Rabbi Motta Frank in a Rescue Letter to His Older Brother

Rabbi Motta Frank shlit"a, one of the choicest and most influential rabbis in Breslov Chassidus today, expresses himself sharply against those persecuting the Gaon and Tzaddik Rabbi Eliezer Berland shlit"a. After we previously presented several strong statements of support spoken by Rabbi Frank shlit"a, a letter has now come into our hands which Rabbi Frank sent to his older brother, Nachman Ze'ev Frank. Rabbi Motta Frank, in his peace-seeking way, rebukes his brother for his mistaken participation in the unrestrained campaign of persecution against Rabbi Berland shlit"a.

"You know that I have already publicized my opinion in the past, several months ago, that according to many great authorities, there are severe Torah prohibitions applicable to any ordinary person regarding reading and/or listening to and accepting the words of 'Lashon Hara' (evil speech) and 'Rechilus' (gossip) that are being rumored about R' Lazer Berland, may the Lord protect him and grant him life. These matters were explained at length then, and their summary is: There is a prohibition to read and/or listen to and accept words of 'Lashon Hara' and 'Rechilus' for 10 reasons..." opens Rabbi Motta, in his attempt to save his older brother from the stumbling block into which the persecutors of Rabbi Berland shlit"a have swept him.

Then Rabbi Motta Frank continues to detail the 10 reasons why it is forbidden for his brother (and anyone else) to listen to the words of swallowing [destruction] against the Gaon and Tzaddik Rabbi Eliezer Berland shlit"a. 1. That every person has a 'Chazkat Kashrut' (presumption of righteousness/innocence). 2. And especially a Talmid Chacham (Torah Scholar) like him... etc. We have attached the complete letter herewith.

[embeddoc url="https://www.shuvubanimint.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/מכתב-לאחי-ר-נחמן-זאב-פראנק-היו.pdf" download="all"]

Here is another piercing public statement published by Rabbi Motta Frank shlit"a in support of the Gaon and Tzaddik Rabbi Eliezer Berland shlit"a

[embeddoc url="https://www.shuvubanimint.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/היזהרו-בדבריכם.pdf" download="all"]

Additional words from Rabbi Motta Frank shlit"a supporting the Gaon and Tzaddik Rabbi Eliezer Berland shlit"a:

I wanted to add another clear point of distinction regarding the pamphlet 'Al Ta'amod Al Dam Re'echa' (Do Not Stand Idly by Your Brother's Blood).

Behold, according to the law of the Torah, it is forbidden to believe Lashon Hara based on a single witness [the well-known incident of Tuvia and Zigud], and it is forbidden to believe even two witnesses unless their testimony has been clarified in a Beit Din (Rabbinical Court) through interrogation and examination [and '2 witnesses' means they saw the act together, not when each testifies about a different or similar act].

And even when there are many witnesses, if they have not been interrogated in a Beit Din, there is no permission to believe them.

And even if there is 'Raglayim L'Davar' (a circumstantial basis for the matter), this only grants permission 'l'michash' (to be concerned/suspect) alone. Regarding this, the Chafetz Chaim cried out that many err in this matter of 'l'michash'—that this does not uproot the presumption of Kashrut (innocence) at all, but is merely a permission to be on guard.

It is exactly regarding this that the Poskim (Halachic decisors) discussed in the pamphlet 'Al Ta'amod Al Dam Re'echa': since the testimonies are not admissible according to Torah law, what can be done to be saved from deviant people?

And regarding this came their lengthy answer: that when 'the suspicion' is based on a significant assessment, permission is granted to turn to the police. All of this falls under the permission that one is allowed to 'be concerned' (suspect), for it is impossible to handle it otherwise, etc., and the other permissions.

But if you pay close attention, it is written there explicitly that everything is done out of 'l'michash' (suspicion/concern), and Heaven forbid, not with the intent to accept the words as an absolute conclusion. For this is the law: it is forbidden to accept and believe Lashon Hara if it has not been clarified according to the law of the Torah, and there is no Posek (decisor) in the world who can permit this prohibition!!!!!!!

And regarding what these instigators of strife are doing: not only have they accepted these matters as absolute conclusions from the very beginning of the affair, but they are actually taking active measures—meaning, they are shaming the accused, etc., etc. This is forbidden even in a case where it is permitted to believe [such as 'Meheman k'bei trei' (trusted like two witnesses)—which is not applicable in our generation at all, as per the words of the Chafetz Chaim].

See what I have added here below.

