Chaptzem Blog!      

This article seems extremely biased and incorrect. If you read the District Court judgement, you'll see that in fact - that it was concurred that his contract had expired - thus giving all right to the congregation in question to change locks etc.

The reference to the Beth Din that is described in this article that you mirrored in your blog also fails to mention that the Beth Din only has jurisdiction for Jewish religious matters and it was deemed, as per the decision of the judge in the District Court of South Australia that the contract is a contract - it applies the laws of the State of South Australia.

Read it for yourself - http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2007/0307-SADC-023.htm

I think it's a bit naive to re-publish such an article without knowing the facts - which as I have just discovered, freely available on the internet.

 

Hey should move backtoi Crown Heightes.

 

Point is that although it could be solves in court, in theory a dispute between a shul and its rabbi should be solved with a din torah. When a shul refuses to bend to the authority of the beis din and heed its summons then what form of Judaism is that shul representing to its congregants?
As in allot of these cases there tends to be a very powerful and wealthy minority controlling a community that try to stop the rabbi from brining up the standards of yiddishkite in the shul to more orthodox levels.
Whatever the case, even if the rabbi is right or wrong, this dispute should be solved by the rabbbonim of the beis din not a secular non Jewish court.
As for the second comment, lets not turn this story into an anti chabad rant.

 

The congregation certainly won't keep him on after he has been litigating against them for the last 3 months since December and before that was given 6 months notice by them (see court link above). The court documents say that even mediation by the Sydney Beth Din failed.
He had a very generous package described in the court documents, no wonder he wants to stay.
It has been said that when a shaliach gets too comfortable, the Rebbe (of blessed memory) brings him home.
Please 770 (Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn)intervene to bring him home to the US to do some cheshbon nefesh v'din on himself before he further damages the name of Chabad, the rabbinate, and this congregation.

 

anonymous said: "Point is that although it could be solves in court, in theory a dispute between a shul and its rabbi should be solved with a din torah. When a shul refuses to bend to the authority of the beis din and heed its summons then what form of Judaism is that shul representing to its congregants?"

I think that is fairly unfair - the community should not be stricken of their 'orthodoxy' just because they don't go to the beth din. its only a 'convention' to go there... the court documents prove that the Rabbi went to the courts first to get his injunction. he started the civil courts.. perhaps because they didnt go to the beth din but dragging this on is a disaster for australian jewry and a disgrace to his religion.

if he so insisted on havnig his 'tenure' - why did he sign multiple, consecutive contracts? his arguments are entirely flawed and no wonder the court allowed the shule to win.

what a disgrace. the beth din have come to an all time low.

 

Rabbi Engel was always extremely devoted to the Adelaide Jewish community. He always placed the community above his personal comofort and welfare. The attempts to smear his name are shameful and disgusting.

Rabbi Engel believed (and still believes) that he is on a mission - that he was sent by the spirit of the late Great Lubavitcher Rebbe to guide and shephard the Jews of Adelaide. While being misguided and deluded about this, he is still worthy of everyone's full respect for his dedication.

The fact is that Rabbi Engel is not just the only orthodox Rabbi in Adelaide, but the only orthodox Jew there as well, and the Adelaide Jewish community have simply grown tired of his long, strict and tedious services. Instead of taking responsibility and openly admitting this fact, the cowardly Adelaide Hebrew Congregation sought to smear their faithful Rabbi personally.

It is time that the AHC repent, give full honour to the Rabbi whom they freely elected and who served them faithfully for 7 years and ask for his forgiveness - only then the community is at liberty to decide that they no longer wish to remain orthodox and look for an alternative, new, non-orthodox Rabbi instead.

 

The writer who said that Rabbi Engel is "the only orthodox Jew there as well" is as deluded as Rabbi Engel.
I live in Adelaide and we have people who keep Shabbat, keep kosher, use the mikvah and devotedly attend minyanim, and so on. We have had minyanim throughout Pesach without a Rabbi. How dare you defame us.
We did not grow "tired of his long and tedious services" although obviously you think it's been a problem. Not only was his contract not renewed but he was then dismissed and continues to refuse to accept it.
We are an orthodox congregation with a long tradition of Anglo-Jewish and European rabbis (over 150 years of such Rabbis and ministers) and have advertised for a MODERN ORTHODOX Rabbi who will respect and serve the members of our shul, and our traditions. Any claims about non-orthodoxy have no basis. His few supporters are desperate and coming up with this rubbish.
Our experience with this Chabad Rabbi has ensured that we will never employ a Chabad Rabbi again.
When the full story comes out it will be Rabbi Engel who will be apologising!

 

Stating a fact is not defamation and not being orthodox [any more] is not an accusation - there is nothing wrong about it, but we need to call a spade a spade.

I also live in Adelaide, I know Rabbi Engel personally, but am not a member of the AHC and I must admit that most (but not all) of my information is second-hand. In particular, I heard that the service last Simchat Torah was extremely long and that the congregation was quite uneasy about it.

