Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 337

Friday, February 4 2000

• Smoking ban - humorout anecdote
• smoking
• Safek Sakkonas Nefashos
• Smoking Ban
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Re: smoking
• Smoking
• Re[2]: smoking
• wine
• smoking & dangers
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Re: smoking
• Re: Smoking
• Re: Smoking; Rabbinic Ban
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Fwd: URGENT Appeal II...

When I used to smoke cigars in the BM in Toronto at night Seder, one rebbe told 
me, it's a question whether he should move awayfrom me or if I should move away 
from me, because the g'moro debates whether the nizak should move away from the 
mazik or vice versa!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Smoking ban 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/4/2000 7:39 AM


Needless to say there is a categorical issur to smoke if this bothers 
someone else (see: Nishmat Avraham Choshen Mishpat "Din harchakat nezikim" 
Siman 155 #2  and in Orach Chaim 511 #1 where he quotes the Tzitz Eliezer 
to that effect).

Josh

> 
> Until 1964 (the year of the Surgeon General's report), most people 
> thought it was not clear that smoking adversely impacted health. I 
> did a paper on public smoking in 1977 or 1978 and I traveled to 
> Washington to meet with the pro (tobacco lobby) and anti (Action 
> on Smoking and Health) forces. The tobacco lobbiest with whom I 
> met (who did not smoke) argued that smoking was a matter of 
> choice, that it had not been proved dangerous and certainly that 
> second hand smoke had not been proved dangerous. And much of 
> the evidence that it IS dangerous was not in the public hands even 
> then. The tobacco companies knew it - the public (and the 
> Rabbonim) did not.
> 
Actually many years ago people thought smoking was healthy.
There are teshuvot on smoking on yomtov that use that theory.

> And if smoking is indeed a clear present danger please explain this to my 
> 89-year-old Mom who still smokes!
> 
Smoking is shown to be dangerous on the average. Not everyone is affected.
Does everyone who plays in traffic get killed?

> Lshitoscho that smoking is a clear and present danger:
> . it's just as abusrd for gedolim then to ban smoking as it is for them to ban 
> playing in trarfic!
> Elm mai?  Gedolim - for better for for worse - do not restate the obvious.
> And therefore their silence implies nothing legabei their hashkofo on smoking or
> Corvairs, rather that they do not speak unless there is no one other that will 
> speak up besides them.
> 
If a gadol was directly asked if one is allowed to play in traffic I would
hope he would say it is prohibited rather than avoiding the issue because
it is obviously wrong.


kol tuv,

Eli Turkel

I apologize for writing from memory, but it is pretty easy to sustain the
argument that safek sakonas nefashos is only forbidden when there is clear
and present danger, such as the archetypical case of Reish Lakish in the
Yerushalmi Terumos going to rescue captives from their captors - which was
only permitted for RL because of his past experience.

Another time safek sakonas nefashos (ssn) is permitted is for parnassa. One
is allowed to be misparnes as, say, a deep sea diver or a redwood tree
trimmer despite the inherent sakono.

The prohibition of long term SSN, as in smoking, is dubious. Unhealthy
behavior is frowned upon, but not forbidden. Indeed, remember that the
Gemara says in Tamid (I believe) that doctors were always present in the
Beis HaMikdosh because Kohanim ate unhealthy diets and walked around
barefoot in the winter, and were perenially ill. Yet this is obviously
laudable behavior. The tanna R' Tzadok fasted for forty years, making his
health quite precarious, but he is not criticized for that.

While smoking is generally not a mitzva (although the stories of the Besht
and his pipe might belie that), that chilluk is not mechalek. Al ha'machmir
l'hovi ra'ayos.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

Thanks RYGB! This is great!!!! I now have a basis for
not abiding by the rabbinical internet ban since it is
"bereft of any binding authority"!!!

>To the best of my knowledge, such authority is only
>vested in a Sanhedrin.


