That summary is inaccurate and blatantly biased. But posting anything of that nature in public is so wrong on so many levels. I'm embarrassed that you don't recognize that.
Once again, it would be wrong if ORA wouldn't have turned this into a public issue.
I do believe, that whoever put this together should reveal himself. This isn't some anonymous commenter. It's someone close to the case in the Aharon Friedman camp. And that sort of person should be doing this sort of thing out in the open.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill"
Gil - The facts is Ms. Epstein and the ORA camp have been spreading vicious lies about Mr. Friedman for years. They have acted Shla K"Halacha and with great spite all while professing to take the "high road".
They are the ones that brough this into the public donain and created a massive chillel hashem.Now that the truth is coming out about Ms. Epstein and her "inner circle" you have objections? Shame on you.
ORA has chosen the wrong woman for their "poster girl". Ms Epstein is a Moredes - I know ORA and their feminist backers don’t believe in that concept.
Jeremy Stern from ORA has stated what their agenda is to Fox news “He said the Jewish community certainly has started to discuss whether a rabbi should be able to officiate a divorce without one party's permission -- but said the community "is not at a point right now where they're willing to fundamentally change how Jewish marriage and divorce works."
This is straight from the horses mouth – check the link if you don’t believe me. ORA wants to change the gitten process by having a “no fault” get. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/29/congressman-facing-pressure-from-jewish-groups-on-advisers-religious-divorce/
Gil you claim that the summary is "inaccurate and blatantly biased". It seems that every detail is footnoted and documented. What do you claim to be inaccurate and what proof do you have to back up the claims?
I can't comment on what is inaccurate because it is lashon ha-ra, as is this entire document.
The description of the interaction between the Baltimore and Silver Spring batei din is lacking important information -- not details. But this should not be discussed in public. If you want oversight, appoint a representative to serve as a public advocate who will render judgment and keep the information private.
Rabbi Student, Do you think that one parent's unilaterally relocating a child out of state over the second parent's objections and without the permission of a court or beis din is appropriate? What about asking a court to rule that the relocation of the child should be treated as a fait accompli because the second parent had postponed civil litigation to bring the matter to beis din? What about deliberately asking the court to impose a custody schedule that is mostly moot because the the second parent is Shomer Shabbos? Is that all kedas ukedin? Assuming that the second parent will not give or receive a get, is the get the only matter that the Jewish community should be concerned about?
Rabbi Student, It is fine for the Epsteins and Ora to spread biased and false information about the case for four years (two in the case of Ora) - but when RDE posts the rest of the story, all of a sudden is is lashon hara?
what I don't understand: why did he not go for sundays as visiting days from the beginning, since he knew he could not make it to her place in time before shabbes?
Why is he so interested in having shabbes, if he knows he can't make it? Why can't he leave work early on Friday?
What kind of stupid question is that? Which parent would not want to spend shabbos with their kids? Any normal parent would want to spend shabbos with their kids!
Have you ever had a job before? Try telling your boss that you want to leave work early on a consistent basis, see how long they keep you employed there.
In late March 2008, on Aharon’s birthday, Tamar told Aharon she was divorcing him. Tamar told Aharon she wanted to relocate C to Pennsylvania (PA). Aharon objected. Tamar told Aharon that if he didn’t move out of the ir apartment, she would take C to PA. Aharon toldTamar that she may not relocate C to PA. Aharon moved out of the apartment. This is unsubstantiated hear say.
On April 10, 2008, Tamar unilaterally relocated C from Silver Spring to PA. While as this is Aharon's claim(as a careful reading of the footnote shows) it is a contested claim as later footnotes show, so again unreliable, as one of these two people is lying.
When Aharon arrived in the parties’ apartment on April 10 to see C and she was not there, he phoned Tamar.Tamar said that she had taken C to PA, and if Aharon didn't like it, Aharon should call her lawyer. Tamar did not ask a Court or Beis Din (Rabbinical Court) to rule that she could relocateC. Again an unsubstantiated claim that is essentially hear say.
Tamar likely acted upon legal advice to take C and establish residency in PA, and then delayadjudication for as long as possible so that the relocation would be a fait accompli Pure supposition. No one can know what is going on between Tamar's ears, and no one, aside from her and her lawyer are party to any conversations they may or may not have had.
Tamar claimed that she would consider reconciliation, which Aharon wanted - but only if Aharon allowed her to temporarily keep C in PA. Aharon later agreed to temporarily let Tamar keep C in PA after several rabbis promised they would work to foster reconciliation – despite Aharon’s lawyer warning that this was likely a trick to keep C in PA permanently. Again an unsubstantiated claim and more supposition as to Tamar's motives.
During those two months, Tamar refused to as much as attend marital counseling with Aharon. Unsubstantiated claim that is written in an incendiary tone. This is meant to have the sound of an impartial "fact" while actually making one party out to be guilty, and hopefully no one will ask for any proof.
After the two months were over, Tamar informed Aharon on the phone that their marriage was over. Tamar refused Aharon’s repeated requests to bring C back. Tamar said that for severalyears, she would, at most, generally only allow C to see Aharon on Sundays during the daytime.
More unsubstantiated claims trying to pass themselves off as facts.
"On April 10, 2008, Tamar unilaterally relocated C from Silver Spring to PA."
"While as this is Aharon's claim(as a careful reading of the footnote shows) it is a contested claim as later footnotes show, so again unreliable, as one of these two people is lying."
Read the original post carefully. Epstein initially lied to the court as to whether she had unilaterally relocated the child. But she later admitted to the Court that she had unilaterally relocated the child. Even the Court, which ruled that she could keep the child in PA, stated that Epstein had unilaterally relocated the child.
Are you asserting that Epstein asked permission of a Beis Din in April 2009 to relocate the child out of State? If so, which Beis Din?
Under halacha [Jewish Law], custody matters are supposed to be adjudicated in Beis Din [Rabbinical Court]. But any specific Beis Din generally only has jurisdiction if both parties agree.
This is the best kind of lie, one that is composed a good deal of truth. While no B"D in the US has the right to force a person to be judged by them(at least according to Rav Moshe Feinstein) any B"D can issue a hazmana. At which point, in accord with a few sources in the Sh"A(mostly C"M 13) the defendant has the option to either agree to be judged by them, or claim Zeh Borer Echad. In which case a B"D will be composed of a Dayyan of the Plaintiff's choice, a Dayyan of the Defendant's choice and a third that the two Dayyanim select between themselves. So to say that this could not be ajudicated by a B"D is a Patently False Claim
The matter was extremely time-sensitive. Tamar was allowing C to spend very little timewith Aharon. Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PA would transfer jurisdiction over the matter toPA, unless the case was filed in MD court. In addition, Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PAwould be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. Tamar refused to negotiate or mediate. Tamar also refused to see a rabbi together with Aharon to find away to resolve custody issues according to halacha. Aharon certainly had as much legal right to physically seize C and bring her back to MD, as Tamar did to physically seize C and relocate Cto PA. But Aharon did not do so. Aharon received a psak [Jewish Law ruling] to bring anemergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that after the emergencymotion Aharon would bring the matter to Beis Din for the case to be decided, before any further proceedings in Court. Aharon brought an emergency custody motion in late July 2008, at which point Tamar had not allowed C to spend any time with Aharon on Shabbos [the Jewish Sabbath]or Yom Tov [Jewish Holidays] for almost three months. This is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Namely Aharon Friedman resorting to Arkaot. The Kol Kore that the blog owner posted here: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/prohibiting-archaos-civil-courts.html clearly states that only a B"D may issue a psak to take one to arkaot(in keeping with the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh C"M 26).
So who issued this Psak? Simply put according to the Sh"A C"M 26:1 the Rabbi who issued the Psak, Aharon Friedman, and all who support him out to be treated as if in nidui until such time as Aharon withdraws his court claims. No single Rav has the ability to issue such a psak.
I am going to come back to this Arkaot issue, because it seems to me to be the crux of the issue.
By the time Friedman could have obtained any relief from a Beis Din, such relief would have been meaningless because the time that would have elapsed would have allowed Epstein to file the case in PA, and enough time would have elapsed that the relocation would have been treated as a fait accompli.
The point is not that a specific beis din may or may not have jurisdiction from a halachic perspective. The point is that from a legal perspective, beis din is powerless to either assert jurisdiction or force someone to a zabla.
Tamar rejected as a basis for negotiation the mediator’s proposal that C mostly live in PA, but bewith Aharon about one-third of the time; equally split marital property; and a get given andaccepted. Tamar ended mediation
Unsubstantiated... yet again.
Beis Din's resolution of the matter was repeatedly delayed. Aharon agreed to postpone the Courttrial scheduled for December 2008 until June 2009 (at further prejudice) in order for the Beis Din to hear and decide the case. First rule of lying... be consistent. We now find that the court case that Aharon supposedly dismissed is still ongoing... uh oh... that doesn't bode well for accuracy.
Until the Beis Din issued an interim custody schedule in March, Tamar generally refused to let C spend time with Aharon (such as on holidays) other than thetime explicitly required by the August 2008 Order, except for a brief period covered by themediation agreement. At Beis Din ’s first hearing in January 2009, Beis Din refused Tamar'srequest that Beis Din order Aharon to entirely dismiss the case from the Maryland courts, as thiswould have allowed Tamar to file the case in PA, and in any case, the parties would eventually have to bring the matter to civil Court to file the Beis Din’s decision as the parties’ settlement.
Not only is this entire section unsubstantiated, it also constitutes a major Motzei Shem Ra against the B"D. While I am sure that someone thought that they were being clever when they wrote this. What they are saying is that the B"D is operating in total and complete rebellion to the Shulhan Arukh, most notably what is written in C"M 26:1. Most notably that a B"D is not supposed to hear a case that is currently before non-Jewish courts. Furthermore as punishment to the Plaintiff for taking the case to non-Jewish courts, the B"D is not supposed to issue a ruling if they later bring the case before the B"D after the Plaintiff lost in non-Jewish courts.