It is nice that there are Jews in Adelaide who keep Shabbat, Kosher, Mikvah, Minyanim, but to do that one does not need to be necessarily orthodox. Conservative Jews for example do the same.

Being orthodox is not just a name - it is a whole 24x7 way of life. It is not about picking and choosing those commandments that are convenient or appealing, it involves total faith, it is an identity, it means that one is willing to even sacrifice their life if necessary in order to follow the 613 laws of Torah, and one of those laws is to listen to and obey the judges and elders, eg. the Beth-Din.

It is extremely difficult to pursue an orthodox lifestyle in Adelaide: I noticed that people who wanted to be orthodox left for Melbourne and Israel so they can live in a Jewish atmosphere and provide proper Jewish education for their children (which is also why Rabbi Davis left when his children reached a certain age).

I support your stand about never employing a Chabad Rabbi again, but this was well known before employing Rabbi Engel that he was a Chabadnik, so him acting as a Chabad Rabbi would, should not be a surprise and reason for complaint. If he indeed did anything wrong, and if indeed you adhere to the orthodox standards of what's right and what's wrong, then you should have no problem addressing such issues to the Beth Din. Having refused to do that, and since I know Rabbi Engel personally as a good and honest person, I must assume that he is completely innocent. Yes, his term is over. Yes, his type of faith no longer serves the community of Adelaide, so unfortunately for him he should go - but he should go in peace and the full respect and gratitude of the Adelaide Jewish community.

 

In regard to the comment: "stating a fact is not defamation and not being orthodox [any more] is not an accusation", readers should note the following.
As a result of statements by Engel's lawyer in the District Court, an item appeared in the daily Adelaide 'Advertiser' newspaper of March 23, page 28, titled "Synagogue loses orthodox status", which was false.
In the following 'Australian Jewish News' issue of March 30, it says: "The Sydney Beth Din has denied reports in Adelaide's 'The Advertiser' newspaper that it officially holds Adelaide Hebrew Congregation (AHC) in contempt over the shul's row with its former rabbi, Yossi Engel, and has withdrawn its Orthodox status".
The congregation is still orthodox.
It has not changed status.
Your respect for the Rabbi is commendable, but as your facts are incorrect and you are not a member of that congregation, please do not add to the problem by repeating false information.

 

It is now over two years since Engel's employment was terminated by AHC.
Rabbi Avrohom Gutnick is now the Chief Rabbi in Adelaide. Interestingly, his father Rabbi Chaim Gutnick was the original shaliach to Adelaide in 1956. Rabbi Avrohom Gutnick, an experienced Chabad shaliach himself, met Rebbe Schneerson many times. Rabbi Gutnick and his family have done much to restore morale.
Please note that Adelaide Hebrew Congregration, which is also the legal owner of the title 'Chabad of South Australia', has visiting bochrim, provides experience and training to visiting semicha candidates and welcomes all; anyone else using the title 'Chabad of South Australia', circulating marketing or soliciting donations does so without authority from Chabad (in Engel's case expressly so) or the State.

 

Firstly I would like to say that I liked Rabbi Engel very much.
And I was very saddened at his leaving. I hold Rabbi Engel in the highest regard. And I thank him for all the kindnesses that he showed me in true Chabad spirit.
I sincerely hope that Rabbi Engel and his family are able to find a
place to settle where they will be loved and appreciated.

 

I write this a little over three years after the original post(above)was published.

During this period of time, the situation has intensified by ill-wishers who brought allegations of fraud against the rabbi and his wife.

The allegations were presented to the police who eventually found no case to answer, and subsequently dropped all charges.

Interesting to me is the posted comment:

"Our experience with this Chabad Rabbi has ensured that we will never employ a Chabad Rabbi again.
When the full story comes out it will be Rabbi Engel who will be apologising!"

In fact, shortly after this comment was written, the AHC did employ another Chabad rabbi - albeit only a temporary solution to their spiritual ills.

And now that the "full story" has gone full cycle I wonder if they ever managed to make their own apologies.

It all just goes to reinforce that we shouldn't trust all that we read. And often those whose indignation sounds most righteous, are at heart most hypocritical.

 

First there was a contract dispute, then kashrut supervision complaints, then education grant fraud charges. Has the story ended?
As the police laid 39 fraud charges after extensive investigation, apparently there were 39 cases to answer.
The prosecution dropped the charges only last week citing "no reasonable prospect of conviction"; an interesting conclusion in itself.
I read that Norman Rosenbaum, a lawyer, got involved recently in the case.
So facts remain untold and the investigation raises more questions than answers. Not having all the facts we can't assume any apologies.
It is actually to their credit that the congregation accepted another Chabad Rabbi so soon and I have read that Rabbi Avraham Gutnick helped the healing process. There are still people with longstanding associations with, knowledge of and respect for Chabad in that congregation. Even though they have been through this.