Jerusalem – Secular residents of Jerusalem’s Kiryat Hayovel neighborhood chalked up a victory against their ultra-Orthodox neighbors when a court barred prayer services in a residential apartment.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The neighborhood has seen an influx of ultra-Orthodox, who have come to loggerheads with the longtime secular residents.
Over the past year, the two sides have fought about a private residential building on Hantke Steet. The owner of the home, a U.S. resident, rents the property to an ultra-Orthodox man. With the owner’s agreement, Sabbath prayer services have been held there for the past several weeks.
Members of the ultra-Orthodox group said they have been holding prayers in various neighborhood apartments for several years, and that this does not make the apartment a synagogue. The services are “temporary and provisional with none of the characteristics of a synagogue,” said their attorney Rephael Stub, and therefore do not constitute unauthorized use of the building.
Nonetheless, the legal advisor to the Jerusalem Municipality, attorney Yossi Havilio, who received complaints from residents of Hantke Street, argued that holding prayers in the house is a violation of the property’s intended use.
“If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck,” he said, declaring he would file an indictment against the tenant.
The neighbors testified that 40 people came to worship at the house, creating a disturbance.
The court blocked the minyans – prayer quorums – from convening in the private home, even for small, closed groups only on the Sabbath.
Judge Tamar Bar Asher-Zaban rejected the ultra-Orthodox residents’ request that she revoke interim orders she issued a week earlier against the services, (as was reported here on VIN News).
“Since it is designated for residential use only, past use for non-residential purposes deviates from the permitted,” she ruled. She also ruled that holding services at the house violates the Planning and Building Law.
Before the ruling, Stub had said in court that the group would simply move to another apartment in the neighborhood. A representative of the ultra-Orthodox group confirmed in response to Bar Asher-Zaban’s ruling.
Attorney Havilio has said that in such a case, he will take action against the other apartment owners as well.
If this guy fought this minyan because it was a disturbance, ok. but if he did it to fight frumkite then I say the whole frum Kehilla should join the minyanim in that residence.
Kol hakovod to Judge Asher-Zabange for stopping this illegal davening in a residential neighborhood where it is illegal. She has correctly applied the law and made the right decision. If I buy a home in a neighborhood zoned for residential use only, I don’t want to wake up one shabbos morning and find that I now live next door to a shul. What will they try to get away with next??
In Yerushalayim ??? this is sickening… if that will happen in NY we would all be up in arms saying that this is antisemitism… when a jew rules this way – its ok ???
I’m sure the reasons of the residents were probably a mixed bag of anti-orthodox and practical zoning (people moved to a residential apartment and they want to keep it that way).
However the reason is irrelevant. It is fair to assume that most people do not want a shul opening up in the apartment next door… or maybe even in the next building. Shuls are noisy, bring lots of children, etc. While I wouldn’t necessarily mind it, I totally understand how someone else would.
I’m sure 50 people here will quote various bits from here or there taken out of context to justify that a shul COULD be put anywhere no matter how the neighbors feel about it. That does not mean that it SHOULD be put there. There is a difference.
A good parable might be:
I buy a piece of land zoned for agricultural use that has a big, glass greenhouse on the edge of a road where flowers were grown. Now, I plan to use it to do shchita. The zoning is perfect for it, but it is right out on a major roadway where everyone (including children) will see. Yes, I COULD put it there. SHOULD I put it there? Of course not. Why? Because it is just inappropriate and I’d be asking for trouble. Its that simple. Why intentionally do something that you KNOW will cause strife just because you CAN?… I can’t find a good reason. I say go out and find a better solution.
frum people need to show mutal respect and manners. having a minyan and the same time distrubing neighbors is not menshlichkeit. torah,halacha and menschlichkeit go hand in hand. lets try to live it.
This is disgraceful. This is Jerusalem, a city unlike any other in the world. I could understant this happening in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem? One would think that those who chose to live in Jeruselem and aren’t observant would be very tolerant of those
who are observant.
“For example, Rabbi Joseph Konikov of Orlando, Fla., successfully sued his local government under the law in 2002 after county officials repeatedly cited and fined him for holding small worship services in his suburban home, in violation of a zoning provision later found to be an unconstitutional burden on religious freedom.”