Rabbi Tzadok, The Beis Din was told at its first hearing in January 2009 that the case was on hold in civil court awaiting a decision from Beis Din that the parties had agreed to take to the court as their settlement. That is a fact. Beis Din chose not to tell the parties to dismiss the civil case at that time, as explained in the original post. That is also a fact. Perhaps the Beis Din decided that if the case were dismissed from the Maryland courts, Epstein would file the case in Pennsylvania, effectively preventing the Beis Din from deciding the case. You may think the Beis Din was wrong and that the Beis Din should have created a situation where its jurisdiction was effectively nullified. But you can't hold that decision of the Beis Din against Friedman.
I know I'm just getting what I deserve for picking a screen name like none. But now I have to point out that none and None are 2 different people. I didn't write this.
"Beis Din's resolution of the matter was repeatedly delayed. Aharon agreed to postpone the Courttrial scheduled for December 2008 until June 2009 (at further prejudice) in order for the Beis Din to hear and decide the case."
"First rule of lying... be consistent. We now find that the court case that Aharon supposedly dismissed is still ongoing... uh oh... that doesn't bode well for accuracy"
You have not proven that the original post was either untruthful or inconsistent. Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 pendete lite trial. Friedman then agreed to postpone the final trial scheduled for December 2008 to January 2009 and then to June 2009 so that the Beis Din would have sufficient time to hear the case and issue a decision. The original post did not claim otherwise. Canceling a pendete lite trial (which Friedman did at great potential prejudice, given that Epstein had unilaterally relocated the child) is not the same thing as dismissing the entire case (which would have allowed Epstein to file the case in PA - which she had effectively already tried to do when she violated the Reconciliation Agreement with Aharon by arguing that the MD courts did not have jurisdiction because she had kept the child in PA).
Beis Din heard the child custody issue in March, and said that the next step in the process was that Beis Din would issue a custody decision immediately after Pesach [Passover] in April 2009; Beis Din issued an interim custody schedule under which C was to be with Aharon four out of the six weekends (and starting on Thursday instead of Friday) before Beis Din was to issue acustody decision. Tamar wrote Beis Din she had a settlement proposal that she would present infive days. Then, Tamar wrote Beis Din that she had a proposal and wanted to mediate. Aharon agreed to consider any proposal but said he would not enter into mediation if it seemed unlikely to work because he did not want the ruling of Beis Din to be delayed. Tamar took four weeks to submit a proposal, which Aharon believed indicated the parties were too far apart to reach agreement. Aharon wrote Beis Din that there was no agreement regarding C’s schedule,and asked Beis Din to rule that C return to Silver Spring. Tamar wrote Beis Din that she stillwanted to mediate and falsely accused Aharon of lying as to whether the parties had anagreement regarding C’s schedule. Aharon again wrote Beis Din to rule that C return to Silver Spring. Once again unsubtantiated as far was what the B"D was or was not going to do. We have some personal correspondence from the two litigants stating what they were asking the B"D to do, but that is it. No real facts other than their requests to be found here.
Given that Beis Din had previously said that it would issue a custody decision shortly after Pesach and that it would hold no further hearings on custody, Beis Din’s decision on custody seemed to be imminent. Another unsubstantiated claim mixed with some supposition. As long as the case remained before the secular court any ruling the B"D issued would have been in violation of the Sh"A and thus invalid.
Without Beis Din’s permission, Tamar filed a motion to postpone the June 2009 civil Court trial.Her grounds were that she needed more time to prepare for the civil Court trial and wanted acourt-ordered custody evaluation (both of which were irrelevant if Beis Din was to decide thematter). Tamar specifically told the Court that the Court –not Beis Din– would decide the case. Tamar thus violated the parties’ agreement for Beis Din to decide the case. Should Beis Din have decided that C return to Silver Spring, postponement of the civil trial would have madeit much more unlikely that the Court would effectively uphold such a decision, given the further time that C would have spent in PA. Thus, Aharon refused Tamar’s request that he agree to postpone the trial so that Tamar could have more time to prepare for trial and so that the Courtcould conduct a custody evaluation because the Court, not Beis Din, would decide the case.
First let's be clear. Aharon initiated the secular court case, which means that Tamar is the defendant(according to Jewish law). Tamar thus halakhically has the right to defend herself in secular court as she sees fit. Furthermore as long as Aharon did not dismiss his case, the B"D could not rule, thus Tamar was completely correct in saying that the court and not the B"D would decide the matter(so long as Aharon did not dismiss the case).
Beyond that we have unsubstantiated claims aimed at making Tamar look bad for excercising her halakhic rights.
"Given that Beis Din had previously said that it would issue a custody decision shortly after Pesach and that it would hold no further hearings on custody, Beis Din’s decision on custody seemed to be imminent." "Another unsubstantiated claim mixed with some supposition. As long as the case remained before the secular court any ruling the B"D issued would have been in violation of the Sh"A and thus invalid."
The Beis Din was told at its first hearing in January 2009 that the case was before the MD court and scheduled for trial in June 2009, and that the parties agreed to bring the BD's decision to the MD court as their settlement. You disagree with the BD as to how they should have handled the status of the case in civil court when BD was told of this in January 2009. Perhaps BD was concerned that if the case were to be dismissed from the MD court, Epstein could have brought the case to the PA courts, which would have effectively nullified BD's actual ability to issue a decision on the custody issue.
"First let's be clear. Aharon initiated the secular court case, which means that Tamar is the defendant(according to Jewish law). Tamar thus halakhically has the right to defend herself in secular court as she sees fit. Furthermore as long as Aharon did not dismiss his case, the B"D could not rule, thus Tamar was completely correct in saying that the court and not the B"D would decide the matter(so long as Aharon did not dismiss the case). "
Tamar's unilateral relocation of the child out-of-State effectively initiated the secular court process. Beis Din was told in January 2009 that the case was on hold in secular court with a trial scheduled for June 2009. The Beis Din nonetheless heard the case and stated that it would issue a ruling on child custody, while the matter remained pending in civil court so that the parties would take the Beis Din's ruling as their settlement to the civil court.
Beis Din then told Aharon to postpone or dismiss the civil trial, Finally we see the B"D operating according to halakha... that's refreshing. apparently based on ex parte communications between Tamar and Beis Din in which Beis Din was misled about the status of the case. Followed by more supposition. Beis Din wrote that the parties were still mediating (despite Aharon’s requests that Beis Din rule that C return to MD)
Something the B"D could not halakhically do. and that if the parties wanted Beis Din to issue a ruling, the nextstep would be for Beis Din to hold another hearing (despite Beis Din’s statement that the next step in the process was for it to issue a decision on child custody, and that it would not holdanother hearing on that issue). Aharon filed a motion opposing the continuance, arguing thatfurther delay would be extremely prejudicial, as he also wrote to Beis Din. Beis Din threatened Aharon with seruv [contempt] if he didn’t drop or postpone the civil case, More sound halakhic practice from the B"D despite the insinuations that they were being dishonest. but said that Tamar would have to sign an agreement not to bring the case in the PA courts. Makes sense, but again the B"D could only enforce this or take any actual action after Aharon dismissed the court case. Tamar filed suit in civil court for absolute divorce, without permission from Beis Din. That would be because she didn't need it. Arguably she could say that this was part of her defense against Aharon in the court case that he had initiated. Aharon asked Beis Din to clarify Beis Din’s next steps in the case. Beis Din acknowledged that the next step in its process was for it to issue a custody decision, not to hold further hearings. This is of course assuming that Aharon would drop his case. Aharon filed amotion to postpone the Court trial as per Beis Din’s order, despite the further legal prejudice (asexplained above). The Court denied the motion to postpone the trial. This is a fun way of saying that Aharon tried to pull a fast one on the B"D and lost big time. The B"D wanted(as per halakha) for him to dismiss the case, instead he tried to postpone it(I can play the supposition game too... He seemingly wanted the best of both worlds). The court declined. Which means that Aharon could have sought a dismissal(he didn't). Instead he went ahead with the case and lost. Too bad for Aharon. Before the civil trial occurred, Beis Din ordered Tamar and Aharon to sign a jurisdictionalagreement (that Tamar would not bring the case to a PA court) and dismiss the MD case before it went to trial. Aharon agreed to Beis Din’s order. Tamar refused Beis Din's order. Here's another unsubstantiated claim of the B"D operating contrary to the halakha. Yes I know there is a footnote. However a letter fromAharon to the B"D does not substantiate a claim that the B"D ordered Tamar to do something, contrary to halakha.
"Makes sense, but again the B"D could only enforce this or take any actual action after Aharon dismissed the court case."
BD said to either drop OR postpone the case. If the case were first dropped from the MD court without an agreement that the case would not be brought in the PA courts, than Epstein could have, as a legal matter, filed the case in the PA courts (something she would not have been able to do if Friedman hadn't brought the case to BD in the first place).
"This is a fun way of saying that Aharon tried to pull a fast one on the B"D and lost big time. The B"D wanted(as per halakha) for him to dismiss the case,"
The BD had ordered Friedman to drop OR postpone the case.
"instead he tried to postpone it(I can play the supposition game too... He seemingly wanted the best of both worlds)."
BD had said that Friedman must drop OR postpone the case.
BD's request that Friedman drop or postpone the case was extremely prejudicial to Friedman. The reason is not because Friedman would have lost the benefit of a court decision, but because even if the BD were to rule in Friedman's favor, delay of the civil case would have made it virtually impossible for Friedman to have the BD's ruling enforced in court.
Nonetheless, Friedman filed a motion to postpone the case at the BD's order.
And note that if Friedman had wanted the case decided by the court, he would not have canceled the October 2008 trial at which it was likely the child would be returned in order to bring the case to BD.
"The court declined. Which means that Aharon could have sought a dismissal(he didn't)."
Are you an expert on Maryland child custody law and jurisdiction? Both parties had filed claims for custody; the court would not necessarily have agreed to let Friedman unilaterally dismiss the case.
