Why was representative of Bnei Torah removed from the kollel?

Lithuanian public split often surs and becomes personal and legal .

Recently management of Ateret Shlomo led by Hgrs"b Sorotzkin announced to the kollel student named Avi Mankis that during the coming winter he will no longer have a place in the kollel. Mankis is number five on the list of "Bnei Torah" in Jerusalem .

But Mankis did not accept the verdict, and a letter sent by his lawyer Uri Haberman, and published here for the first time, demanded the restoration to the kollel, since it is an attempt to influence the democratic process."

Ateret Shlomo recruited attorney Dov Weinroth from Dr. J. Weinroth and Co., answering with his own reasoned letter:
Removal Break from yeshiva .
Reference: Your letter dated 09/30/13
"On behalf of my clients, the management of Yeshivat Ateret Shlomo Beit Shemesh, I am pleased to respond to the letter referenced as follows:

1. My clients reject the arguments of Mr. Mankis. Your attempt to link the decision taken - by the management regarding the termination of his yeshiva studies, as if somehow involves public activities of Mr. Mankis, is only in his imagination.

2. My clients - which no one disputes that the responsibility for proper functioning and best distinguished head of the institution they are resting on their shoulders - must from time to time, with a heavy heart, to keep away students who do not contribute, to say the least, morality required for high level education yeshiva students.

3. For example, with the end of the summer study period at the yeshiva, the yeshiva management had to stop studies of four of her students exactly for the same reason. Note that already at that time considered the termination meeting management studies of Mr. Mankis institution and that, due to the latter not only ceased standing minimum standards relating to ethics curriculum required of all students in the yeshiva, but that has become a school of morality offending other students at the institution.

4. Nevertheless, for reasons of ex gratia, and taking into account the personal circumstances of Mr. Mankis, so it was decided to grant Mr. Mankis one last chance to prove that his place is within the yeshiva.

5. The problem is that during the next school year (period ended on Yom Kippur), there has been no change for the better is the performance of Mr. Mankis session, which continued to be conducted as described above. Therefore, with a heavy heart, with the end of the subsequent academic period, it was decided to remove Mr. Mankis from the yeshiva. In order not to harm the holiday joy of Mr. Mankis and his family, it was decided that the message that will be delivered after Sukkot. That is exactly what was done.

6. For my clients, and only supreme responsibility of every student of the yeshiva students, let alone such a generous scholarship recipients, is sitting with the Beit Midrash in diligence in their studies. That and no more. A yeshiva student who desires to engage in any other occupation – is welcome and important as it may be - the authority in his hand, but no one can hold the rope from both ends. It cannot be that on the one hand, a man declares himself as a full-time Torah learner and on the other, they act the opposite way which go against the yeshiva arrangements, fail to fulfill the basic teaching hours and will act in complete contradiction to the regulations and spirit of the yeshiva.

7. Beyond necessity, be said that the management of the yeshiva fiercely rejects the attempt to draw how to manage the institution, as motivated by political considerations. Contrary, my clients believe that the place of politics is outside the yeshiva and in accordance with, the institution head they are conducted only relevant considerations. Any attempt to claim otherwise, is obviously false.

8. My clients believe that after Mr. Mankis was given the opportunity during the last school year, better ways to prove that the place is indeed inside the yeshiva - and de facto held countless hearings - increasing demand for holding a hearing in the case of Mr. Mankis is cynical. Mr. Mankis privilege granted only to determine his own behavior, whether "actions brought or forbid actions that will move." My clients regret that, Mr. Mankis selected to continue such a far-reaching actions and has no one to blame but himself.

'בחדרי' גם ברשתות החברתיות - הצטרפו!