>But, to propose that a specific Rav, great as he may
>be, or even a group of
>Rabbonim, should ban smoking, is an interesting idea,
>but one that would be
>bereft of any binding authority.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In Avodah 4#336 (time for a rollover to Vol. 5? :-), RYGBechhofer wrote:
> If all the rabbonim of a region would collectively
impose a ban AND a majority of the tzibbur of that region would accept that
ban, it would be effective.
But, to propose that a specific Rav, great as he may be, or even a group of
Rabbonim, should ban smoking, is an interesting  idea, but one that would
be bereft of any binding authority. <
Would the same logic not apply to announcements made re TV, the Internet,
etc.?  As pointed out by Akiva Miller in response to RWolpoe, the dichotomy
isn't whether a group of Rabbonim (e.g. the Aidah haCharaidis) can issue a
ban on smoking, but whether they consider it proper to do so...and I have
to add how ironic it is that certain members of this list can subscribe to
overarching Da'as Torah on the one hand and criticize the lack, despite
years-old medical knowledge of the risks entailed by tobacco usage, of such
an issuance on the other: perhaps the Rabbonim from whom they seek issuance
actually have a valid reason or reasons for not doing so?

All the best (including wishes for a great Shabbos) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

>>>It is not clear to me.<<<

Maybe you can explain how you understand ushmartem es nafshoseichem?  Or the Rambam in Deyos 3:1 - 'tzarich ha'adam l'harchik et etzmo m'dvarim ham'abdin et haguf?  

Having no Sanhedrin is a red herring.  You need a Sanhedrin to institute a new takkanah.  Here the law exists already - determining what constitutes a danger to one's health is merely a giluy milsa.  Your reasoning is tantamount to saying we need a Sanhedrin to prohibit murder with a gun because Chazal only spoke of arrows (l'mashal).  

L'gabi retzicha where you need a ma'aseh, perhaps it makes sense to say it is only a gerama (as I alluded to last posting) if the effect is not immediate, but l'gabi ushmartem where the issur is causing one's health to be endangered - what difference should it make if the effect is immediate or long-term?  You need some mekoros to prove that.

> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:31:44 -0600
> From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Re: smoking
> 
> You certainly are allowed to do the former, and, the latter, only in the
> last stages would it be certifiably assur.

am I reading you right to say that you are allowed to run in front of a 
moving car????


> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
> 
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> To: Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>;
> <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:58 PM
> Subject: Re: smoking
> 
> 
> > On 3 Feb 00, at 13:34, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechh wrote:
> >
> > > While smoking is stupid and repugnant and may be forbidden when it
> bothers
> > > others, I cannot see an halachic justification for forbidding it in
> > > private or among fellow smokers.
> >
> > If I want to run out in the street in front of a car R"L, am I allowed to
> > do that? If I want to starve myself to death R"L, am I allowed to do
> > that?
> >
> > -- Carl


Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@netcom.com
   

Well Said: "tzarich ha'adam l'harchik *et etzmo*"

IOW we don't need gedolim to refrain from danger, we do it for ourselves just as
the Rambam says so!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: smoking 

>>>It is not clear to me.<<<

Maybe you can explain how you understand ushmartem es nafshoseichem?  Or the Ram
bam in Deyos 3:1 - 'tzarich ha'adam l'harchik et etzmo m'dvarim ham'abdin et hag
uf?  

> Subject: wine/water
> 
> Harry Weiss commented: 
> "
> We see throughout Shas that wine was always diluted and without this it
> was not drinkable.  I would imagine if that is because of the different
> growing /irrigation techniques that result in jucier grapes and
> winemaking techniques that result in less evaporation.    "
> 
> Claude Schochet

> This is really for historians, but I believe that wine was routinely 
> shipped and stored in concentrate in the Roman Empire - there are
> literary references to discussions at the beginning of dinner parties
> re whether to dilute the wine 4/1 or 5/1 with water. I presume that
> it was more cost effective to ship concentrates (as we see with juice 
> concentrates nowadays) and to add water just before consumption. 
> 

I recall someone mentioning that in Roman times wine contained harmful
ingredients from the processing. Water was added to make it drinkable
because of these additives.