And in any case, the BD had not ordered Friedman to dismiss the case absent Epstein's agreeing not to bring the case to the PA courts. Such a dismissal would have made a nullity of any potential BD decision in Friedman's favor.
"Here's another unsubstantiated claim of the B"D operating contrary to the halakha. Yes I know there is a footnote. However a letter fromAharon to the B"D does not substantiate a claim that the B"D ordered Tamar to do something, contrary to halakha."
BD ordered Epstein to agree not to bring the case in the PA courts (an option she would not have had if Friedman had not brought the case to BD in the first place). Choose to believe that or not.
What went on in the court case and what was said really makes no matter. The Shulhan Arukh gives Tamar the ability to defend herself. Aharon lost pure and simple.
The Baltimore Beis Din did not rule that a get be given, perhaps because Tamar violated Beis Din’s orders thus directly causing severe harm to Aharon and C, or perhaps because Beis Din, after holding several hearings on the matter, concluded that there are no grounds for ordering a get. Then we go back to the supposition.
What we now have is this. Aharon is unhappy with the decision of the court. A B"D cannot halakhically overturn or rule against the decision of the court, as the Sh"A ruled that this was Aharon's punishment for taking it to court. So now Aharon is involved in Get extortion.
Here is the question that this raises: Is Get extortion a valid means of circumventing halakhot that are meant to prevent a person from going to arkaot? Are the Gedolim ok with permitting such a circumvention of a person's punishment for going to arkaot? Will the Gedolim allow a woman to remain an agunah because a man wants to circumevent the Sh"A and the woman wants to stand on her halakhic right?
Friedman canceled the October 2008 court trial at which it was likely the child would have been returned in order to bring the case to BD. Epstein violated the BD's orders regarding dismissing the civil case. At Epstein's request the court ordered that the child remain in PA because Epstein had kept the child there for so long, with Epstein specifically arguing that the delay should be held against Friedman (and thus the child stay in PA) because Friedman had agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to BD.
Michael tzaddok again posts facts completely in accordance with halochoh as prevailing for ashkenazim. there is absolutely no chiyuv to have a zabla. the nitvah presumably him as his wife initiated the divorce can choose the bais din and has no chiyuv to go to zabla in accordance with the principle to'veah holech achar ha'nitvah.
In fact many contemporary poskim hold that today given the corruption, zabla is ossur e.g. rav wosner and dayan yisroel yaakov fisher ztl of the bdatz rules that if you went to zabla, ignore the ruling it s irrelevant.
aharon choose a bais din that holds mo'us olai is no reason for a get, a bais din which awards no mezonos to a moredes and one that awards custody of a girl who is living in a different state from her father after age 6. tell thugs like ora and tzedoki to jump in the lake.
and there are many web sites that have these psakim tzedoki so don't demand that i post them. they are not on any arabic sites, sorry.
Wow a pile of incoherence topped off with a racial slur like a sunday with a cherry on top. Let me try to decipher this and respond. Michael tzaddok again posts facts completely in accordance with halochoh as prevailing for ashkenazim. Thank you for finally admitting this.
there is absolutely no chiyuv to have a zabla. Umm... well... We started off well. Rav Moshe Feinstein disagrees with you. שו"ת אגרות משה חושן משפט חלק ב סימן ג
בענין בעל דין שרוצה דווקא בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= ולא בב"ד קבוע.
כ"ה אדר א' תשל"ו. לרב אחד.
הנה ברור ופשוט שכל בע"ד יכול לומר שרוצה דוקא בזבל"א, וכמפורש בתוס' ורא"ש סנהדרין דף ה' ע"א דהא דמומחה לרבים תניא שדן אפילו יחידי שפירושו אפילו בעל כרחו וכמו כן למדו משם דסתם דיינים שדנין בשלשה הוא נמי שיכולין לדון אפילו בעל כרחם דהוא דוקא כשאינו רוצה לבא לב"ד כלל, אבל כשרוצה לבא לב"ד אבל רוצה בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= אין יכולין לכופו שילך לב"ד בלא זבל"א אף שהוא מומחה, ומסתבר דהוא אף לפני שלשה מומחין אין יכולין לכופו לדונו בעל כרחו דהא לרש"י מומחה לרבים שדן יחידי הוא למ"ד דא"צ שלשה מקרא דבצדק תשפוט וגם עליו כתבו התוס' שאינו יכול לדון בע"כ אלא כשלא רצה כלל לילך לב"ד אף שלדידיה הוי מומחה אחד כמו שלשה מומחין, ודוחק לומר שבתוס' שמשמע שאף במומחה אינו יכול לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לבא כלל לפני ב"ד הוא רק לשיטתייהו שיחיד מומחה שתניא שדן הוא רק מתקנתא דרבנן דלכן לא תיקנו אלא בכה"ג שאין רוצה כלל לילך לב"ד דהי"ל לפרושי זה. וגם הרא"ש הא מפרש הברייתא לתרוייהו למאן דלית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדאורייתא ולמאן דאית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדרבנן ולא הזכיר שיהיה חלוק בינייהו לענין בע"כ אף כשרוצה לילך לב"ד דזבל"א אלמא דליכא חלוק ביניהם לדינא דלתרוייהו הוא מה שמסיק דכשרוצה בזבל"א אין יכולין לכופו וא"כ גם תלתא מומחין אין יכולין לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לילך לב"ד כלל. אבל לדינא אינו נוגע זה דבזמננו ליכא דין מומחה שלכן לא שייך לדון כלל בזה כי כן איפסק גם בש"ע /חו"מ/ סימן ג' סעי' א'. ומשמע שליכא בזה חולק. ורק במומחה פליג הטור /חו"מ/ בסימן י"ג שהוא נגד אביו הרא"ש וכמעט כל הראשונים ועיי"ש בב"ח וצ"ע אבל בזמננו שליכא מומחה לכו"ע יכול לומר שרוצה לפני ב"ד דזבל"א.
והא דכתב הרמ"א דאם דיינים קבועים בעיר לא יכול לומר לא אדון לפניהם אלא בזה בורר היה זה רק בעיירות שבמדינותינו שהיו מתמנים מהעיר שאף הרב האב"ד לבדו נמי היה יכול לכופו מאחר שקבלוהו אבל בנוא יארק ליכא דיינים קבועים שנתמנו מהעיר ובפרט שאיכא עוד אגודות וחבורות של רבנים שליכא אף מינוי מכל הרבנים שבעיר ולכן כשרוצה אחד מהן בזבל"א מוכרחין לילך בזבל"א דוק
In fact many contemporary poskim hold that today given the corruption, zabla is ossur e.g. rav wosner and dayan yisroel yaakov fisher ztl of the bdatz rules that if you went to zabla, ignore the ruling it s irrelevant. More hear say. Sources please. Though I will say this, in Israel, you are right. ZBL"A does not apply in Israel(where those two Dayyanim were posek). However, in the US, lack of a Kavua B"D according to Rav Moseh Feinstein and others, is different.
aharon choose a bais din that holds mo'us olai is no reason for a get Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. However, he did choose to go to Arkaot. I find it interesting that you are only bothered by Arkaot when it is women doing it. When it is men, you are more than willing to look the other way.
and there are many web sites that have these psakim tzedoki so don't demand that i post them. they are not on any arabic sites, sorry. Right because you don't actually have sources, and so we leave it with your racial epithet. Nice.
Do you mind stating why you are fine with a man going to Arkaot and not a woman? I wasn't aware that the Sh"A made that distinction.
just look mat how despicable gil student is. he hides behind loshon hora because he can't answer but when it comes to being malbin pnei chavero be'rabim of friedman and the chilul hashem involved in publicizing this in all the goishe newspapers by Ora that he doesn't condemn.
gil you are a fraud just like your masters schlachter, schwartz who is mafkia kiddushin lemafreiah, broyde the lightweight and wittig with his ridiculous pre-nup.
I don't think there was any issue with Aharon's going to arkaaot. It was something he had to do to preserve some of his legal rights as a backup plan in the event that beis din would be unable to handle the situation.
No it means unsubstantiated which means that one may not rely on it as a fact.
I don't think there was any issue with Aharon's going to arkaaot. It was something he had to do to preserve some of his legal rights as a backup plan in the event that beis din would be unable to handle the situation.
Please point out where it says that in the Shulhan Arukh, or any poskim, including the Kol Kore given by the seventy Gedolim. Going to Arkaot is a sin, it is blaspheme and it is lifting one's hand against the Torah, and a denial of G-d's existence(see Sma on 26:1 for all of that). Nowhere has any posek given the person the right to go to Arkaot without a psak from a Beit Din. Aharon didn't have one, so he is over for Arkaot. Pure and simple.
See if the wife had gone to Arkaot to protect her civil legal rights in case she didn't get what she wanted out of the B"D everyone here would be screaming about what a Rasha she is. However, when the husband does it, you make excuses. That is not Torah, that is hypocrisy and misogyny.
See if the wife had gone to Arkaot to protect her civil legal rights in case she didn't get what she wanted out of the B"D everyone here would be screaming about what a Rasha she is. However, when the husband does it, you make excuses. That is not Torah, that is hypocrisy and misogyny.
Hey man, argue with what I'm saying, not with what I would theoretically say.
The fact is that beis din isn't as powerful as you're making it sound like they are. With the very real concern that Tamar would not listen to a beis din it would be foolish of Aharon to let his legal options expire.
I do not know much about the SH'A that you are quoting, but if he had a pesak allowing this it's highly doubtful that he'd be subject to a kenas. Most rabbininc kenassos do not apply beshogeg. I'm also not convinced the pesak was wrong in the first place. I will look into this later today.
"See if the wife had gone to Arkaot to protect her civil legal rights in case she didn't get what she wanted out of the B"D everyone here would be screaming about what a Rasha she is."
If someone goes to court to protect their legal rights in case they do NOT get what they want out of BD, than they are choosing to obtain their remedy in court, not in BD. But that is not what Friedman did. And the proof is that he canceled the October 2008 pendete lite trial at which the child was likely to be returned to bring the case to BD.