By DIANA B. HENRIQUES – NY Times
Published: October 8, 2006
sham on you judge asher zabange (pls change ur jewish name) is this a jewish city or gouish city?
think we sould give back jeurslam for d arabs, thay law go’s every time against jews, what a shame
I just invested nearly $800,000 (in U.S. dollars) in a new home in the outskirts of Yerushalim. My decision to purchase build a hot on this land was based, in part, on the law which only allows detached homes of a certain size to be built on the neighoring land. If, chas v’chalilah, the same thing were to happen and someone were to illegally start minyan next door, it would devalue my investment and significantly erode my quality of life. There has to be respect for the law or EY will become as bad as Iran.
There is a chabad minyan less than .5 km from this apartment so there is no reason why someone would need to start a new minyan unless they were trying to start trouble and make a political statement. The judge acted properly and her opinion should be respected.
Years ago , my wife’s uncle supported the right of a shul to open up on E 7 street in Midwood in a two family house. That is, until it opened and people, late for davening and unable to find parking on a residential street, started parking in his and his neighbor’s driveways.
This story reminds me of the Arabs who complained about shofar blowing. Let the people be disturbed and aroused to teshuvah.
the judge will burn long for this. just think for a second if they were arabs praying.
There has been many instances of charedim arriving in KY and bulldozing everyone in site. They insisted on taking over a secular kindergarten for a frum one without permission, erected a mehadrin eruv using public property without permission, boycotted a kosher shomer shabbos pizza shop since there were tables and chairs inside that might cause socializing (meaning no families invited), took over the monster KY park for themselves and NOW have decided that an apartment can be used as a shul. Ridiculous!!!! There are plently of empty shuls in KY to daven in. FInd them and daven with the residents of the area who are shul goers. Stop looking to start fights… and changing over a community to match your likes only.
Does anybody in here know the facts in this case or is this just some juvenile conjecture-circle. I would also like to notify those who so vehemently support and justify both the complaint and the decision that “soneh yisroel” most pointedly applies to a Jew–it is already a given where goyim are concerned. Yes, yes my little fastidious anxious ones… the exception just proves the rule. Still not convinced? As Yogi Berra was wont to say, “you could look it up.”
Well, from reading the posts on this subject, I can assume most of the posters are secular. They seem to imply that they wouldn’t allow a shul next door. Guess what! According to the Gemarah & Shulchon Oruch you have NO RIGHTS (that is ZERO rights) in preventing a shul or Talmud Torah to open next door, EVEN IF THEY USE YOUR SHARED DRIVEWAY. I understand that the neighbors there unfortunately don’t follow the Shulchon Oruch, but here????
In addition, all of you screaming about zoning law, it’s definetly nil & void Halchakly in Israel, for as jews, they cannot prevent a Shul.
Shame on Israel,Bogus Judge Asher,so called Jerusalem attorney Yossi Havillio. You are all a bunch of anti-semites,Jew haters and bigots. You just lost respect from a strong powerfull friend of Israel.
to all who are on the side of the anti- minyan, i can gaurantee you if 25 -30 people would gather there every day to play chess etc etc they wouldnt’ve made a peep..so tell me no stories
I live in my home in Midwood for many, many years and always enjoyed my dwelling. Then a shteeble opened on my block and neighbors came around with a petition looking to take the Rebbe to court to stop the buiding extention from taking place. I refused to sign, thinking what harm could a shul bring. How wrong I was. Life has never been the same. Minyonim start at 6 am and they wake up the whole block. They double park, block driveways and fire pumps without regard for safety or the rights of others. One time a Hatzalah vehicle was held up for a few (possibly critical) minutes because the vehicle owner couldn’t be found. This type of activity goes on all day till late at night. The horn honking is unbarable. There were times I was unable to pull out of my driveway because it was blocked by a mispalel. The problem is not the shul, it’s the calateral damage that comes with it. I can well understand the feelings of the neighbors in KY. They probably lived in Brooklyn at one time.
I still don’t understand why they need to daven in this apartment which does not allow any non-residential uses. There is a Chabad shul about 3 blocks away and another chasideshe minyan about a .5 kilometer away. The are only doing this to make a political statement and upset the secular neighbors.
Would a weekly shiur fall under the same rubric of non-residential usage?