Eli Turkel

> 
> To the best of my knowledge, such authority is only vested in a Sanhedrin.
> There was once a time when "Cherem Ha'Kehillos" was an affective
> alternative, but we no longer have organized kehillos with the capacity to
> impose such charomim. If all the rabbonim of a region would collectively
> impose a ban AND a majority of the tzibbur of that region would accept that
> ban, it would be effective.
> 
> But, to propose that a specific Rav, great as he may be, or even a group of
> Rabbonim, should ban smoking, is an interesting idea, but one that would be
> bereft of any binding authority.
> 
It would have the authority of the rabbis that issued the ban,
similar to internet pronouncements and many other such announcements
(eg working with secular Jewish organizations etc.).
I suggest looking at the buidings in Bnei Brak or Mea Shearim for
myriads of such posters on every conceivable topic.

> 
> 
> I agree completely. The leading Israeli Chareidi newspaper "Yated Ne'eman" 
> and the leading Chareidi magazine both regularly advertise cigarettes on 
> their weekend editions.
> 
I understood that the Shas newspaper no longer accepts cigarette advertising

> 
> So why stop at smoking
> 
> 1) Requiring Mammograms for women and prostate exams for men!
> 
> 2) Ban on shoveling snow frot those over 40  (I'm hoping that this catches on 
> because we have had a lot of sonw lately! <smile>)
> 
> 3) Prohibit Gribenes
> 
> 4) How about driving on Purim?
> 
> 5) Driving Corvairs 
> 
> 6) Driving without seatbelts or infant carseats.
> 
> 7) Riding the NYC Subway system
> 

I thought that driving on Purim was denounced by many rabbis. I understand
that many yeshivas now insist that the driver not drink.

There have also been periodic statements by various rabbis about driving
at excessive speeds. This happens whenevr there is a some major tragedy
in the charedi community due to a driving accident.
On a personal note I find driving in Bnei Brak worse than downtown Tel Aviv.

Eli Turkel

Correct. The only binding authority of any modern rabbinic announcment is
moral and persuasive, not legislative.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Levine <daniel2121_99@yahoo.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 9:22 AM
Subject: Smoking Ban


>
> Thanks RYGB! This is great!!!! I now have a basis for
> not abiding by the rabbinical internet ban since it is
> "bereft of any binding authority"!!!
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <C1A1Brown@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: smoking


> >>>It is not clear to me.<<<
>
> Maybe you can explain how you understand ushmartem es nafshoseichem?  Or
the Rambam in Deyos 3:1 - 'tzarich ha'adam
> l'harchik et etzmo m'dvarim ham'abdin et haguf?
>
I understand the pasuk to refer to G-d's incorporeality.

As to the Rambam, that language is not one of prohibition, but of caution.


> Having no Sanhedrin is a red herring.  You need a Sanhedrin to institute a
new takkanah.  Here the law exists already - determining > what constitutes
a danger to one's health is merely a giluy milsa.  Your reasoning is
tantamount to saying we need a Sanhedrin to
> prohibit murder with a gun because Chazal only spoke of arrows (l'mashal).
>

No, there is no such law here.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@netcom.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 11:44 AM
Subject: Smoking


> am I reading you right to say that you are allowed to run in front of a
> moving car????
>

Of course you are allowed to run in front of a moving car; people do it all
the time (to cross a street), and perhaps you have done so yourself. You (I
do not mean actually "you" per se, but am using the word as an impersonal
pronoun) took some degree of risk - at times foolhardy risks. You have done
the same in running yellow (red?) lights, passing at high speed, taking
tiyulim in Wadi Kelt (a frightening experience in ninth grade back in 1976 -
I thought it was quite likely that I would slip and fall to my death) or
riding roller coasters.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

RET makes the point, valid of course, that a rabbinic pronouncement would
have the moral and persuasive authority of the rabbis who sign it, just as
other rabbinic pronouncements.

But, here, RRW's point is very important, and must be expanded. We know from
the grand social experiment of Prohibition in the USA that such endeavors
are bound to failure. Massive legislation of that sort has a way of
backfiring. The only reason why by drugs the legislation, has ineffective as
it is, still works to a limited extent, is because drugs were never freely
available and widely used to the extent that alchohol and tobacco were and
still largely are.