It seems very different if someone goes to court (on a psak from a rav) on an emergency and temporary basis to protect their legal rights in case they DO get what they want from BD but because of the time that would have elapsed had they first gone to BD and not court, would lose the legal ability to enforce the BD decision in court.
Well I looked it up this afternoon, and there about 1001 reasons why the ideas presented in that siman don't apply here.
Tzadok: Ok as far as innaccuracies here they go:
me:Unsubstantiated does not equal inaccurate.
Tzadok: No it means unsubstantiated which means that one may not rely on it as a fact.
me: Well I guess that makes a lot of your above posts inaccurate. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is upon the side that made this whole affair public: ORA.
Well I looked it up this afternoon, and there about 1001 reasons why the ideas presented in that siman don't apply here. Well why don't you give us your top five.
Though thank you for providing yet another example that this has more to do with misogyny then it does Torah.
Here is what is really doing my head in. The vast majority of those who were making such a big fuss about the issur of Arkaot, when it is pointed out that Aharon Friedman went to arkaot without a valid heter, suddenly say it was permissible, because he had to "defend his civil legal rights" in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to. So what this says to me is that this is not a matter of halakha but a matter of misogyny. If a woman does it, it's a horrible sin and she is going to go to Gehinom with not chance of ever getting out, whereas if a man does it... well that's Ok maybe the B"D wouldn't give him what he wanted. Unfortunately these same people tend to be the most vocal opponents of the more lenient positions on forcing a Get. Whereas the halakha may actually be with them on a lot of what they say there, the misogynistic double standard they have on arkaot is going to taint how that is perceived. Why should anyone believe that suddenly they think halakha should be applied equally to men and women, and not simply twisted in support of men. If they do it in one place why would they not do it in another?
Rabbi Tsdadok has it backward. Friedman did not go to court "in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to." Friedman received a psak to file an emergency motion in court (to keep jurisdiction in Maryland) so that Friedman would be able to receive the benefit of any beis din decision in case it ruled in his favor. If Friedman did not go to court and establish jurisdiction in Maryland, any beis din decision in Friedman's favor would have been meaningless because Epstein would have been able to file the case in the PA courts. Rabbi Tsadok is missing the underlying point that Epstein's unilaterally taking the child to PA was taking the offensive in the court process. As it turned out Beis Din didn't rule on custody because Epstein violated the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case. And the court ruled that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled an earlier trial to bring the case to beis din.
Rabbi Tsdadok has it backward. Friedman did not go to court "in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to." Friedman received a psak to file an emergency motion in court
Not from a B"D so it wasn't a valid Psak. ONLY a B"D can issue such a psak.
(to keep jurisdiction in Maryland) so that Friedman would be able to receive the benefit of any beis din decision in case it ruled in his favor.
That isn't what the "fact" sheet said. Furthermore the fact sheet states that the B"D is not recognized by the secular courts(whether PA or MD) in custody issues.
If Friedman did not go to court and establish jurisdiction in Maryland, any beis din decision in Friedman's favor would have been meaningless because Epstein would have been able to file the case in the PA courts. If the B"D was able to have jurisdiction(as you mentioned above) this would not have been an issue. Furthermore since when do we permit a person to sin, because of a possible danger that someone else might sin in the future.
Rabbi Tsadok is missing the underlying point that Epstein's unilaterally taking the child to PA was taking the offensive in the court process. That isn't an established fact. Tamar didn't go to court, Aharon did.
As it turned out Beis Din didn't rule on custody because Epstein violated the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case. Again that's not what the fact sheet said. The fact sheet, which is put out by Aharon's people said that the B"D required that Aharon dismiss the case. He didn't. The defendant does not have the option of dismissing a civil suit, that is up to the plaintiff who was Aharon. Halakhicly speaking the B"D cannot order the defendant not to defend themselves if they so desire. While the B"D supposedly asked Tamar to sign an agreement that she would not then go to court in PA(there is no proof of this so it is an unsubstantiated claim). Again this is irrelevant so long as Aharn did not dismiss the case.
And the court ruled that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled an earlier trial to bring the case to beis din.
Friedman didn't cancel the case, he postponed it. If he dismissed the case he would not have eventually had a ruling against him because there would have been no case. He never dismissed the case as the B"D ordered. It is just that simple, so the B"D never ruled.
What I am not missing, is the hypocrisy and misogyny that goes with everyone trying to defend Aharon going to Arkaot against halakha. Again we see that if a woman does it, it is a sin. If a man does it, we make excuses. Somehow you then expect people to believe that you won't twist other halakhot in favor of men. That is absurd. If you are willing to permit violations of halakha and distort in favor of men in this case, there is nothing to say that you will not do so in other areas as well.
"And the court ruled that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled an earlier trial to bring the case to beis din."
"Friedman didn't cancel the case, he postponed it. If he dismissed the case he would not have eventually had a ruling against him because there would have been no case."
Nobody claimed that Friedman canceled the case. Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 pendete lite court trial. Friedman also agreed to postpone the final court trial scheduled for December 2008 so that the Beis DIn would have time to decide the case.
This was why the court treated Epstein's relocation of the child as a fait accompli.
And yes, Friedman did ultimately follow the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the case. It was Epstein who violated the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the case. And once Epstein had filed counterclaims, Friedman could not cancel the case unilaterally.
"Halakhicly speaking the B"D cannot order the defendant not to defend themselves if they so desire."
The Beis Din never asked Epstein not to defend herself in court. They ordered her to agree not to bring the case in PA - an option she would never have had if Friedman had not brought the case to Beis Din.
firstly while i am sure that rav dovid e knows what he is talking about, and the fact that tamar is a moredes, and rav elyashiv's psak means no get, this case is far from my main interest. i am not intricately familiar with this case nor is it my main preoccupation.
my main interest is the fact that in general der schlachter and getora side with women who are in arko'oys. they issue fake siruvim under the bifurcation principle of the death bin of america that going to arko'oys for money is fine and you can still be tzias dina. the cases of menachem lowy and meir kin are prime examples of this. this case of epstein is a slippery one not a slam dunk showing the corruption of der schlachter.
we should be focusing on the corruption of der schlachter in general as showing his utter contempt for halocho as in the 2 cases i mentioned.
tzeddoki you are the hypochrite. you are worse thsan getora. not only have you not condemned them but you have further previously claimed 1) being in court is not mesirah. 2) being lo tzias dina does not make you lose you rights in bais din 3) that it is the prevailing view that a plaintiff who is in arko'oys without a valid hetter has to pay the defendant's legal fees.
even on 2 and 3 the death bin of america argue with you.
if i did not know better i would think you were an am ho'oretz. i know better and know that you are a kofer.
Stan I was waiting for you to pop in. Thank you not proving me wrong in thinking that you are a hypocrite and a misogynist.
tzeddoki you are the hypochrite. you are worse thsan getora. not only have you not condemned them but you have further previously claimed 1) being in court is not mesirah.
No that is not exactly what I said. I said that if one believes that they have a legitimate claim. This is the ruling of the Rema 388:5, then amongst the Notei Kelim on that Siman S"K 25 as well as the Sma S"K 17 GR"A S"K 34 the Bier Hetiv S"K 22, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger.
2) being lo tzias dina does not make you lose you rights in bais din They don't that is clear from the Rema C"M 26:1
3) that it is the prevailing view that a plaintiff who is in arko'oys without a valid hetter has to pay the defendant's legal fees. Again you are maliciously misquoting me. I said: this one is a bit more complicated. This halakha(as brought in 26:4)is a very short version of the Responsa of the Rosh Klal 18 siman 4 and 5. From there it devolves into two cases each of which I will deal with here: 1) The defendant does not show up to court(does not hire a lawyer or in any way try to defend himself). Here it is a machloket. According to the Bach and Kuntras Ve’eileh Hamishpatim rule that in such a case, the claimant is still exempt from paying the legal fees and court costs, and is only required to pay back what he himself recieved in excess of what he would have received from a B"D on account of the other damages being a gerama. The GR"A and Orach Mishpat rule that these other damages are not a gerama, and that since the defendant was completely passive in keeping with the ruling of the Gemarra B"K 27 Where it states that if a person placed a coal on his fellowman’s clothes he must pay for the damage, and cannot claim “why didn’t you take it off,” because the other can reply “why should I take it off, in the end you will have to pay me.” This is still a machloket poskim. 2) In which the defendant actively tries to defend himself, and thus hires a lawer ect. In this case according to the Bach, the GR"A the Kuntras and Orach Mishpat the defendant is liable for whatever fees that he thus incurs, and the plaintiff is only liable for whatever he received in excess of what he would have received from a B"D. So in a case where the defendant hires a lawyer and actively tries to defend themselves in the court, they lose their rights for recompense on legal fees.
even on 2 and 3 the death bin of america argue with you. Only when you misquote them and take them out of context.
However all of that is beside the point. You have argued from the beginning what a horrible sin Arkaot is(which I do agree that it is), yet when a man does it you are willing to look the other way.
Which leaves only one conclusion. You are perfectly willing to twist the Torah to fit your own misogynistic views. That is rather sad. Anyone who isn't willing to condemn Aharon Friedman for going to Arkaot really has nothing to add to the conversation on forced Gittin, because it is clear that your loyalties do not lie with Torah but with the oppression of women, even if Torah has to be violated to pull it off.
tzeddoki you are the hypochrite. you are worse thsan getora. not only have you not condemned them but you have further previously claimed
This is also not true. I have condemned ORA, repeatedly on this blog. Would you like the links to the posts? Either you are maliciously lying(most probable) or you simply have a kindergarten level of reading comprehension.
An understanding of child custody law and jurisdiction is necessary to understand what happened in the case, and especially why a rav issued a psak that Friedman file an emergency motion in the Maryland courts – but afterward suspend the court process and take the case to beis din for a decision. The psak was designed so that Friedman would not be precluded from the benefit of a beis din decision should beis din rule in his favor - not so that Friedman could have the matter ultimately decided by court.
