By the way, does the slander against the State Attorney’s Office, the New Israel Fund, the Ministry of Education and Bible supervisors, the leftists, the LGBT people, the “raavlakh,” and the rest of the schemers and antichrists meet the rules? Was everything there verified and permitted? For example, the crazy speculation that they framed Katsav because he was right-wing or traditional—was that checked through direct testimony before a religious court? Or is publication there permitted because it helps us and not our enemies?

And one more thing: if the members of the sect are eager to uphold Torah law in its plain sense, would they object to closing the case because of the “statute of limitations”? After all, the law of limitation periods is mentioned neither in the Written Torah nor in the Oral Torah.

It is permitted to publish under the law of a pursuer? Haven’t you gone too far, Rabbi Michi—a pursuer?? Complaints about harassment from 30 years ago are a pursuer?
Good thing you didn’t drift off into the law of “if it went out, one is not required to relight it,” or the labor of making two mesh-holders…
As for it being for a constructive purpose so others won’t be harmed—do you really believe that even today Rabbi Tao is dangerous to women, and that they need to be warned not to be hurt by him?
As for public knowledge before three people, I didn’t know the Chafetz Chaim was from the Merkaz HaRav crowd. He himself, at great length, dismantled that leniency until it became rarer than the wayward and rebellious son. And these things are very well known. And we have not heard of anyone disputing him on this.

And what about “one publicizes the hypocrites because of desecration of God’s name”?

No, not at all, I didn’t exaggerate. There are claims about recent years, and there are concerns arising from his attitude toward these cases, which gives backing to other offenders because of his own offending (if there was any), and there is the victim’s need for justice, which he is preventing. Definitely the law of a pursuer. For the scrupulous, at least.
As for the Chafetz Chaim, I won’t get into here what I’ve already written about his book and his rulings.

With God’s help, 27 Cheshvan 5783

The Hebron police recommended closing the case “because of the statute of limitations,” but also because of “the difficulty of establishing the complainant’s credibility.” Anyone who reads the version of Yosef Te’ena, the complainant’s former husband, will understand the “understatement” used by the Hebron police, who had already handled an earlier complaint of hers against her mother, in which she accused her mother of murdering her two children.

All the more so with regard to establishing the second complainant, who found for herself “corroborating testimony” in Rabbi Zvi Yehuda and Rebbetzin Chana Tao, of blessed memory. True, “the righteous are called alive even in their death,” but it is hard to summon them to testify to the police. So I understand the thinking of the Hebron police officers, who even after hearing the second complainant remained of the view that the case should be closed.

However, public pressure helped, and as was reported in the article “A Dramatic Turn in the Investigation of Rabbi Tao” on the Srugim website, they are planning to transfer the investigation to Lahav 433, who can surely be relied upon to prepare “the delicacies we have loved,” as in their conduct in Netanyahu’s cases—an investigation saturated with leaks that produced 333 prosecution witnesses, melting away one after another in cross-examination. When the first show, “The Netanyahu Trial,” ends, the second show, “The Rabbi Tao Trial,” will begin. That will certainly add a few seats to Noam 🙂

Best regards, Gadiel Shefatyahu Abu-Shahada the Digger

As for Moshe Katsav, a rabbi close to Rabbi Tao told me that Katsav had shown him conclusive evidence of his innocence. I came across one of them in a partial reading of the judgment. The complainant wrote letters of courtship and admiration to Katsav. When they showed her those letters in her police interrogation, she denied that she had written them. A few minutes later she came with a new version and claimed that Katsav had forced her to write the love letters. If Katsav had listened to his lawyers’ advice to wait with submitting the letters until cross-examination at trial, the complainant would have begun “changing colors” in front of the judges and would have lost her credibility.

On appeal it became clear that the testimony of one of the complainants had been disproved. It turned out that neither she nor he could have been in the same place where she testified the rape took place. And what did Justice Hendel answer? “If it was not there, then it could have been somewhere else,” and he left the conviction standing based on “testimony that cannot be refuted.”

One may agree with Rabbi Tao’s positions, and one may oppose them, but he does know how to do his homework…

Best regards, G.S.A.S.

https://mobile.srugim.co.il/article/732542
There are a few inaccuracies here, but overall he wrote correctly.

The Rabbi could write a full, orderly article on the subject. It is clear to me that the sect members will not be convinced, but it seems to me that public exposure is important.
It is important that people who were harmed not be afraid to speak.

I just uploaded an article here that was written on the subject. Others have also been written. I do not see any need to add another one.

As for the Katsav case, I will only mention that the main claims against the State Attorney’s Office were that Shai Nitzan defended Katsav tooth and nail even though he knew he was guilty.
I’ll repeat again for the benefit of the conspiracy lovers—the celebrated attorney who is like a daughter to Sara and Benjamin Netanyahu claimed publicly and openly that the evidence against Katsav was conclusive, and then the wicked Shai Nitzan stepped in to defend a plea bargain in Katsav’s favor instead of demanding prison!!!

That is to say, the corrupt prosecution defended Katsav and abandoned the miserable complainants, and the corrupt prosecution also framed Katsav because he refused to meet with a Reform delegation.

Makes perfect sense. It’s like how we hate the Jews because they are filthy capitalist pigs and also because they are communists who want to distribute our property to the poor.

On the problems in the Katsav case, see Gili Haskin’s post, “Moshe Katsav — Between Law and Family,” on the Masa Acher website, and the articles linked there.

Best regards, G.S.A.S.