Subscribe to our Newsletter


click to dowload our latest edition

Beth Din retracts ruling absolving East London rabbi

Published

on

Featured Item

Back in September 2019, the Beth Din found Rabbi Chanoch Galperin innocent of an allegation by the East London Chevrah Kadisha (ELCK) that he had forged the will of the late Israel Bayer to divert funds from Bayer’s estate originally intended for charity.

The Beth Din has now formally withdrawn and set aside this ruling, and the rabbi has formally admitted that his wife wrote the will, which would disqualify him from benefitting from it unless he is permitted to by an order of court.

The East London community is in a state of limbo as the rabbi continues to occupy the rabbinical home and fight the case related to the disputed will in the Grahamstown High Court.

In a plea to the court dated 23 November 2020, Galperin said he denied that the handwriting on the will in question was his, and admitted that it was that of his spouse, Sara Galperin. He admitted that the Wills Act “disqualifies the spouse of a person who has written out a portion of a will in his or own handwriting”, but asks that the court declare him competent to be the executor of the estate and to benefit from it.

The previous version of Bayer’s will instructed that one third of his estate go to the ELCK, but a later handwritten will in the rabbi’s possession allocates this same third of the estate to him. After a Din Torah (hearing) in September 2019, the Beth Din found the rabbi innocent.

According to the ELCK, during those proceedings, the rabbi refused to inform it who wrote the will when questioned.

According to the Beth Din’s judgement, the rabbi then privately informed the dayanim who had written the will. The Beth Din didn’t reveal this information to the ELCK before it made its judgement.

“The respondent [rabbi] denies having written the handwritten portion of the third and final will … The respondent informed the Beth Din privately who had written the will. This person was questioned on this matter, they confirmed that they did so, and provided the Beth Din with a sample of their handwriting,” says the judgement.

In an affidavit deposed on 1 October 2020, ELCK co-president Louis Robinson said that this handwritten evidence was obtained outside of the formal proceedings. The ELCK was never made aware of the evidence nor asked to comment on it. The first the ELCK heard of it was in the Beth Din’s final judgement.

Robinson alleged that the Beth Din’s decision not to take the Wills Act into account may have resulted in the rabbi benefitting although he was disqualified without a court order. However, the rabbi told the SA Jewish Report that “Halachically, it’s perfectly fine for anyone to write a will for anyone.”

The SA Jewish Report sent questions to Beth Din Dayanim Rabbi Gidon Fox and Rabbi Yoel Smith about this issue. Fox said, “It would be inappropriate and probably legally impermissible for the Beth Din to disclose information which is of a private and confidential nature and which was raised in arbitration before it. Furthermore, we are aware that these very issues have been brought before the high court and the Beth Din wouldn’t want to compromise these proceedings by disclosing any private information which was brought to it before at the arbitration. The Beth Din hasn’t received the permission of the parties to make any disclosures, and the Beth Din is accordingly obliged to regard this information as confidential and private.”

But the advocate representing the ELCK, Stanley Pincus SC, said, “The Beth Din was asked to investigate all aspects of the will, including who wrote it, and failure to disclose the information given to it could have resulted in the rabbi benefitting from the will when he was automatically disqualified without having first obtained a court order to do so.”

On 2 November 2020, the Beth Din’s attorney, Steven Weinberg at Moss Cohen & Partners, stated that the Beth Din’s instructions were that “the ruling which it issued in relation to the last will and testament of Mr Israel Bayer and which is the subject of the review proceedings has been recalled and set aside”.

The letter said this was pending the finalisation of a new hearing in respect of new evidence that has arisen from both sides, and that high court applications in respect of the ruling “are misplaced and premature inasmuch as the ruling has been recalled”.

It went on to say that the Beth Din would be pleased if a settlement could be reached, and it would be happy to assist with further mediation. If mediation and settlement couldn’t be achieved, the Beth Din suggested “that all of the disputes in this matter be referred to an arbitration panel to be agreed upon between the parties for a final determination”. The Beth Din offered to provide this arbitration panel, and to allow each side to “agree on the arbitrators and the rules”.

“The ELCK was given the opportunity to appeal after the ruling, but it refused to come,” Galperin told the SA Jewish Report. However, Pincus said that the ELCK “tendered to go back to the Beth Din if certain conditions were met [new dayanim and legal representation amongst other points], but the rabbi refused to do so because the issue relating to the disputed will had been determined by the Beth Din as per their judgement”. Pincus went on to say, “Only a court can order that the rabbi be qualified to benefit from the will, in light of the rabbi’s admission that his wife wrote out the will. This issue and other issues relating to the disputed will cannot and should not be determined in arbitration proceedings.”

