RSS Feed
London - Beth Din Set to Hear Mikveh Pleas |
|
| |
Text Size
|
London - The London Beth Din has agreed to hear a dispute into the building of a mikveh in Cambridge which has split the trustees of the charity set up to support it.
David Gilinsky, of the Cambridge Community Mikvah Charitable Trust, has filed a complaint against his fellow trustees over alleged delays in plans to build the city's first ritual bath.
Three years ago, Mr Gilinsky and his wife Ofra obtained planning permission to convert an outhouse into a mikveh on a local property they run as the "Cambridge and Suffolk Jewish Community". But the city's Lubavitch centre is also pursuing plans to open a mikveh in the city.
The Beth Din has notified the other trustees - Rabbi Abraham Gubbay, Andrew Graham, and Charlotte Hotter - of a scheduled hearing at the rabbinical court in December.
Mrs Hotter has since tendered her resignation as a trustee following her recent remarriage. She explained in an email to fellow-trustees that she could no longer afford the time, for family and professional reasons.
In a letter sent to the trustees at the end of last month, David Frei, the registrar of the Beth Din, said Mr Gilinsky alleged that "despite the fact that the CCMC was set up some years ago and collected substantial sums of money for the specific purpose of building a mikveh in Cambridge, no such mikveh has been built. He regards this procrastination as unacceptable, bearing in mind the availability of both funds and a suitable site with planning permission".
Rabbi Gubbay said he did not wish to comment on the allegations, but he acknowledged his preference for the Lubavitch proposal. "The Chabad will be on site to supervise the mikveh because a mikveh needs supervision," he said.
"We are happy to abide by any decision of the Beth Din." Mr Gilinsky said he looked forward to a "speedy resolution of the matter".
The CCMC trust has assets of more than £185,000, according to its last available accounts in 2003.
According to Barry Landy, a senior member of the Cambridge Traditional Jewish Congregation, the local community favours the Lubavitch proposal.
More of today's headlines
“New York - If ever there was a setup for a Black Friday on Wall Street, this is it. We can hope it doesn’t happen. But better that investors are realistic about the...”
New York - Black Friday? Stock Markets Brace For Worse, and Cry For Help
Tel Aviv, Israel - Supermarket CEO Fired for Employing Jews on Yom Kippur
Total5
Read Comments (5) — Post Yours »
1
Oct 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM Anonymous Says:
But why is the Mikvah being delayed if the funs have been collected? If the funds are in the Chabad account, than why are they waiting? Do they have a Halachic basis for this?
2
Oct 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM BB Says:
For those women who use a mikvah, I'm sure they can find one. Is this the most important thing that there needs to be machloikes about?
3
Oct 11, 2008 at 09:52 PM Milhouse Says:
“ But why is the Mikvah being delayed if the funs have been collected? If the funds are in the Chabad account, than why are they waiting? Do they have a Halachic basis for this? ”
Anon, where did you get the idea that the funds are in the Chabad account? From the article it appears that this has nothing to do with Chabad. This committee has raised money, but hasn't yet decided what to do with it. Some want to give it to Chabad, because they are capable of building the mikveh and running it, but apparently not everybody is on board with this idea, so in the meantime the money is sitting, and Chabad hasn't received a penny.
BB, where exactly are they going to find a mikveh, if this one is not built? And yes, building a mikveh is the most important consideration - the din is that it comes before building a shul, and if the only way to build the mikveh is to sell the shul, then that's what one must do. A community needs a mikveh.
4
Oct 11, 2008 at 11:27 PM bigwheeel Says:
What's puzzling in this situation is, why the [other] Board members, beside Mr. Gilinsky, (including the "Rabbi") feel no urgency in starting the building of the Mikvah. Usually, a project like that is started [even] without having [all] the funds. Here, they have the funds and the permits in place. Even the excuse of the fear of "Competition" by Chabad doesn't "wash"! Competition of this sort never hurt anyone!
5
Oct 12, 2008 at 05:21 PM Milhouse Says:
Because there's no need for two mikvaos. Some board members, including the Rabbi (I don't know why you put it in scare quotes), believe the best option is to give the money to Chabad and let them build the mikveh. If that's so, then it would be stupid to start building and then abandon it. So until a decision is made one way or the other work can't start.