Facts

(Note: Due to the lies being propagated by these intent on destroying the shul, we have added this page to clarify the necessary facts. Please contact us if you see any omission.)

Claim: “Yakov Muskat hasn’t been a member of our Shul for many years. He stopped davening here “over eight years ago”, he does not live in Boro Park for years and hasn’t contributed money to the shul since he also does not pay for a cemetery plot”.

Fact: Yakov Muskat has been a member for over 40 years, and is still a member according to the synagogue’s constitution. His family donated to the Shul tens of thousands over the years. In 2015, he sponsored the synagogue’s annual Melavah Malkah dinner. (We have in possession a receipt of his recent donation of $800)

Claim: “Adequate notices and announcements were made. The other side even admitted this in court.”

Fact: No one called, contacted, or notified the members about any intentions to demolish the synagogue, or asked their permission to sell.

Claim: “The new shul will have 10,000 sq ft of space, “3x its current size”

Fact: The shul is a tall historic building that stands out due to its size and beauty. The shul will lose space due to this transaction, and will be buried under six floors of apartments.

Claim: “We discussed the Halachic issues with recognized Poskim who’ve enthusiastically approved our plans.”

Fact: Two prominent Rabbonim have written public letters stating unequivocally that it forbidden to demolish the Shul.

Fact: They consistently refuses to provide the name of a Rav that allegedly approved the plans. In fact, the member who engineered the sale has stated publicly that he never asked a Rav whether it is permissible to sell and demolish the shul. (Listen to recording below).

Claim: “The engineers we consulted say that it’s structurally unsound.”

Fact: The engineer was hired on Aug 24th, 2017, long after the sale was finalized, and approved.

Fact: The engineer, hired specifically for the court case, never alleged that the building is “structurally unsound” or unsafe.

Fact: The community is able and willing to fix any cosmetic or other issues with the building.

Claim: “Although the Attorney General himself is mentioned in the lawsuit, the shul is affected by the lawsuit, forcing us to respond, *costing thousands in legal fees* . This is gezel hekdesh, there’s no heter for their actions.  The shul has offered to solve this peacefully. ”

Fact: Two prominent Rabbonim issued a public psak that it not only allowed but a mitzvah to go to court and prevent the demolition of the shul. (See attached Psak)

Fact: There is no requirement for the shul to hire a lawyer or to appear in court.

Fact: Members made an offer to reimburse the developer for the money he invested in the project, and take full responsibility for the upkeep and cosmetic repairs. They refused, stating “the building must come down”