The ELCK continues to fight the case in the Grahamstown High Court, “the main issues being whether the rabbi forged the deceased signature on the disputed will, whether the witnesses signed the disputed will in the presence of the deceased, and whether the court will order that the rabbi be allowed to benefit, notwithstanding that he is automatically disqualified in terms of the Wills Act,” said Pincus.

With the relationship between the ELCK and the rabbi irreparably broken down, and the rabbi refusing to vacate the rabbinical home as per the terms of his dismissal, the community is no longer functioning.

The rabbi was dismissed from his position by the East London Hebrew Congregation after a disciplinary hearing in February this year.

“It has not had services for over a year. This has destroyed the community,” says Rabbi Moshe Silberhaft, the spiritual leader of the Small Jewish Communities Association, who has tried to help out where he can.

“People can’t say kaddish, and they didn’t have yom tov services. Before this dispute, this was a small but fully functioning community, which is why it had a rabbi. They would have Shabbat and shiurim – they were carrying on. But now there is no activity whatsoever.” He hopes to help the community rebuild itself slowly as it moves forward.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Banner

Wedding leads to a number of COVID-19 cases

Published

on

Buffets of canapés and dessert, the sharing of snacks and dips, and horah dancing – allegedly without masks – were just some features of a Jewish wedding held at the height of the second wave in Cape Town, from which a number of community members contracted COVID-19. And while this was one wedding or social gathering that broke the law and flouted restrictions, there have been others.

The daughter of a Johannesburg rabbi and the son of a prominent Johannesburg Jewish family got married in early January 2021. Our source says that under the chuppah, “a man made a speech where he bragged about how his shul was circumventing COVID-19 laws by having people ‘enter secretly through the back’. The general feeling was that his community was more concerned about flouting health precautions in order to conduct Jewish ceremonies than protecting the community from the virus,” the source says.

He says there were about 60 guests, and at first, things seemed safe. “I wasn’t worried as I was sure that there would be a strict protocol that would keep everyone safe.

“On arrival, the staff sprayed hand sanitiser, a registry was filled out, and everyone was wearing masks.” Then things began to shift. “From what I saw, once the bridal party had their makeup on, they didn’t wear their masks. I wasn’t too worried, as there was still social distancing in place. But in the room where the groom was signing the ketuba, there were snacks and dips which everyone was sharing. I thought this was a bit irresponsible.”

He says that at the chuppah, the guests were seated far from each other to create social distancing, but “by the time the horah dancing started, the whiskey was flowing and by now, hardly anyone was social distancing or wearing masks. What also really worried me was the fact that the caterer served the canapés and dessert as a buffet, where guests shared sushi soy dips, finger-food dips, a self-service ice cream machine, and other foods that were obvious virus-spreaders.”

The venue’s owners insist, however, that “no alcohol was served by the venue in any part of the venue. Neither the staff, nor the independent wedding planner, nor the caterer saw any alcohol consumed.” They say staff enforced mask-wearing, and that only family participated in the dancing.

According to the source, “A few days later, I felt very run down and had an extremely sore throat and sinuses. I tested positive for COVID-19. As a healthy person, I have had no serious complications, luckily, but I still had a rough time. After I got sick, I heard from a secondary source that a lot of people at the wedding had caught COVID-19, including the bride and groom.” Another source says that at least two guests have since been in hospital with COVID-19.

“What I saw at this wedding was a general attitude of laxness when it comes to something so serious,” says the source. “The wedding could have been pulled off safely if they had considered a few obvious fixes: simply postpone the wedding until after the second wave; hold the horah dancing outside or cancel it entirely; and the caterer should have had better COVID-19 protocols such as separate dip containers for each person and plates of food rather than buffets.”

The caterer told the SA Jewish Report that she felt pressured into catering the wedding, but “it should never have taken place”. At first she thought she would drop off the food, but was then told to do “normal” catering in the style that the couple wanted. She emphasised that the main meal was plated. She was also asked to cater for the Shabbat dinner and the sheva brochas, but refused. As far as she knows, both those events went ahead. She says a number of rabbis attended the wedding.