Friedman's filing an emergency motion was not the first step in the court process, but a defensive move necessitated by Epstein’s prior actions. The first step in the court process was Epstein's unilaterally relocating the child out-of-State. As noted in the original post, the law looks upon such behavior very badly. However, the other parent generally must quickly file suit in court to oppose such relocation or is viewed as acquiescing to the relocation of the child.
Epstein claimed she would consider reconciliation only if Friedman let her keep the child in PA for two months. Friedman later agreed to do so and Epstein signed an agreement that this would not be detrimental to Friedman with regard to custody or change jurisdiction. When the two months were over, Epstein refused to come back. She also generally refused to let the child see Friedman other than on Sundays (and said that she would not do so for several years). She also refused Friedman's request that they go to a rav together to discuss how to resolve their dispute.
From a legal viewpoint Epstein's continuing to hold the child in PA was extremely prejudicial and time sensitive - both because it would transfer jurisdiction of the case to the PA courts and because the child's continued residence in PA would be prejudicial in adjudication no matter what the forum. In the meantime, the child's access to Friedman was extremely limited. What was Friedman supposed to do at that point?
Physically grab the child back? Friedman technically had a legal right to do so, but Epstein could have run to court requesting an order of protection, and a judge could nonetheless have held such action against Friedman.
If Friedman went to a beis din, Epstein could have delayed the process and then refused to appear. In the meantime the child would remain in PA. If Epstein refused to appear at beis din, the beis din would be powerless to force Epstein to appear before it, as beis din in the U.S. does not have police powers. It is true that if Epstein had refused to appear before beis din, beis din could have eventually told Friedman that he could go to court. But Friedman’s going to court at a later date would be futile, because Epstein's holding the child in PA would transfer jurisdiction of the matter to the PA courts. [As it was, when Friedman went to court, Epstein argued (in violation of the Reconciliation Agreement with Friedman) that the time Epstein had kept the child in PA should be prejudicial and that the MD court didn't have jurisdiction]. In addition, even if Friedman could have kept the matter in the MD courts, the amount of time that would have lapsed would be extremely prejudicial to Friedman. And again, although civil law frowns upon the unilateral relocation of a child (as noted in the post, civil law refers to such action as an abduction that is reprehensible and unjustifiable), the other parent's not quickly going to court to bring the child back (and such inaction includes trying to have the matter resolved by a beis din), is deemed to be acquiescence to the relocation. Thus, if Friedman did not go to court immediately, he would lose any avenue whatsoever for seeking the child's return, as even if a beis din would later have ruled in his favor, such a decision would have been meaningless from a legal standpoint and a beis din in the U.S has no police power.
So Friedman asked a sha'ila of a rav (and the rav he asked did not have any connections, financial or otherwise, to Friedman's family) and was told that he may bring an emergency child custody motion in Maryland court, but that afterwards he must bring the case to a beis din, if Epstein subsequently agreed to do so, before any further proceedings in the court. The psak was not that Friedman could seek a decision on the substance of the matter from court, but that he could preserve jurisdiction in Maryland and get Epstein to agree to adjudication in Beis Din, so that the unilateral relocation wouldn't be treated as a fait accompli. The premise of the psak was that once the parties had agreed to adjudication in front of a specific beis din, they would abide by the beis din's decision and agree to submit the beis din's decision to the court as their settlement.
At the emergency hearing, Epstein lied as to whether she had unilaterally relocated the child, and violated the agreement with Friedman. Thus, in the interim the court ruled that the child would largely remain PA.
Epstein subsequently agreed to bring the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din. This put Friedman to the test as to whether he wanted the case decided by court or by beis din. Friedman had every reason to believe (as explained in the original post) that the child would be returned at the trial scheduled for October 2008, while he could not know what the Beis Din would do. In addition, if he agreed to cancel the October 2008 court trial, and the case would (for whatever reason, either because Beis Din would not rule on custody or because Epstein would not abide by the beis din's ruling) be later decided in court, Friedman would be severely prejudiced by the amount of time the child had remained in PA. Friedman had his choice to make and he chose to follow the psak and cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din.
But Epstein used Friedman’s canceling the October 2008 trial to have her relocation of the child treated as a fait accompli. The matter dragged on for months at beis din. Epstein ultimately violated the beis din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case, and so the case went to trial in court in June 2009 instead of April or October 2008. The court ruled (at Epstein's urging) that the child should stay in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled the earlier court trial to bring the case to beis din.
It is now clear that the flaw in the psak given to Friedman was not that it was too lenient (in allowing the Friedman to file an emergency court motion), but that it was too strict (in prohibiting Friedman from proceeding with the court trial after bringing the emergency motion and instead requiring him to suspend the court case and bring the case to beis din). Ultimately, Friedman lost any chance to have the child returned because he agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to beis din.
And then Friedman is publicly vilified, while Epstein is turned into a hero whose every action in the matter is lauded as “kedas ukedin”. Epstein's actions and the actions of the rabbis supporting and encouraging her make a complete mockery of the beis din system in the U.S.
So Friedman asked a sha'ila of a rav (and the rav he asked did not have any connections, financial or otherwise, to Friedman's family) and was told that he may bring an emergency child custody motion in Maryland court
A single Rav may not give such a psak. Full Stop. It was an invalid heter.
What does it matter if he had connections or supported the Rav Financially? The Shulhan Arukh says that even a dayyan that is supported by one of the litigants does not have to recluse himself from a case. C"M 9:2 If (3) before making a monetary claim against someone in Beis Din, a person gives a gift to one of the Dayanim, [6] the plaintiff is unable to claim that the gift disqualifies the Dayan from judging the case. On the other hand, if the Dayan wants, he is permitted to refuse to judge the case (such as when he knows that his heart became biased) (Tur), but it is only (4) [7] middas chassidus (non-obligatory piety).
It is now clear that the flaw in the psak given to Friedman was not that it was too lenient (in allowing the Friedman to file an emergency court motion), but that it was too strict (in prohibiting Friedman from proceeding with the court trial after bringing the emergency motion and instead requiring him to suspend the court case and bring the case to beis din). Ultimately, Friedman lost any chance to have the child returned because he agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to beis din.
Thank you for again showing the hypocrisy of this. No one, male or female has the ability to set aside the halakha for their own convenience. Nothing like good old misogyny dressed up in a garb of piety.
And then Friedman is publicly vilified Which is also completely forbidden. However, his case would be much stronger he if did not violate halakha by going to arkaot, and violate halakha again by refusing a hazmanah to a B"D.
When people are ready to admit that he was wrong and acting against halakha then we can have a legitimate conversation about the halakha of a moredet. Until then everything said will be tainted by misogyny, because of the obvious double standard.
there are opinions that hold a rov can issue a hetter. i personally do not agree with them.
yet the thugs at the death bin claim that for criminal cases you do not need a hetter and kidnapping a child across borders is or should be a criminal matter tzedokki.
as for your previous mo'us olai chiyuv mezonos, lets get one thing clear. any time a woman is in arko'oys, she cannot ask for a get or for mezonos from a bais din because she has no rights in bais din.
furthermore if she made false claims to child services or any other mesirah, she should be in jail al pi halochoh because bais din has a power to prevent this and should prevent this.
as for your previous mo'us olai chiyuv mezonos, lets get one thing clear. any time a woman is in arko'oys, she cannot ask for a get or for mezonos from a bais din because she has no rights in bais din.
I agree fully. Regarding the case that is in court, one has no rights in B"D, as the Rema makes clear in C"M 26:1.
furthermore if she made false claims to child services or any other mesirah, she should be in jail al pi halochoh because bais din has a power to prevent this and should prevent this.
There is no proof that she did.
Your lack of a condemnation again speaks volumes. You don't care about halakha, your misogyny gets in the way. You clearly are willing to twist the Torah. I say that whoever goes to Arkaot without a valid heter from a B"D as per the Sh"A and the Kol Kore that YOU brought here is a sinner, and has lost their rights regarding that case in B"D. If they win in Arkaot the B"D has the right to take away anything they deem they weren't entitled to al pi Torah, and if they lose, again as per the Rema, they have lost too bad for them, it is there punishment. Doesn't matter if if a man or a female.
However you have clearly demonstrated a recalcitrance to condemn a man who has gone to arkaot even though you have said that arkaot is a sin.
Don't even try to say that I say that ORA/Schacter are in the right on this situation. I believe that they are acting completely against halakha, and as per a Yabia Omer I read this past Shabbat, they may even being employing the Rambam's Kophia which all of the Rishonim say is assur.
However that does not retroactively justify Aharon Friedman for going to Arkaot. At most you can make a claim that he is exempt from having to pay Tamar Epstein's legal fees.
But then I'm not a misogynist that will twist Torah to exempt men when they are clearly sinning.
A and B have a dispute. A acts unilaterally regarding the dispute in a way designed specifically that a civil court will rule in A's favor. B has good reason that if B brings the case to court immediately, the court will rule in B's favor, but if the matter is brought to court at a later date the court will rule in A's favor. If B brings the matter to BD, and the BD rules in B's favor, BD cannot enforce its order and if A will not abide by the BD's psak, all BD can do is tell B to take the matter to court. However, at that point, B will lose in court. Rabbi Tzadok, you claim that if B brings the case to a rav, the rav cannot pasken that B bring the case to court (even temporarily) in order to at least somewhat mitigate the prejudice of A's unilateral action? In other words, B has no choice but to go first to BD even though if BD rules in B's favor, B will not be able to obtain the benefit of that decision?
Rabbi Tzadok, you claim that if B brings the case to a rav, the rav cannot pasken that B bring the case to court (even temporarily) in order to at least somewhat mitigate the prejudice of A's unilateral action? In other words, B has no choice but to go first to BD even though if BD rules in B's favor, B will not be able to obtain the benefit of that decision?
How long do you think it takes a B"D to rule? Something like this shouldn't take more than a day, if the facts are as you say. Pure and simple. His refusal to dismiss the case after the B"D ordered him to do so is also a problem.