Rule 7 (Zayin)

C. Just as it is forbidden to accept Lashon Hara if one heard it from one person, so is the law (D) even if one heard it from two or more. It goes without saying regarding a matter (E) where they became wicked through their storytelling, that one certainly must not believe them if they told him. Since even according to their words—that 'Ploni' (so-and-so) acted improperly—they have transgressed the prohibition of "Do not go as a talebearer" (Leviticus 19:16), which applies even to truth. If so, they are wicked; how can we believe them about this Jew who remains in the status of complete Kashrut (righteousness) for the time being? For one who is suspected of the prohibition of Lashon Hara is suspected of lying, changing details, and exaggerating. And what does it matter that they are two? Even if they were many more, a conspiracy of the wicked does not count. Rather, even if it is a matter where they do not become wicked by their telling, if the truth is with them, even so (F) it is forbidden to accept their words (G) and to believe them as an absolute conclusion. For the status of 'testimony' does not apply, even with two or more, except in a Beit Din (court); but outside of a Beit Din, no. For even if they speak falsehood, they are not called 'false witnesses,' but merely 'slanderers' (Motzi Shem Ra) in general (as is found in Sefer Mitzvot Katan, Prohibition 235). And all of this is regarding making a conclusion, but to be concerned (suspect) is permitted, even if one only heard from one person, as mentioned above:

Rule 6 (Vav), Section 10

Even though we have clarified that accepting Lashon Hara—meaning, to decide in one's heart that the matter is true—is forbidden by the Torah, nevertheless, our Sages of blessed memory said that one is required 'l'michash' (to be concerned/suspect). And the explanation of the matter is that one must accept the matter (25) merely as a concern/suspicion, meaning only in order to guard himself from him so that no damage comes to him through him. And this matter should not even be in the category of doubt, for we establish a person in the presumption of Kashrut (righteousness). Therefore, one is still obligated (26) to do good with the person in question regarding all favors that the Torah commanded toward other people of Israel, for his value has not been diminished in our eyes by the 'Lishana Bisha' (evil speech) regarding anything. [Gloss: And it goes without saying where without the Lishana Bisha he is like other people of Israel. Rather, even if without this he was already established in the city as a wicked person due to his bad deeds, but through them he had not yet completely exited the category of 'other people of Israel'—for example, (27) regarding returning a lost object to him, giving him Tzedakah (charity), or redeeming him, and the like—and now it is heard about him further from people that he has completely exited the category of 'your fellow,' for example, that he abandons the permissible and eats the forbidden: Since their words were not clarified in a Beit Din, but people merely said it by way of a story, (28) one must not accept their words as truth to withhold oneself through this from redeeming him if he was taken captive and the like]. Rather, the Torah only permitted one to be concerned about the Lishana Bisha regarding the matter of guarding himself and others from him. Therefore, the Poskim wrote that what is permitted is 'l'michash' (to suspect/be concerned)—meaning, where damage could come (29) to him or to others if he is not concerned about him. (This matter regarding 'others' requires broad explanation; see here in Be'er Mayim Chaim and further in Part 2, Rule 9, look there well, for there we will expand on this with Hashem's help). But in any other matter, it is forbidden to be concerned about the Lashon Hara or to believe it at all:

1. And there are many things in which the world stumbles regarding the matter of 'l'michash' (suspicion), and it is fitting to speak about this a great deal, but this is not the place to elaborate on it, and I will write them, God willing, further on in the final Rule. However, the general principle of the matter is: that which they said, that one must be concerned about Lishana Bisha, is only regarding the matter of guarding oneself from the person in question. But, Heaven forbid, (30) to do any action to him or to cause him any damage or shame because of this, great or small—even if the Lishana Bisha (Lashon Hara) came out against him through a valid single witness who testified against him so in Beit Din—it is not effective, except for [imposing] an oath. And furthermore, (31) that even merely to hate him in one's heart because of this is also forbidden by the Torah. And all the more so that one cannot exempt himself through the Lishana Bisha (32) from the obligations that he is obligated toward the person in question:

And since these are the matters, know that what we wrote at the beginning regarding 'or to others if he is not concerned about him etc.,' refers specifically if no damage will come to the person in question from this, only that they will guard themselves from him (like the incident of Gedaliah ben Achikam, who should have been concerned about the Lishana Bisha and told his men: 'I heard people saying that he plans evil against us, therefore let us guard ourselves from him'). But if he sees, according to the nature of the listeners, that they will accept the matter as absolute truth and will damage or shame the person in question because of this, and sometimes it can be that aside from the damage, massive disputes will also result from this—certainly, he must not tell [them] at all.

Letter from the Baal HaTanya regarding 'Beit Din':

[embeddoc url="https://www.shuvubanimint.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/מכתב-בעל-התניא-בענין-בית-דין.pdf" download="all"]