Thus, for rabbinic pronouncements - that will not be backed by any
legislative or judicial authority - to be worthwhile, requires, at the very
least a situation analogous to drugs as opposed to alcohol. The Internet, in
the community in which these rabbinic pronouncements possess authority, is
still, as emerging technology, roughly analogous to drugs. Smoking, however,
is analogous to alchohol. A Prohibition (bereft of enforcement mechanisms to
boot) would be meaningless, and, perhaps, counterproductive.

So, unless it can be proven - and, in my opinion it cannot - that smoking is
against existing halacha me'd'orysa or me'd'rabbanan, I do not think the
rabbinic pronouncement route is a good idea.

But, I agree with RCW. A Ba'al Mussar, a "Sarid Asher Hashem Koreh", a
member of the Avodah list (hopefully synonymous terms) should definitely not
smoke.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:10:56AM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: Would the same logic not apply to announcements made re TV, the Internet,
: etc.?

WRT TV, the questions about the umdinah are fully in Rabbinic territory: does
the substance shown on TV qualify under the various applicable issurim. By
smoking, the question is primarily medical: How large of a risk is smoking?
The size of the halachic question is proportional to the wishy-washyness o
that first question.

I think the assertion being made is that we ought to know without a poseik
that it's assur. However, since precedent (based on faulty science) says
otherwise, we need recognized gedolim to speak up before societal norms will
change.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:08:43PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Correct. The only binding authority of any modern rabbinic announcment is
: moral and persuasive, not legislative.

What about interpretive? The question isn't only whether a takkana against
smoking ought to be made, but also whether one is needed. It may be (assuming
a chiyuv to preserve one's health) the announcement of a p'sak in pre-existing
halachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

----- Forwarded message from Yaakov Menken <menken@torah.org> -----
: To: Those helping the Dulbergs
: From: Yaakov Menken <menken@torah.org>
: Subject: URGENT Appeal II...

: The following is excerpted from a letter written by Jerusalem Post 
: commentator and Am Echad Israel Director Jonathan Rosenblum, a lawyer 
: closely following the Dulberg case. Once again, the two Dulberg girls 
: urgently need your letters, faxes and emails to preserve their civil 
: rights. Since you participated in the last letter-writing campaign (or, at 
: least, someone used your address), we hope you will participate again. [Let 
: me just re-emphasize that this is not 'spam.' Someone claimed to be you 
: when he or she used our on-line form to submit a letter previously.]

: The continuing injustices from the Italian justice system simply boggle the 
: mind -- it is hard to tell what deliberate maneuvering is going on, or if 
: this is a case of snap decisions built on misinformation. No matter how it 
: happened, basic Rights of the Child (as established by the UN) are being 
: trampled.

: In this new case, the Juvenile Court of Venice suddenly resumed legal 
: proceedings dating back to 1996, which were suspended -- on the request of 
: both parties -- because the court in Genoa was adjucating the case. When 
: they did so, they entirely failed to inform Mrs. Tali Rosenberg 
: (ex-Dulberg). Stunning beyond words, but they then used her failure to 
: respond (remember, she had never been informed) as a basis for their 
: decision! And their decision was... to remove all rights of guardianship of 
: Mrs. Rosenberg over her own children. This is an extraordinary measure 
: usually executed only against those who have physically or psychologically 
: abused their children.

: What remains clear is that several thousand faxes and emails are able to 
: override even Moshe Dulberg's apparently considerable political "pull" in 
: Italy. Your letters are urgently needed, once again. The appeal of _this_ 
: court decision will be in just two weeks -- please respond now!

: Our web site is http://www.torah.org/services/dulberg.asp , and you can 
: send your emails by following a link from there.

: In addition, Jonathan provides a list of fax numbers below. A good service 
: to know about: http://www.fax4free.com/ -- sign up, and you can send faxes 
: to anywhere in the US, for free! Please send emails _and_ faxes, soon!

: Yaakov Menken

: Dear Friends,

: There is an urgent need over the next two weeks to once again inundate the 
: Italian authorities with Emails, faxes, and letters. We know that our 
: efforts last time made a difference, and played a role in the decision of 
: the Genoa Appeals Court to reverse the Genoa Juvenile Court's draconian 
: judgment effectively cutting off the Mrs. Tali Pikan-Rosenberg from her 
: daughters. We heard from top figures in the Italian judicial system that 
: the volume of mail received in connection with this case was unprecedented, 
: and that the judges were acutely aware that they were operating with the 
: world spotlight upon them.