Mostly however your argument is built on a number of assumptions. 1) You assume that Tamar is lying when she says she relocated with Aharon's approval. 2) You assume that she wanted to have the case tried in a PA court(there are minimum residency requirements for that, they very by county, so you would have to check to see what they are, and that will give you a time frame). 3) You assume that Tamar would not abide by a B"D's ruling. 4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it). 5) You assume that Aharon's attempt to use mediation to resolve the dispute will be prejudicial, that too is a fallacy, so long as he can actually show that he tried to use mediation.
Fortunately halakha works with facts not assumptions. The facts are that Aharon went to secular court without valid heter and without approval of a B"D, and stayed there even after a B"D ordered him to dismiss the case.
Why is 1 through 5 considered to be assumptions and your last paragraph considered fact? There are no verified facts here, only claims. The claim from the Friedman camp is that Aharon got a pesak that BD's permission was not necessary for the kind of arkaot action he was taking.
No one has claimed that Aharon stayed in court after BD ordered him to dismiss the case. Not the Friedman camp, and not ORA. This is pure fabrication on your part.
According to the claims of the Friedman camp, Aharon has some legitimate complaints against Tamar in regards to custody, and it's unreasonable to demand that he fulfill his obligation to give a get until Tamar fulfills her own obligations.
"1) You assume that Tamar is lying when she says she relocated with Aharon's approval."
Rabbi Tzadok, Tamar claimed, falsely, at the emergency motion that she had taken the child with Aharon's permission. She later admitted in court filings that she had taken the child without Aharon's permission. This was also the finding by the Court. Have you seen Tamar or Ora claim otherwise?
"Something like this shouldn't take more than a day, if the facts are as you say." Take more than a day? BD will generally issue three hazmanos, A defendant can argue that they want the matter before another BD. The process can easily take weeks or months.
"2) You assume that she wanted to have the case tried in a PA court(there are minimum residency requirements for that, they very by county, so you would have to check to see what they are, and that will give you a time frame). 3) You assume that Tamar would not abide by a B"D's ruling."
Epstein in fact tried to have the case tried in PA by arguing that the MD court did not have jurisdiction (in violation of an agreement she had signed with Friedman); had Friedman waited longer, the MD court may have accepted her argument.
If Tamar wanted to relocate the child, she should have first asked for permission from a BD to do so; the fact that she did not, as well as her refusal to mediate, or go with Friedman to see a rav together to try to find a way to adjudicate the dispute may have led the rabbi who gave Friedman the psak reason to believe that she would not abide by a BD order.
And at the end of the day, Tamar did not listen to the BD's orders regarding dismissing the case, both before the case went to trial in civil court, and after the case went to trial in civil court.
"4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it)"
Rabbi Tzadok,
In general, most states will accept binding arbitration (including by a BD). Thus, if the arbitrator rules, the court will generally accept the arbitrator's decision absent some abuse. But this is not the case for child custody; a court cannot accept binding arbitration in the case of child custody - certainly not in MD and I believe in other states as well. The case cited for this proposition in MD in the procedural summary is Kovacs v. Kovacs, 98 Md.App. 289, 633 A.2d 425 (1993), which actually involved the Baltimore BD.
Do you have a citation under PA law that a court must accept binding arbitration in the case of custody?
"5) You assume that Aharon's attempt to use mediation to resolve the dispute will be prejudicial, that too is a fallacy, so long as he can actually show that he tried to use mediation." Rabbi Tzadok, In the Epstein-Friedman case the time Friedman spent trying to reconcile, in mediation and in beis din was extremely prejudicial; in fact it was the basis for the court's decision that the child stay in PA. This was despite a binding reconciliation agreement that the custody schedule under that arrangement would not be detrimental to Friedman and a binding mediation/arbitration agreement between the parties that the custody arrangement before final adjudication would not be prejudicial. In fact, Epstein specifically argued to the court that the child's time in PA should be prejudicial (and that the child should thus stay there) because Friedman had voluntarily canceled the October 2008 pendete lite trial to bring the case to BD.
Do Epstein's supporters on this blog (such as Rabbis Tzadok and Student) have a problem with Epstein taking Friedman to court (after the original case was already decided) to demand that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits"?
If she instigated the trial yes it would be a problem. However, she did not, as the procedural summary will attest. Here motion was part of her "Defendant’s Amended Motion for Contempt, November 18, 2010".
As she was the defendant she was not the one to take the case to the court. Please do not be mislead by the procedural summary's intentionally misleading and duplicitous language. Tamar was still the defendant which means it was still Aharon's case.
Tzadok, we get it. You're trying to make a point about hypocrisy and misogyny. But you don't have the facts to back yourself up. You keep trying to find new ways to distort what other commenters are saying and what the above summary is saying. When we told you Aharon needed to preserve his legal rights you took that to mean "in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to". Now you're making up new offenses when the summary clearly says that he ulitmately complied with BD's requests regarding the civil trial.
Beis Din then told Aharon to postpone or dismiss the civil trial, ..... Aharon filed amotion to postpone the Court trial as per Beis Din’s order , despite the further legal prejudice as explained above). The Court denied the motion to postpone the trial I'm not saying that we should take every word or any word of this as fact. I'm saying we should be able to have a conversation about the possible merits of his claims without having to endure your twisting of everyone's words in an attempt to show that Friedman's supporters hate women.
Epstein filed the contempt motion in November 2010 when there were no other motions pending. She was not file that in response to a motion by Friedman.
"Here motion was part of her "Defendant’s Amended Motion for Contempt, November 18, 2010".
Rabbi Tzadok,
The original case was decided by an order issued in July 2009. Epstein re-opened the case by filing a contempt motion to have all the child's time with Friedman limited to "supervised visits."
Epstein referred to herself as the Defendant in her contempt motion in November 2010 as Friedman had been the first party to formally file any motion in the case several years earlier - not because Epstein's contempt motion was in response to a new motion filed by Friedman after the July 2009 Order.
"4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it)"
Rabbi Tzadok: you are making assertions of fact about the legal process that are just not true, and using these assumption to condemn Friedman.
Are you a custody lawyer or otherwise an expert on custody law?
A really quick search shows that under PA law, a binding arbitration agreement regarding child custody is not binding on the court. See Miller v. Miller, 423 Pa.Super. 162, 620 A.2d 1161 (1993).
That summary is inaccurate and blatantly biased. But posting anything of that nature in public is so wrong on so many levels. I'm embarrassed that you don't recognize that.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, it would be wrong if ORA wouldn't have turned this into a public issue.
DeleteI do believe, that whoever put this together should reveal himself. This isn't some anonymous commenter. It's someone close to the case in the Aharon Friedman camp. And that sort of person should be doing this sort of thing out in the open.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill"
DeleteGil - The facts is Ms. Epstein and the ORA camp have been spreading vicious lies about Mr. Friedman for years. They have acted Shla K"Halacha and with great spite all while professing to take the "high road".
They are the ones that brough this into the public donain and created a massive chillel hashem.Now that the truth is coming out about Ms. Epstein and her "inner circle" you have objections? Shame on you.
ORA has chosen the wrong woman for their "poster girl". Ms Epstein is a Moredes - I know ORA and their feminist backers don’t believe in that concept.
Jeremy Stern from ORA has stated what their agenda is to Fox news “He said the Jewish community certainly has started to discuss whether a rabbi should be able to officiate a divorce without one party's permission -- but said the community "is not at a point right now where they're willing to fundamentally change how Jewish marriage and divorce works."
This is straight from the horses mouth – check the link if you don’t believe me. ORA wants to change the gitten process by having a “no fault” get.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/29/congressman-facing-pressure-from-jewish-groups-on-advisers-religious-divorce/
Gil I know this is painful - the truth hurts.
Gil you claim that the summary is "inaccurate and blatantly biased". It seems that every detail is footnoted and documented. What do you claim to be inaccurate and what proof do you have to back up the claims?
DeleteI can't comment on what is inaccurate because it is lashon ha-ra, as is this entire document.
DeleteThe description of the interaction between the Baltimore and Silver Spring batei din is lacking important information -- not details. But this should not be discussed in public. If you want oversight, appoint a representative to serve as a public advocate who will render judgment and keep the information private.
Rabbi Student,
DeleteDo you think that one parent's unilaterally relocating a child out of state over the second parent's objections and without the permission of a court or beis din is appropriate?
What about asking a court to rule that the relocation of the child should be treated as a fait accompli because the second parent had postponed civil litigation to bring the matter to beis din?
What about deliberately asking the court to impose a custody schedule that is mostly moot because the the second parent is Shomer Shabbos?
Is that all kedas ukedin?
Assuming that the second parent will not give or receive a get, is the get the only matter that the Jewish community should be concerned about?
Rabbi Student,
DeleteIt is fine for the Epsteins and Ora to spread biased and false information about the case for four years (two in the case of Ora) - but when RDE posts the rest of the story, all of a sudden is is lashon hara?
what I don't understand: why did he not go for sundays as visiting days from the beginning, since he knew he could not make it to her place in time before shabbes?
ReplyDeleteWhy is he so interested in having shabbes, if he knows he can't make it? Why can't he leave work early on Friday?
What kind of stupid question is that? Which parent would not want to spend shabbos with their kids? Any normal parent would want to spend shabbos with their kids!
DeleteHave you ever had a job before? Try telling your boss that you want to leave work early on a consistent basis, see how long they keep you employed there.
So anonymous comments are not allowed but anonymous posts are?
ReplyDeleteit is purely a bookkeeping issue. It is impossible to keep track of debates in which anonymous is debate anonymous.
DeleteOk as far as innaccuracies here they go:
ReplyDeleteIn late March 2008, on Aharon’s birthday, Tamar told Aharon she was divorcing him. Tamar told Aharon she wanted to relocate C to Pennsylvania (PA). Aharon objected. Tamar told Aharon that if he didn’t move out of the ir apartment, she would take C to PA. Aharon toldTamar that she may not relocate C to PA. Aharon moved out of the apartment.