Another source recalls being told that it would be a small wedding of 40 people. “The venue was excellent about sanitising, taking temperatures, and registering – it even gave everyone their own pen to write their details. Everything was legally permitted, but I think the lesson our community needs to learn is that at some stage, guests dropped their guard. Being careful 90% of the time isn’t necessarily enough.”

Yet another source who only attended the chuppah says, “The bottom line is that assurances were made that this wedding would be done in a safe way. I’m not entirely sure those assurances were kept.”

Professor Efraim Kramer, the head of the division of emergency medicine at the University of the Witwatersrand who has worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of the community during the pandemic, didn’t mince his words. “Those members of our community who continue to ignore and deny the reality of death and destruction caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are playing a critical game of Russian roulette with their lives and the lives of others.

“They are breaking the law of South Africa, and Jewish law, and therefore acting simply like criminals, nothing less, bringing shame and disgrace on the Jewish community as a whole. It’s a pity we don’t excommunicate anymore.”

“If these facts are true, then it’s a great disappointment,” says legal expert Professor Michael Katz, a member of the board of directors of the Solidarity Fund. “It may have breached the law, and it’s a danger to human life and health.”

Tzvi Brivik, the chairperson of the Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), says, “We are very disappointed to learn that a wedding took place under these circumstances. Super-spreader events such as what this could potentially have become are precisely why the second wave of the pandemic has been so devastating to our community and South Africa as a whole.

“Any event which takes place now must meet level-three regulations – there is no compromise. Each infection and loss to the pandemic is a loss to our community and South Africa. Our principal aim is the preservation of life, and we will do what we can to forward that aim.”

Stuart Diamond, the executive director of the Cape SAJBD, echoed these sentiments. “By following the rules, you’re not only protecting yourself, you’re protecting our community. And by doing that, you’re saving lives and ensuring our communal resources aren’t stretched financially and in terms of manpower.”

“We are a five star, tourism-graded venue, set on four acres of grounds with only a small venue on the grounds,” say the venue owners. “There is ample space outside. We allocated six tables inside in a room certified for 150 people. Although they are 12-seater tables, we allowed only six people to be seated at each. The room has frameless, sliding stacking doors on two sides of the venue and four large opening doors on the smallest side. All doors were open. Families sat together at these tables in their own bubbles.

“All serving staff wore gloves, masks, and some wore additional face shields. There was ample sanitiser at several points. The bar has a Perspex shield across it. The wedding ceremony was in the open air, at least 200m from the venue, and the chairs were placed at the correct social distance. We have heard that someone who was at the wedding tested positive the following day. This person must have been contagious at the wedding and could have spread it, but was in no way caused by the venue.”

One of the owners says she was against the wedding going ahead, and has since closed her venues for the next two months. She emphasised that they had no control over the food, and everyone left by 19:30 because of the curfew. “We have won many tourism awards many years in a row, so we are rigorous about the implementation of safety protocols,” she says.

  • The SA Jewish Report reached out to both families who hosted the wedding, but they chose not to comment. The newspaper chose not to use the names of the parties involved in order for them not to be targeted.

Continue Reading

Featured Item

Vaccine refusal isn’t personal, it affects others

Published

on

While people around the world line up for vaccination against COVID-19, only 53% of South Africans plan to get vaccinated when it becomes available to them. This is according to a recent Ipsos pollconducted in partnership with the World Economic Forum.

Vaccine hesitancy within and without the community poses a real threat to being able to stem the coronavirus pandemic.

“This would indeed be a major headache for planners if the aim is to reach 67% of the adult population in order to achieve herd immunity,” Professor Barry Schoub, the chairperson of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on COVID-19 vaccines told the SA Jewish Report this week.

The reality is that we need 40 million adult South Africans to be vaccinated so that herd immunity can kick in and put an end to the cycle of pain and suffering. However, uncertainty, fear, and dread surround immunisation against COVID-19 in spite of a considerable amount of research that reinforces the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines.

“There is no doubt in my mind that I would take the vaccine. Not tomorrow. Today,” said Johannesburg doctor Anton Meyberg, who is working at the coalface of the illness.

“The sooner the better. It’s considered pikuach nefesh [preservation of human life] at the highest levels to get vaccinated to protect ourselves and our fellow man,” he said this week amidst growing vaccine hesitancy.

