of Bar Ilan University.

8. I understand this is difficult for you. But the fact remains – if any news outlet did what you wanted, it would be wrong.

It would be skewing the story in favor of Sherman and the courts, disregarding other evidence that puts Sherman in a bad light, and hurts the family in question.

9. No matter how much I think a get should be given without a fight, in not every case is the husband wrong.

In this case, with issues of conflict of interest and procedure evident, to skew the report to favor that judge and that court is criminal.

10. Again, Ben Chorin has the document. The Post does not. The history and the pattern back Ben Chorin and not the "denial" printed by the Post. Think about it.

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

Shmarya,

How can you say to me: "4. You want that denial reported out of context, in a way that favors Sherman and the religious courts."?

That's a lie. You have a lot of nerve to claim to know what I want.

What I want is for the official denial to be reported; then you can put it in context however you see fit.

[Shmarya]

How can you say to me: "4. You want that denial reported out of context, in a way that favors Sherman and the religious courts."?

Because you also wrote:

In journalism, that's what's called a denial, and it deserves to be reported, as Eglash did, although the denial should have been placed much higher up in the JPost article, immediately after the relevant accusation, claim or assertion by Rabbi Moshe Zalman Bryskman, whose son Meir is reportedly involved a high profile divorce dispute in Israel.

Now you can say you wouldn't ask me to do the same. Try that.

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

Shmarya,

Yes, as I said, "the denial should have been placed much higher up in the JPost article, immediately after the relevant accusation." That's where it belongs.

You can and should do the same and then put your "context" or explanation right after that.

As I said before, "I am not attempting here to defend or attack anyone or any position regarding the conversion validity issue, but rather to clarify the way this issue and the facts surrounding it are being reported here and elsewhere."

[Shmarya]

And you are wrong.

The "denial" is comparing apples to oranges, not apples to apples.

And, the "denial" is not true.

Yet you want me to elevate an unnamed spokesperson who is lying to and give him equal space with the document and the family's testimony.

No newspaper in the world would do this – unless the "denial" had been made with attribution.

Why?

Because it puts a documented lie on the same level as the truth.

Now, why did the Post have the "denial" so far down in the piece?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Post has experience with this source and took that denial as it properly should be taken – with a very large grain of salt.

Anyone who can write, "Maybe Mr. or Ms. "Ben (is that short for Benjamin?) Chorin", whoever he or she is, misinterpreted or misunderstood the document he or she read," has no business presuming to teach anyone – in Israel or elsewhere – what should and should not be reported.

You don't even begin to understand the players, the politics, the history or the fight.

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

Shmarya,

I think there's at least one player who I'm beginning to understand, and that's you.

You are willing to fight dirty and forego journalistic ethics to advance your "cause" -- a clear example of "the end justifies the means."

Good Shabbos.

[Shmarya]

Let's see if I can understand you:

1. The Commissioner of Complaints against Judges found gross irregularities in thw conduct of that religious court.

2. Three rabbinic judges sit on that court.

3. One of those three rabbinic judges is Sherman.

4. The Commissioner of Complaints against Judges found (at minimum) that a judge was not present when testimony for the family was given. Yet that judge ruled on the case anyway.

5. The Commissioner of Complaints against Judges also found the extreme overuse of anonymous witnesses against that family.

6. Ben Chorin has the document. Sherman is specifically named in it as the judge not hearing the testimony.

7. Sherman told to recuse himself due to conflict of interest by the president of the court. Sherman refused, and ruled anyway.

8. An anonymous spokesperson for that specific court (and not for the president, Rabbi Amar) denies to a different reporter Shernman is mentioned in that document. This different reporter does not have the document. Still, by the tone of her report and its structure, it is clear she does not believe this anonymous spokesperson.

9. You, with complete ignorance of the Israeli rabbinic court system, the players involved, the history and the context decide that I must follow some imagined rule you have in order to play "fair." Despite your denial, what you clearly asked me to do is to elevate that anonymous denial to the top of my piece, and to give it equal play with all the evidence against it.

10. As I pointed out several times, this is not the correct thing to do. It is completely unfair to the family involved, to others who have been hurt by those courts and by Rabbi Sherman.

11. If the spokesperson were not anonymous, there would be some cause to mention this "denial."

12. But why in God's name should an anonymous denial receive equal or near-equal footing with hard evidence and people who have gone on the record?

Are you really too blind to see this?

[Isaac Balbin]

Shmarya

An anonymous denial especially when published in a widely read paper should not be ignored. It should be quoted, and then questioned especially because it could be seen by others to be an attempt to cover up.

[Shmarya]

Not if he won't use his name and is speaking to a reporter without access to the facts.

If he were identified by his name or by his position (neither is true), I would have mentioned it.

[Isaac Balbin]

I guess you truly believe that readers will discount the story because of that. I think you are wrong. People like to adopt the where there is smoke there is fire approach, and they don't look to see if he smoke is real or not.

[Shmarya]

Not really.

I saw the Egalsh Post piece before I saw Ben Chorin.

I read Eglash and thought, who knows?, either side may be correct here. It does seem as if Eglash is tipping it toward Bryskman, but who knows?

The I saw Ben Chorin the next day.

Anyway, the idea of an anonymous denial from an official state body – especially in this case, a rabbinic court – is obscene.

The court has to stand for truth. If it cannot put its name on the denial, then the denial should be disregarded.

[Shmarya]

Most newspapers, BTW, would have refused to print that anonymous denial.

A court stands for truth and justice.

If it is accused of wrongdoing and those charges are false, they must be officially denied with attribution.

You see, among other issues, the anonymous "spokesperson" who denied the charges cannot be admonished or punished in any way for lying – he is anonymous.

So, for example, if that spokesperson happened to be Rabbi Sherman himself, and he lied to protect himself, but did so anonymously, he's free and clear.

On the other hand, if he lied using his own name, he would probably lose his job.

The same would be true for any judge or even the court's official spokesperson.

Allowing an anonymous denial allows these people to lie with impunity.

And there is no good counterbalancing reason to allow or print anonymous an anonymous denial.

[Shmarya]

All that said, I was way too hard on Yisroel-by-the-Bay.

[R]

Shmarya Yisroel-by-the-bay had a point.
How do you know BenChorin has the document? Did he send you it? Or photocopy it?
At the end of the day most everything is hearsay.

[Shmarya]

Because he's been around for years and has been completely trustworthy – that's why.

[Shmarya]

I asked a friend who is an experiienced working journalist about the anonymous denial.

The answer?

No responsible newspaper would have printed the anonymous denial to begin with, and I had no responsibility to print it.