This is unsubstantiated hear say.
On April 10, 2008, Tamar unilaterally relocated C from Silver Spring to PA.
While as this is Aharon's claim(as a careful reading of the footnote shows) it is a contested claim as later footnotes show, so again unreliable, as one of these two people is lying.
When Aharon arrived in the parties’ apartment on April 10 to see C and she was not there, he phoned Tamar.Tamar said that she had taken C to PA, and if Aharon didn't like it, Aharon should call her lawyer. Tamar did not ask a Court or Beis Din (Rabbinical Court) to rule that she could relocateC.
Again an unsubstantiated claim that is essentially hear say.
Tamar likely acted upon legal advice to take C and establish residency in PA, and then delayadjudication for as long as possible so that the relocation would be a fait accompli
Pure supposition. No one can know what is going on between Tamar's ears, and no one, aside from her and her lawyer are party to any conversations they may or may not have had.
Tamar claimed that she would consider reconciliation, which Aharon wanted - but only if Aharon allowed her to temporarily keep C in PA. Aharon later agreed to temporarily let Tamar keep C in PA after several rabbis promised they would work to foster reconciliation – despite Aharon’s lawyer warning that this was likely a trick to keep C in PA permanently.
Again an unsubstantiated claim and more supposition as to Tamar's motives.
During those two months, Tamar refused to as much as attend marital counseling with Aharon.
Unsubstantiated claim that is written in an incendiary tone. This is meant to have the sound of an impartial "fact" while actually making one party out to be guilty, and hopefully no one will ask for any proof.
After the two months were over, Tamar informed Aharon on the phone that their marriage was over. Tamar refused Aharon’s repeated requests to bring C back. Tamar said that for severalyears, she would, at most, generally only allow C to see Aharon on Sundays during the daytime.
More unsubstantiated claims trying to pass themselves off as facts.
.
"On April 10, 2008, Tamar unilaterally relocated C from Silver Spring to PA."
Delete"While as this is Aharon's claim(as a careful reading of the footnote shows) it is a contested claim as later footnotes show, so again unreliable, as one of these two people is lying."
Read the original post carefully. Epstein initially lied to the court as to whether she had unilaterally relocated the child. But she later admitted to the Court that she had unilaterally relocated the child. Even the Court, which ruled that she could keep the child in PA, stated that Epstein had unilaterally relocated the child.
Are you asserting that Epstein asked permission of a Beis Din in April 2009 to relocate the child out of State? If so, which Beis Din?
Under halacha [Jewish Law], custody matters are supposed to be adjudicated in Beis Din [Rabbinical Court]. But any specific Beis Din generally only has jurisdiction if both parties agree.
ReplyDeleteThis is the best kind of lie, one that is composed a good deal of truth. While no B"D in the US has the right to force a person to be judged by them(at least according to Rav Moshe Feinstein) any B"D can issue a hazmana. At which point, in accord with a few sources in the Sh"A(mostly C"M 13) the defendant has the option to either agree to be judged by them, or claim Zeh Borer Echad. In which case a B"D will be composed of a Dayyan of the Plaintiff's choice, a Dayyan of the Defendant's choice and a third that the two Dayyanim select between themselves. So to say that this could not be ajudicated by a B"D is a Patently False Claim
The matter was extremely time-sensitive. Tamar was allowing C to spend very little timewith Aharon. Tamar’s continuing to hold
C in PA would transfer jurisdiction over the matter toPA, unless the case was filed in MD court. In addition, Tamar’s continuing to hold
C in PAwould be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. Tamar refused to negotiate or mediate. Tamar also refused to see a rabbi together with Aharon to find away to resolve custody issues according to halacha. Aharon certainly had as much legal right to physically seize C and bring her back to MD, as Tamar did to physically seize C and relocate Cto PA. But Aharon did not do so. Aharon received a psak [Jewish Law ruling] to bring anemergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that after the emergencymotion Aharon would bring the matter to Beis Din for the case to be decided, before any further proceedings in Court. Aharon brought an emergency custody motion in late July 2008, at which point Tamar had not allowed C to spend any time with Aharon on Shabbos [the Jewish Sabbath]or Yom Tov [Jewish Holidays] for almost three months.
This is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Namely Aharon Friedman resorting to Arkaot. The Kol Kore that the blog owner posted here:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/prohibiting-archaos-civil-courts.html
clearly states that only a B"D may issue a psak to take one to arkaot(in keeping with the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh C"M 26).
So who issued this Psak? Simply put according to the Sh"A C"M 26:1 the Rabbi who issued the Psak, Aharon Friedman, and all who support him out to be treated as if in nidui until such time as Aharon withdraws his court claims. No single Rav has the ability to issue such a psak.
I am going to come back to this Arkaot issue, because it seems to me to be the crux of the issue.
To be continued...
By the time Friedman could have obtained any relief from a Beis Din, such relief would have been meaningless because the time that would have elapsed would have allowed Epstein to file the case in PA, and enough time would have elapsed that the relocation would have been treated as a fait accompli.
DeleteThe point is not that a specific beis din may or may not have jurisdiction from a halachic perspective. The point is that from a legal perspective, beis din is powerless to either assert jurisdiction or force someone to a zabla.
DeleteTamar rejected as a basis for negotiation the mediator’s proposal that C mostly live in PA, but bewith Aharon about one-third of the time; equally split marital property; and a get given andaccepted. Tamar ended mediation
ReplyDeleteUnsubstantiated... yet again.
Beis Din's resolution of the matter was repeatedly delayed. Aharon agreed to postpone the Courttrial scheduled for December 2008 until June 2009 (at further prejudice) in order for the Beis Din to hear and decide the case.
First rule of lying... be consistent. We now find that the court case that Aharon supposedly dismissed is still ongoing... uh oh... that doesn't bode well for accuracy.
Until the Beis Din issued an interim custody schedule in March, Tamar generally refused to let C spend time with Aharon (such as on holidays) other than thetime explicitly required by the August 2008 Order, except for a brief period covered by themediation agreement. At Beis Din ’s first hearing in January 2009, Beis Din refused Tamar'srequest that Beis Din order Aharon to entirely dismiss the case from the Maryland courts, as thiswould have allowed Tamar to file the case in PA, and in any case, the parties would eventually have to bring the matter to civil Court to file the Beis Din’s decision as the parties’ settlement.
Not only is this entire section unsubstantiated, it also constitutes a major Motzei Shem Ra against the B"D. While I am sure that someone thought that they were being clever when they wrote this. What they are saying is that the B"D is operating in total and complete rebellion to the Shulhan Arukh, most notably what is written in C"M 26:1. Most notably that a B"D is not supposed to hear a case that is currently before non-Jewish courts. Furthermore as punishment to the Plaintiff for taking the case to non-Jewish courts, the B"D is not supposed to issue a ruling if they later bring the case before the B"D after the Plaintiff lost in non-Jewish courts.
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteThe Beis Din was told at its first hearing in January 2009 that the case was on hold in civil court awaiting a decision from Beis Din that the parties had agreed to take to the court as their settlement. That is a fact. Beis Din chose not to tell the parties to dismiss the civil case at that time, as explained in the original post. That is also a fact. Perhaps the Beis Din decided that if the case were dismissed from the Maryland courts, Epstein would file the case in Pennsylvania, effectively preventing the Beis Din from deciding the case. You may think the Beis Din was wrong and that the Beis Din should have created a situation where its jurisdiction was effectively nullified. But you can't hold that decision of the Beis Din against Friedman.
I know I'm just getting what I deserve for picking a screen name like none. But now I have to point out that none and None are 2 different people. I didn't write this.
Delete"Beis Din's resolution of the matter was repeatedly delayed. Aharon agreed to postpone the Courttrial scheduled for December 2008 until June 2009 (at further prejudice) in order for the Beis Din to hear and decide the case."
Delete"First rule of lying... be consistent. We now find that the court case that Aharon supposedly dismissed is still ongoing... uh oh... that doesn't bode well for accuracy"
You have not proven that the original post was either untruthful or inconsistent. Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 pendete lite trial. Friedman then agreed to postpone the final trial scheduled for December 2008 to January 2009 and then to June 2009 so that the Beis Din would have sufficient time to hear the case and issue a decision. The original post did not claim otherwise. Canceling a pendete lite trial (which Friedman did at great potential prejudice, given that Epstein had unilaterally relocated the child) is not the same thing as dismissing the entire case (which would have allowed Epstein to file the case in PA - which she had effectively already tried to do when she violated the Reconciliation Agreement with Aharon by arguing that the MD courts did not have jurisdiction because she had kept the child in PA).
Beis Din heard the child custody issue in March, and said that the next step in the process was that Beis Din would issue a custody decision immediately after Pesach [Passover] in April 2009; Beis Din issued an interim custody schedule under which C was to be with Aharon four out of the six weekends (and starting on Thursday instead of Friday) before Beis Din was to issue acustody decision. Tamar wrote Beis Din she had a settlement proposal that she would present infive days. Then, Tamar wrote Beis Din that she had a proposal and wanted to mediate. Aharon agreed to consider any proposal but said he would not enter into mediation if it seemed unlikely to work because he did not want the ruling of Beis Din
ReplyDeleteto be delayed. Tamar took four weeks to submit a proposal, which Aharon believed indicated the parties were too far apart to reach agreement. Aharon wrote Beis Din that there was no agreement regarding C’s schedule,and asked Beis Din to rule that C return to Silver Spring. Tamar wrote Beis Din that she stillwanted to mediate and falsely accused Aharon of lying as to whether the parties had anagreement regarding C’s schedule. Aharon again wrote Beis Din
to rule that C return to Silver Spring.
Once again unsubtantiated as far was what the B"D was or was not going to do. We have some personal correspondence from the two litigants stating what they were asking the B"D to do, but that is it. No real facts other than their requests to be found here.
Given that Beis Din had previously said that it would issue a custody decision shortly after Pesach and that it would hold no further hearings on custody, Beis Din’s decision on custody seemed to be imminent.