: As most of you probably know by now, the Genoa Appeals Court ruled that the 
: Juvenile Court never had proper jurisdiction to hear the custody dispute 
: between Moshe Dulberg and his former wife Mrs. Tali Pikan-Rosenberg. The 
: Juvenile Court had treated the case as one involving a couple who had never 
: been married, since the two were married in a religious ceremony in Israel. 
: Such ceremonies also constitute the only form of civil marriage in Israel, 
: but the Genoa Juvenile Court refused to take that into consideration, and 
: said that Italy only recognizes civil marriages.

: The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Italy must recognize any form of 
: civil marriage recognized by Israel, and therefore the custody dispute must 
: be heard in the Genoa Family Court and not the Juvenile Court as 
: previously. Since the Genoa Juvenile Court never had jurisdiction of the 
: case, its decision was rendered, at least in theory, null and void, as if 
: it had never been entered.

: In theory,  then, it should be possible for Mrs. Pikan-Rosenberg to claim 
: that as the parent in custody prior to the Genoa juvenile court proceedings 
: that the daughters should be returned to her custody.

: In practice, however, the Genoa Appeals Court ordered that the sisters 
: remain with their father, pending the outcome of further proceedings, and 
: set up a procedure whereby Mrs. Rosenberg can petition for various 
: modifications in the restrictions on the extent and the nature of her 
: contacts with her daughters.

: Vastly complicating  Mrs. Rosenberg's situation is the fact that just prior 
: to the Genoa Appeals Court decision, a juvenile court in Venice (an 
: entirely separate jurisdiction in the Italian federal structure) entered a 
: judgment removing Mrs. Rosenberg as guardian of her daughters. That 
: decision vastly strengthens Mr. Dulberg's hand, even in Genoa. He can argue 
: that it is unthinkable that the Genoa court should return the girls to 
: their mother as long as another jurisdiction in Italy does not even 
: recognize her as their legal guardian.

: The appeal of the Venice Juvenile Court decision is scheduled to be heard 
: on February 11. It is imperative that we act prior to that time just as we 
: did so successfully prior to the Genoa appeal.

: It should be noted that one of the issues on the appeal in Venice will be 
: precisely the same one decided in Mrs. Rosenberg's favor by the Genoa 
: Appeals Court. In Venice too, Dulberg commenced custody proceedings in 
: Juvenile Court, rather than Family Court, on the far-fetched ground that he 
: and Mrs. Rosenberg were never married civilly.  That position was already 
: rejected by the Genoa Appeals Court, and hopefully it will be similarly 
: rejected by the Venice Appeals Court. If it is, the judgment of the Venice 
: Juvenile Court would be rendered null and void.

: There are many other grounds to demand the reversal of the Venice judgment. 
: Every rule of due procedure was violated by the Venice Juvenile Court. 
: Neither Mrs. Rosenberg nor her representatives received any notice of the 
: proceedings in Venice.  The court sent notice to an address in Venice which 
: the court knew very well  had not been occupied by Mrs. Rosenberg in over 
: four years. Moreover, the court had been in frequent contact with Mrs. 
: Rosenberg's attorneys. Yet it did not bother to inform them of its 
: intention to reactivate "the file" and enter judgment in the case.

: In what must qualify for any short-list of chutzpah prizes, the Venice 
: Juvenile Court then cited Mrs. Rosenberg's failure to respond to any of 
: Dulberg's submissions as one of the grounds for its decision. In other 
: words, her failure to respond in proceedings about which she knew nothing 
: was used to justify the court's decision.

: Indeed the attorneys for both Mrs. Rosenberg and Dulberg had requested the 
: Venice court to relinquish jurisdiction of the case in light of the ongoing 
: proceedings in Genoa. (There is reason to suspect, however, that Dulberg's 
: attorney received advanced notice of the likelihood that Dulberg would lose 
: the appeal in Genoa, and secretly prevailed on the court in Venice to enter 
: judgment against Mrs. Rosenberg.)

