Most images and underlined words in this blog are clickable and link to more information.
The "rabbi" of YOUNG ISRAEL Aish of Las Vegas is excommunicated yet he bans a WIDOW from it?
Please read further into this blog for more details about this crime committed by the remorseless National Council of YOUNG ISRAEL.
Please read older posts in this blog for details of of how YOUNG ISRAEL Aish of Las Vegas violates the decrees of Rabbeinu Gershom explained here and other reasons the Delegates & leadership of National Council of YOUNG ISRAEL must remove this blight on its legacy before they have their own Freundel-level scandal.
EXCLUDING [EVEN] A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL FROM A PRIVATE BEIT KNESSET
In seif 16 the SA rules that even in a beit knesset belonging to a private individual, the owner cannot decide to exclude one particular person. This is mentioned in Orchot Chaim as one of the decrees of Rabbeinu Gershom. The cherem (ban) of Rabbeinu Gershom is familiar to us from the rule forbidding a man to marry two wives without the permission of a hundred Rabbis, from the prohibition of divorcing one's wife without her consent, and from the ban on reading someone else's private mail. Actually, there were numerous bans. Many are mentioned in the Beer HaGolah on the Shulchan Arukh, at the end of the section on "nidui vecherem" (Yoreh Deah 334). The Beer HaGolah refers the reader to the responsa of Maharam Rotenberg where yet others are mentioned.
The MB s.k. 88 suggests one reason for the ban. He cites the gemara Gittin 57; I suspect he is actually referring to the story on page 55b and 56a there about "Kamtza and Bar Kamtza." The story is about a man who intends to invite his friend Kamtza to a banquet but through the understandable mistake of the butler, his enemy Bar Kamtza is invited instead. When the host recognizes the error, he asks Bar Kamtza to leave the banquet. The latter makes every effort to avoid this mortification, and when unable to do so he becomes an informer to the Romans. The relation to our halakha is obvious. (It is also possible that he means Gittin 59 - which is the source for the following halakha, as we will explain).
The BH d.h. "leasra" gives a different reason, from responsa Tashbetz IV:7.
The Rema rules in accordance with his contemporary, Maharam Padua 85, that the Cherem de-Rabbeinu Gershom can be circumvented by an advance stipulation. (Practically speaking, the stipulation need not be in advance. The owner of the shul can first exclude EVERYBODY - this being permitted by Rabbeinu Gershom - and afterwards readmit them on condition. This was in fact the case in the question posed to the Maharam Padua.)This ruling certainly seems problematic according to the reasoning of the MB. How can a stipulation permit a person to humiliate his neighbor?Even according to the Tashbetz there is room to question this ruling. The Tashbetz explains that the reason one MAY exclude the ENTIRE congregation is that we may assume that the congregation as a whole will manage to find another place to pray; whereas an individual does not have this option if there is no other shul. Making an explicit condition does nothing to ameliorate this problem. However, we could say that since BEFORE the stipulation the enemy has no place to pray anyway, the owner is not really depriving him of anything by excluding him - even though de facto he is removing the congregation's incentive to find a place to pray which would include everybody.
If this is Halacha regarding a private shul, HOW DARE A YOUNG ISRAEL SYNAGOGUE BAN A WIDOW OR ANYONE ELSE WHO IS NOT EXCOMMUNICATED FROM DAVENING IN A PUBLIC BRANCH OF YOUNG ISRAEL?!
There are many Kosher-style eateries around the country that appear kosher. That's the problem. They are only kosher in appearance but not in reality. They may get their meats from a kosher supplier but then they cook it on Shabbos. In most cases frum people know to avoid such places because they lack any hechsher. But what happens in a case where the place has a name like Young Israel of Las Vegas that did serve food cooked on Shabbos to the congregation and guests at the direct instruction of the "rabbi" who said at the time "just serve it-no one will know about it".
I am providing the paragraph and a link to the document where this incident is mentioned in context: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12fj4BypAXYQBms2HmVCnJrt0lKs-GA4zIaSSGl11RVQ/edit
On Shabbos my husband went into the shul kitchen as they were preparing for a kiddush and noticed that they were mixing mocha mix in hot noodles...clearly Bishul. My husband called in Mr. Wyne and this was his response "just serve it-no one will know about it". There were witnesses to this. After this incident my husband approached Mr. Wyne privately with a Mishna Brurah and was told "just put that book away!".
The same applies to their so called eruv. Oh yes, the lechai'in and lintels of wire are there. But the ochel is in an inaccessible place and the "owner" has proven he will be angry if it is eaten by those he hates and bars from "his" YOUNG ISRAEL synagogue. YOUNG ISRAEL of Las Vegas only "appears" to have an eruv. But in reality its eruv is as kosher as those kosher-style restaurants that cook on Shabbos.
It also needs to be remembered that since the leader of the synagogue is excommunicated, it is not possible to enter "his" premises and still follow the Halachos of Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah section 334 as stated on the seruv issued by Bais Din. Please see earlier posts in this blog for images of the seruv.
Shulchan Aruch/Orach Chaim/366:5 It must be the case that no one will get angry if his friend eats his eruv.
If he will get angry, it is not an eruv. Because of this, one should be careful not to makean eruv with something made for Shabbat.סעיף ה - צריך שלא יקפיד שום אחדמהם על ערובו אם יאכלנו חברו, ואםמקפיד אינו ערוב, לכך צריך לזהר שלאלערב בדבר שתקן לצרך השבת.
Shulchan Aruch/Orach Chaim/394:3 If [the eruv] was placed in a tower, it was locked inside, the key waslost before it got dark, and it is impossible to remove the eruv without doing definitework at twilight, it is as if it is lost and not an eruv, because it is impossible to eat it.סעיף ג - נתנו במגדל ונעל בפניו ואבדהמפתח קדם שחשכה, אם אי אפשרלהוציא הערוב אלא אם כן עשה מלאכהגמורה בין השמשות, הרי זה כמי שאבדואינו ערוב, שהרי אי אפשר לאכלו