Attorney for the Rav Markowitz Faction: “We Will File a Motion to Void the Arbitration Ruling and Request a Stay of Execution”
The legal fight surrounding the Ponovezh Yeshiva reached a new intensity today, as the attorney representing the faction aligned with Rav Shmuel Markovitz sharply attacked the latest arbitration decision and vowed to challenge it in court.
In an interview with Kan Moreshet, attorney Mordechai Beitz, who represents the faction led by Rav Markovitz, warned that the ruling issued by retired judge David Cheshin is likely to face significant delays and may ultimately be overturned.
Beitz described the decision as “catastrophic, baseless, something that could not possibly have been rendered according to din Torah, and a reflection of genuine malice.” He argued that the order to remove hundreds of bochurim, avreichim, and families from the yeshiva’s domains is unprecedented in the history of Torah institutions.
According to Beitz, Rav Markovitz “acts only according to din Torah,” and the original arbitration framework—established in 1999 at the direction of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l—cannot be undone. He stressed that the 2000 rabbinic ruling, which was later affirmed by both the district court and the Supreme Court, “determined unequivocally that Rav Markovitz is the rosh yeshiva.” A later arbitrator, he insisted, “cannot cancel an existing ruling.”
Beitz maintained that Judge Cheshin exceeded the mandate he was given by reopening matters that had already been decided. “He was supposed to continue the arbitration from the point where it had stopped, not restart everything from scratch. There is no legal authority to erase a previous arbitration decision. This is an overreach that violates public policy.”
He further argued that the new ruling relied almost entirely on claims submitted by the rival faction. “It looks as if he simply signed what they wrote. As for the violence—both sides were harmed, but they documented and we did not base our case on documentation. That is not grounds for evacuating an entire community.”
Addressing the question of property ownership, Beitz said, “A yeshiva is a spiritual entity, not a real-estate corporation. Even Avrom Kahaneman, founder of the other side, would say: forget shares—this is a yeshiva. That was the intent of the donors and the founders.”
He detailed the next steps planned by his clients: “We will submit a request to void the arbitration ruling and ask for a stay of execution. Normally it is difficult to overturn such a decision, but when an arbitrator nullifies a ruling that was already approved by the Supreme Court, the overreach is clear.”
Beitz also suggested that the opposing side appeared to have been tipped off in advance. “Even before we received the ruling, they already knew. They had speakers ready and were prepared ahead of time.”
Discussing Rav Markovitz’s personal reaction, he said, “He feels it is impossible for a ruling that defines a yeshiva as a commercial contract to stand. A rosh yeshiva teaches that without Torah there is nothing, and suddenly he is told that everything is contractual and transactional.”
Beitz concluded with a harsh assessment: “In forty years of litigation, I have never encountered such an extreme ruling. Evicting hundreds of families from the Torah world—this has never happened before.”
{Matzav.com}