: The Venice court had not conducted any hearings in the case in three years 
: at the time it entered its judgment. And it entered judgment without any 
: notice to Mrs. Rosenberg, even though her attorneys were in frequent 
: contact with the court, and the court knew where to notify her of any new 
: proceedings.

: On substantive grounds, the Venice Juvenile Court's decision is 
: unsupportable. Removing guardianship - as opposed to removing custody from 
: one parent or another -- is a radical step almost never taken by a court. 
: And that is especially so in cases like this one in which Mrs. Rosenberg 
: has always been her daughters primary caretaker and the close connection 
: between mother and daughters is uncontested. The Hague Convention under 
: which the sisters were originally returned to Italy specifically emphasizes 
: the importance for children of ongoing contact with both parents.

: Moreover, the Venice Court had no adequate basis for determining Mrs. 
: Rosenberg to be unfit to be a guardian of her daughters. The only 
: psychologist's report it had received in the case was nearly four  years 
: old and the psychologist herself explicitly stated that it was inadequate 
: to serve as a basis for a custody determination, much less one to remove 
: guardianship.  No  examination of the girls was ever conducted. Nor were 
: their views ever solicited, as required by the U.N. Convention on the 
: Rights of the Child.

: Recognizing the weak basis for its  own decision, the Venice Juvenile Court 
: sought to buttress its decision with reference to the purported findings of 
: various Israeli courts that Dulberg was the more fit guardian for the two 
: girls.

: No such determination was ever made by any Israeli court.  In paragraph 15 
: of the judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court, Justice Strassbourg-Cohen 
: made clear that the issue of custody would be adjudicated in Italy, and 
: that the only issue for the Israeli Supreme Court was to determine the 
: applicability of the Hague Convention. The Supreme Court was merely 
: reiterating the position of the Tel Aviv District Court, which also left 
: the determination of custody to the appropriate judicial authorities in 
: Italy (para. 47 of the District Court's judgment entered April 16, 1999.)

: In your letters, faxes, and Emails to the relevant Italian authorities (a 
: full list of which is attached), I would stress the due process violations, 
: in particular the failure to give proper notice to the mother and to hear 
: from her or her representatives. Moreover, the Venice Juvenile Court 
: entered an almost unprecedented judgment without examining any of the 
: parties or, even more importantly, the two sisters. That failure is 
: indefensible.

: I would stress that time is of the essence. The hearing is less than two 
: weeks away. Last week, criminal proceedings against Mrs. Rosenberg in 
: Venice were dropped, one more indication that the case has become something 
: of an embarrassment to the Italian authorities. We have every reason to 
: believe that your communications help - indeed that they have a very 
: powerful impact.

: Below is attached addresses to which you can write:

: When emailing, we ask that you please BCC (send a copy of your email to)
: respletters@torah.org so that we can accumulate as large a number of
: correspondence as possible to present to the Italian court and the Italian
: government.

: Mayor of Venice
: Maccimo Cacciari
: 011-39-041-2748111 (phone)
: 011-39-041-5200782 (fax)
: sindaco@comune.venezia.it

: Office of the Minister of Justice, Rome, Italy
: 011-39-06-68851 (phone)
: 011-39-06-5809352 (fax)

: Minister of Foreign Affairs
: Lamberto Dini
: 011-39-06-36912002 (phone)
: 011-39-06-36912006 (fax)

: Secretary of the Foreign Minister of Italy
: Fabrizio Rende
: rende@esteri.it

: Ambassador Francesco Paolo Fulci
: Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations
: 2 UN Plaza, 24th Floor
: New York, NY 10017
: 212-486-9191 (Phone)
: 212-486-1036 (Fax)
: E-mail at italy@un.int

: Counsellor Mauro Politi
: Mission of Italy to the United Nations
: 2 United Nations Plaza, 24th floor
: New York, NY 10017
: Fax: (212) 486-1036

: Ambassador Saleo
: Embassy of Italy
: 1601 Fuller Street, N.W.
: Washington, D.C. 20009
: Fax: 202-483-2187

: President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi
: President of the Republic of Italy
: Rome, Italy
: Fax: 011-39-06-469-93125

: Prime Minister Massimo D'alema
: Prime Minister of Italy
: Roma, Italy
: Fax: 011-39-06-679-4569

: In addition, writing letters to the following Israeli officials will also be
: greatly appreciated. Letters to the Israeli officials should urge them to
: intervene and to protect the rights of the Israeli children who want to be
: reunited with their mother in Israel and who want to be free to practice
: their religion.