While the country scrambles to secure enough doses to obtain herd immunity – a situation in which most of a population is immune to an infectious disease, giving indirect protection to those who aren’t immune – the question is whether all this effort and money amounts to nought when scores of people are reluctant to get the vaccine.

Johannesburg pulmonologist Carron Zinman told the SA Jewish Report she felt as if COVID-19 was winning the war. “Sadly, people haven’t modified their behaviour enough to control this deadly disease, and no one wants to stay locked away for the foreseeable future. Vaccination is our only hope of halting COVID-19 in its tracks.”

She said that by the time the vaccine is accessible in South Africa, it will have proven its safety and efficacy. “It makes no sense whatsoever for anyone to refuse something that could save your [or a loved one’s] life.”

Experts insist that nothing has more effectively contributed to the health of humankind than the provision of clean water and administration of vaccines.

The enormous pressure on vaccine manufacturers to produce an effective and safe vaccine as soon as possible is widely documented in the light of a devastating pandemic which has claimed more than two million lives.

In less than a year, manufacturers have been able to produce about 10 different vaccines which are in widespread use throughout the world. This contrasts with the 10 to 20 years it took to produce the vaccines of yesteryear, Schoub said.

“Public opinion on COVID-19 vaccines has ranged from the eager ‘why the delay?’ to the hesitant ‘I’m unsure about that vaccine’, to the militant ‘anti-vaxers’ with their science-fiction conspiracies,” he said.

In tackling the “vaccine refusal problem”, it’s important to distinguish vaccine hesitancy from anti-vaxers, he said.

The breakneck speed at which vaccines have been developed and put into use, as well as the uniqueness of the platforms which have been used to construct these vaccines – some completely new to humans – “has raised legitimate concerns in the minds of many anxious citizens”, said Schoub.

Much of the vaccine hesitancy centres on a fear of side effects, especially unknown, long-term side effects. There is also uncertainty about whether the vaccine will be successful against mutations of the virus, and lack of understanding about the differences between the various vaccines.

Anti-vaxers, Schoub said, “are a different breed”.

“Fortunately, they are a relatively small minority in this country, but they are, at the same time, a rather vocal minority, who exploit social media to spread wild and wonderful tales.”

Some of these tales include that COVID-19 is the result of 5G radiation and COVID-19 vaccines contain embedded microchips from Microsoft’s Bill Gates; or that the vaccine can alter our DNA.

“These folk will obstinately cling to these tales and refuse to listen to reason, preferring the comfort of conspiracies,” said Schoub.

It also doesn’t help when people in prominent positions voice their fears based on unscientific, unproven misinformation.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng sparked outrage last month with some of his bizarre comments about the “devil vaccine”, and a handful of public servants have also voiced seemingly illogical concerns.

Realising the importance and urgency of herd immunity, certain politicians including Julius Malema and Blade Nzimande have recently encouraged people to listen to science and get the jab.

Schoub said vaccine-hesitant people “do have very legitimate and understandable concerns” about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

“Sometimes their opinions are coloured by anti-vaxer stories; sometimes it’s misinformation; but usually it’s [as a result of] a lack of correct, scientifically validated information. Often, hesitancy is merely reluctance to be a guinea pig,” he said.

“Often, just seeing their friends, neighbours, or relatives being vaccinated, and being reassured that they are hale and hearty after the vaccination while boasting of now being immune to infection is enough to dissolve their hesitancy,” he said.

Careful and non-condescending messaging is important, he said. “For example, the fact that the mRNA vaccine contains absolutely no DNA and cannot alter one’s DNA, and is, furthermore, very rapidly disposed of in the body after its work of stimulating immunity is done.”

Experts agree that it’s important to educate the public about the rigour with which vaccines are monitored for safety and efficacy, from the clinical-trial stage through to international and national licensure, all of which needs to be publicised.

An often-heard objection to the COVID-19 vaccine is the mantra of human or individual rights. “I will choose what’s done to my body”, people say. The choice, however, said Schoub, isn’t between getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated. The choice is between the perceived risk of getting vaccinated against the real risk of getting the disease.

“There’s no neutral position. Moreover, with infectious diseases, the choice to refuse a vaccine isn’t a choice for the individual alone, it’s also a choice affecting others.”

Continue Reading

Featured Item

Acceptance as back-to-school goes back online

Published

on

Jewish schools are resuming online teaching, and while the situation is causing some frustration, parents have expressed support for the schools’ caution.

