Judge Abstains On Beis Din Issue Of Perth Amboy Shul, Ruling On Lien Expected Next Week

PHOTOS: The Middlesex Judge ruling in the case of the 110 year old Historic Perth Amboy Shul decided to abstain due to the fine line of separation of Church and State, the Shul Committee and Attorney Larry Loigman, say. “After two hours of argument before Judge Ciuffani, he decided that he could not compel the defendants to appear before the Beis Din, because it would involve the court in a religious matter and possibly violate the First Amendment”, Loigman said.

Loigman, also joined by Co-counsel Mr. Ira Heller added, the “Defendants’ Attorney stated that his client(s) were willing to “take the risk” of whatever sanctions the Beis Din would impose for their non-appearance”.

The judge asked for additional briefs on the subject of the notice of lis pendens, Loigman says, and they would have to appear before him again on December 22 to complete the argument on that issue.

The Committee – involving Lakewood Askonim – looking to save the Shul, continue to work on all options.

“While the legal aspect of this case continues to play itself out, we are working on many fronts to prevent this great Chillul Hashem from taking place”, the Committee says. 

The Committee added that anyone with ideas and suggestions is welcome to contact the Committee to Save Shaarey Tefiloh at [email protected]. TLS.


This content, and any other content on TLS, may not be republished or reproduced without prior permission from TLS. Copying or reproducing our content is both against the law and against Halacha. To inquire about using our content, including videos or photos, email us at [email protected].

Stay up to date with our news alerts by following us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

**Click here to join over 15,000 receiving our Whatsapp Status updates!**

**Click here to join the official TLS WhatsApp Community!**

Got a news tip? Email us at [email protected], Text 415-857-2667, or WhatsApp 609-661-8668.

Check out the latest on TLS instagram


  1. The judge did agree with the very valid points Mr. Loigman presented but being that in NJ there is almost no presedence for such a case,his honor did not want to go in unchartered waters.

  2. There is a similar precedence! When a local shul here in Lakewood was embroiled in a power struggle theplaintiffs went to the secular courts here in NJ against halacha and the plaintiffs lost! The defendants then took them to a din torah to do things right and the plaintiffs lost again! The plaintiffs refused to abide by the din Torah. The dayan told the defendants to go back to the secular court to have them enforce the psak. The secular judge ruled that he would not go against the din torah! This took 4 years but in the end justice prevailed! Yesh din veyesh dayan! Behatzlocho!

  3. to #3 not the same situation at all ,this is not about about a”power”strugle , I have to ask do you believe in seperation of church & State which is one of the key reasons the judge abstained as he stated “because it would involve the court in a religious matter and possibly violate the First Amendment”

Comments are closed.