: Minister of Justice Dr. Yossi Beilin
: Ministry of Justice
: 29 Salah A-din Street
: Jerusalem, Israel 91010
: Fax: 011-972-2-628-5438

: Foreign Minister David Levy
: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
: Hakiryah Romemah
: Jerusalem, 91950
: FAX :  011-972-2-530-3506
: Email- feedback@mfa.gov.il ATT. Foreignh Minister David Levy

: Ambassador Yehuda Milo
: Embassy of Israel
: Via Michle Mercati 14
: Rome, Italy 00197
: Fax: 011-39-6-3619-8555

: With great reluctance, I'm going to broach a subject that I hoped to avoid:
: money. I'm emboldened to do so only because so many of you have already
: generously offered your financial support for Mrs. Rosenberg in her ongoing
: legal battles.

: Mrs. Rosenberg is already several hundred thousand dollars in debt as a
: consequence of the litigation over her daughters to date, and even in the
: best case scenario, she is almost certain to accrue hundreds of thousands of
: dollars in additional fees in the near future. Dulberg is pursuing a
: litigation strategy designed to break her psychologically and financially.
: He has initiated both civil and criminal proceedings against Mrs. Rosenberg
: all over Italy - in Genoa, Bologna, and Venice. In addition to her lead
: counsel, she is forced by Italian law to hire local counsel in each separate
: jurisdiction, and in some cases separate counsel for both criminal and civil
: proceedings.

: Dulberg's Israeli attorney also convinced the State Attorney's office to
: charge Mrs. Rosenberg with kidnapping. Though it is highly unlikely that
: those proceedings will result in a jail sentence, based on precedents in
: similar cases, the Israeli criminal proceedings are from Mrs. Rosenberg's
: point of view just one more expensive legal headache. Finally,  Dulberg has
: entered an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court  from the Genoa Court of
: Appeal decision in Mrs. Rosenberg's favor, which may delay any hearings on
: the custody issue in Genoa for up to a year, and effectively leave the girls
: in Dulberg's control, with minimal contact with their mother.

: In addition to the aforementioned legal expenses. Mrs. Rosenberg travels to
: Italy every month to meet with her daughters, and those visits entail their
: own substantial expenses. Rabbi Rosenberg is a dayan and rosh yeshiva, and
: lacks any independent means of his own. And he has 13 children of his own
: whom he must support and marry. The strain being placed on the Rosenberg
: family by just the financial aspects of the litigation are unbearable.

: For those interested in helping - and any contributions are appreciated -
: there are several ways of doing so. Those entitled to American tax
: deductions can make out checks to:

: Young Israel of Woodmere - Special Fund
: (Write specifically in the memo portion of the check: Dulberg children.)
: c/o Rabbi Heshie Billet
: Young Israel of Woodmere
: 859 Peninsula Blvd.
: Woodmere, N.Y. 11598

: In Israel contributions can be sent to:

: Keren Pidyon Shevuyim
: c/o Rabbi Shaindelzon
: 54 Rechov Ezra
: Bnei Brak, Israel

: Or preferably one can send a standing bank order.  Anyone interested please
: contact us and we will fax a bank standing bank order to you.

: As you know, the contributions to rescue the two sisters have been 
: described by Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, the av beis din of Bnei Brak, as the 
: classic expression of the mitzvah of  pidyon shevuyim (redemption of 
: captives) in our time. Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinman similarly expressed his 
: great concern for the Dulberg sisters and urged all of us to do everything 
: possible on their behalf.

: Tizku L'Mitzvos,

: Jonathan Rosenblum

----- End forwarded message -----

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]