From playschool to matric, most students in the community began the school year this week. Following the government’s announcement that the opening of public schools has been postponed to 15 February, Gauteng Education MEC Panyaza Lesufi appealed to private schools to do the same to avoid putting strain on the province’s struggling health system.

Consequently, Jewish schools such as King David, Yeshiva College, Maharsha, Hirsch Lyons, and Herzlia have opted to continue with online lessons following an initial two-day orientation held on campuses early this week.

“We brought the kids onto campus on different days for orientation, and then will be moving online for three days,” says Rabbi Shimon Pinski, the principal of Maharsha Boys Primary. “We will assess the situation towards the end of the week after the government gazette has been finalised.

“We’ve seen the positivity of kids studying at school in spite of all difficulties. We are vigorously keeping all protocols laid out by government, and following the recommendations of Professor Barry Schoub and Dr Michael Setzer. We hope that our postponement will end soon, and we can get our kids back to school depending on numbers, regulations, and doctors’ advice.”

“Our nursery school will be open on campus from this week, with all protocols in place, but Grades 1 to 12 have gone online after an initial orientation,” says Rabbi Steven Krawitz, the academic principal at Hirsch Lyons. “We’re waiting for the government to clarify the way forward for private schools.”

Andries van Renssen, the executive director at Herzlia, says parents’ reactions to the way in which the school has reopened have been mixed, though they are generally much more favourable towards in-person teaching.

“During orientation, it was clear how excited the children were to be back and how eager they were to start the learning process,” he says. “Teachers and management are making a real effort to create the safest possible learning environment.”

These efforts are clearly being recognised by parents across the schools, in spite of the frustration the situation is causing.

“Infection numbers are very high at the moment, and schools are using good systems to cope with the pandemic,” says Adina Roth, whose seven and 11-year-old children attend King David Victory Park (KDVP). “I trust King David, and I feel it’s wise to wait for a while until things are a little bit safer.

“The school hasn’t tried to sugar coat anything, and it has made its commitment to in-person teaching clear, which I find reassuring. Expectations have to shift in a pandemic, and we can’t carry on as normal when people are dying.”

Nonetheless, Roth firmly believes that online teaching is no substitute for the classroom experience.

“It’s not just about receiving knowledge but the interactions which come with learning,” she says. “It’s challenging on a personal level when you need to help the younger ones with their classes and work at the same time, but there’s a bigger picture here. We need to deal with the situation and support the school.”

Lara Jersky, whose son began Grade 1 at King David Ariel this week, says that she felt nervous at the thought of him going back to school in person.

“The orientation was good, but I feel more secure that my son will be at home from school for now,” she says. “Yes, it means some stress for me in terms of work and looking after him, but we’ll have to see how it goes. In-person school is an added stress, so I’m happy with the way things are for now.

“Of course, human interaction is gold for kids, and it’s what we want, but schools are definitely doing the right thing.”

According to mom Bianca Rubenstein, Yeshiva College is the only school which hasn’t reopened its nursery school for in-person teaching, causing some strain.

“I’m still dealing with the post-traumatic stress disorder from online classes last year,” she laughs. “I have four kids, the eldest is in Grade 3, and it was a nightmare to run from room to room to see that they were all online.

“My youngest son was to go back to nursery school until Sunday, when we got an email to say things had changed. It wasn’t easy to accept. I was happy for him to go. I could then focus on the other kids online.

“I’m annoyed that he won’t be going back, but I trust Yeshiva’s protocols. You can’t complain or blame in this situation You need to see it for what it is.”

Shelley Meskin says that the changes haven’t been easy for all kids to accept. Her children, eight and 11 years old, attend KDVP.

“My 11-year-old is in mourning,” she laughs. “Last year’s online schooling was incredibly difficult for her. She works off the energy of the other kids and the teacher, so it wasn’t the ideal system for her.

“It’s sad that they can’t be at school, but it’s difficult to decide the right thing to do in this situation. We don’t know whether we should stop our lives or carry on. We want to see our kids back at school because we are growing a generation that won’t know how to deal with things in person after staring at a screen all day.”

Nonetheless, she stresses that parents need to make safety a priority. “People need to listen and do what’s safe,” she says. “Our community hasn’t been so good at that. If we don’t listen, we’ll suffer the repercussions. Whether you agree with the decision or not, you need to follow the rules. If we do that, we’ll get our kids back to school before long.”

Continue Reading

Webinar

Advertisement

Trending