Another unsubstantiated claim mixed with some supposition. As long as the case remained before the secular court any ruling the B"D issued would have been in violation of the Sh"A and thus invalid.
Without Beis Din’s permission, Tamar filed a motion to postpone the June 2009 civil Court trial.Her grounds were that she needed more time to prepare for the civil Court trial and wanted acourt-ordered custody evaluation (both of which were irrelevant if Beis
Din was to decide thematter). Tamar specifically told the Court that the Court –not Beis Din– would decide the case. Tamar thus violated the parties’ agreement for Beis Din to decide the case. Should Beis Din have decided that C return to Silver Spring, postponement of the civil trial would have madeit much more unlikely that the Court would effectively uphold such a decision, given the further time that C would have spent in PA. Thus, Aharon refused Tamar’s
request that he agree to postpone the trial so that Tamar could have more time to prepare for trial and so that the Courtcould conduct a custody evaluation because the Court, not Beis Din, would decide the case.
First let's be clear. Aharon initiated the secular court case, which means that Tamar is the defendant(according to Jewish law). Tamar thus halakhically has the right to defend herself in secular court as she sees fit. Furthermore as long as Aharon did not dismiss his case, the B"D could not rule, thus Tamar was completely correct in saying that the court and not the B"D would decide the matter(so long as Aharon did not dismiss the case).
Beyond that we have unsubstantiated claims aimed at making Tamar look bad for excercising her halakhic rights.
"Given that Beis Din had previously said that it would issue a custody decision shortly after Pesach and that it would hold no further hearings on custody, Beis Din’s decision on custody seemed to be imminent."
Delete"Another unsubstantiated claim mixed with some supposition. As long as the case remained before the secular court any ruling the B"D issued would have been in violation of the Sh"A and thus invalid."
The Beis Din was told at its first hearing in January 2009 that the case was before the MD court and scheduled for trial in June 2009, and that the parties agreed to bring the BD's decision to the MD court as their settlement. You disagree with the BD as to how they should have handled the status of the case in civil court when BD was told of this in January 2009. Perhaps BD was concerned that if the case were to be dismissed from the MD court, Epstein could have brought the case to the PA courts, which would have effectively nullified BD's actual ability to issue a decision on the custody issue.
"First let's be clear. Aharon initiated the secular court case, which means that Tamar is the defendant(according to Jewish law). Tamar thus halakhically has the right to defend herself in secular court as she sees fit. Furthermore as long as Aharon did not dismiss his case, the B"D could not rule, thus Tamar was completely correct in saying that the court and not the B"D would decide the matter(so long as Aharon did not dismiss the case). "
DeleteTamar's unilateral relocation of the child out-of-State effectively initiated the secular court process. Beis Din was told in January 2009 that the case was on hold in secular court with a trial scheduled for June 2009. The Beis Din nonetheless heard the case and stated that it would issue a ruling on child custody, while the matter remained pending in civil court so that the parties would take the Beis Din's ruling as their settlement to the civil court.
Beis Din then told Aharon to postpone or dismiss the civil trial,
ReplyDeleteFinally we see the B"D operating according to halakha... that's refreshing.
apparently based on ex parte communications between Tamar and
Beis Din in which Beis Din was misled about the status of the case.
Followed by more supposition.
Beis Din wrote that the parties were still mediating (despite Aharon’s requests that Beis Din rule that C return to MD)
Something the B"D could not halakhically do.
and that if the parties wanted Beis Din to issue a ruling, the nextstep would be for Beis Din to hold another hearing (despite
Beis Din’s statement that the next step in the process was for it to issue a decision on child custody, and that it would not holdanother hearing on that issue). Aharon filed a motion opposing the continuance, arguing thatfurther delay would be extremely prejudicial, as he also wrote to Beis Din. Beis Din
threatened Aharon with seruv [contempt] if he didn’t drop or postpone the civil case,
More sound halakhic practice from the B"D despite the insinuations that they were being dishonest.
but said that Tamar would have to sign an agreement not to bring the case in the PA courts.
Makes sense, but again the B"D could only enforce this or take any actual action after Aharon dismissed the court case.
Tamar filed suit in civil court for absolute divorce, without permission from Beis Din.
That would be because she didn't need it. Arguably she could say that this was part of her defense against Aharon in the court case that he had initiated.
Aharon asked Beis Din to clarify Beis Din’s next steps in the case. Beis Din acknowledged that the next step in its process was for it to issue a custody decision, not to hold further hearings.
This is of course assuming that Aharon would drop his case.
Aharon filed amotion to postpone the Court trial as per Beis Din’s order, despite the further legal prejudice (asexplained above). The Court denied the motion to postpone the trial.
This is a fun way of saying that Aharon tried to pull a fast one on the B"D and lost big time. The B"D wanted(as per halakha) for him to dismiss the case, instead he tried to postpone it(I can play the supposition game too... He seemingly wanted the best of both worlds). The court declined. Which means that Aharon could have sought a dismissal(he didn't). Instead he went ahead with the case and lost. Too bad for Aharon.
Before the civil trial occurred, Beis Din ordered Tamar and Aharon to sign a jurisdictionalagreement (that Tamar would not bring the case to a PA court) and dismiss the MD case before it went to trial. Aharon agreed to Beis Din’s order. Tamar refused Beis Din's order.
Here's another unsubstantiated claim of the B"D operating contrary to the halakha. Yes I know there is a footnote. However a letter fromAharon to the B"D does not substantiate a claim that the B"D ordered Tamar to do something, contrary to halakha.
"Makes sense, but again the B"D could only enforce this or take any actual action after Aharon dismissed the court case."
DeleteBD said to either drop OR postpone the case. If the case were first dropped from the MD court without an agreement that the case would not be brought in the PA courts, than Epstein could have, as a legal matter, filed the case in the PA courts (something she would not have been able to do if Friedman hadn't brought the case to BD in the first place).
"This is a fun way of saying that Aharon tried to pull a fast one on the B"D and lost big time. The B"D wanted(as per halakha) for him to dismiss the case,"
DeleteThe BD had ordered Friedman to drop OR postpone the case.
"instead he tried to postpone it(I can play the supposition game too... He seemingly wanted the best of both worlds)."
DeleteBD had said that Friedman must drop OR postpone the case.
BD's request that Friedman drop or postpone the case was extremely prejudicial to Friedman. The reason is not because Friedman would have lost the benefit of a court decision, but because even if the BD were to rule in Friedman's favor, delay of the civil case would have made it virtually impossible for Friedman to have the BD's ruling enforced in court.
Nonetheless, Friedman filed a motion to postpone the case at the BD's order.
And note that if Friedman had wanted the case decided by the court, he would not have canceled the October 2008 trial at which it was likely the child would be returned in order to bring the case to BD.
"The court declined. Which means that Aharon could have sought a dismissal(he didn't)."
DeleteAre you an expert on Maryland child custody law and jurisdiction? Both parties had filed claims for custody; the court would not necessarily have agreed to let Friedman unilaterally dismiss the case.
And in any case, the BD had not ordered Friedman to dismiss the case absent Epstein's agreeing not to bring the case to the PA courts. Such a dismissal would have made a nullity of any potential BD decision in Friedman's favor.
"Here's another unsubstantiated claim of the B"D operating contrary to the halakha. Yes I know there is a footnote. However a letter fromAharon to the B"D does not substantiate a claim that the B"D ordered Tamar to do something, contrary to halakha."
DeleteBD ordered Epstein to agree not to bring the case in the PA courts (an option she would not have had if Friedman had not brought the case to BD in the first place). Choose to believe that or not.
What went on in the court case and what was said really makes no matter. The Shulhan Arukh gives Tamar the ability to defend herself. Aharon lost pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteThe Baltimore Beis Din did not rule that a get be given, perhaps because Tamar violated Beis Din’s orders thus directly causing severe harm to Aharon and C, or perhaps because Beis Din, after holding several hearings on the matter, concluded that there are no grounds for ordering a get.
Then we go back to the supposition.
What we now have is this. Aharon is unhappy with the decision of the court. A B"D cannot halakhically overturn or rule against the decision of the court, as the Sh"A ruled that this was Aharon's punishment for taking it to court. So now Aharon is involved in Get extortion.
Here is the question that this raises:
Is Get extortion a valid means of circumventing halakhot that are meant to prevent a person from going to arkaot? Are the Gedolim ok with permitting such a circumvention of a person's punishment for going to arkaot? Will the Gedolim allow a woman to remain an agunah because a man wants to circumevent the Sh"A and the woman wants to stand on her halakhic right?
"Aharon lost pure and simple."
DeleteFriedman canceled the October 2008 court trial at which it was likely the child would have been returned in order to bring the case to BD. Epstein violated the BD's orders regarding dismissing the civil case. At Epstein's request the court ordered that the child remain in PA because Epstein had kept the child there for so long, with Epstein specifically arguing that the delay should be held against Friedman (and thus the child stay in PA) because Friedman had agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to BD.
Michael tzaddok again posts facts completely in accordance with halochoh as prevailing for ashkenazim. there is absolutely no chiyuv to have a zabla. the nitvah presumably him as his wife initiated the divorce can choose the bais din and has no chiyuv to go to zabla in accordance with the principle to'veah holech achar ha'nitvah.
ReplyDeleteIn fact many contemporary poskim hold that today given the corruption, zabla is ossur e.g. rav wosner and dayan yisroel yaakov fisher ztl of the bdatz rules that if you went to zabla, ignore the ruling it s irrelevant.
aharon choose a bais din that holds mo'us olai is no reason for a get, a bais din which awards no mezonos to a moredes and one that awards custody of a girl who is living in a different state from her father after age 6. tell thugs like ora and tzedoki to jump in the lake.
and there are many web sites that have these psakim tzedoki so don't demand that i post them. they are not on any arabic sites, sorry.
Wow a pile of incoherence topped off with a racial slur like a sunday with a cherry on top. Let me try to decipher this and respond.
DeleteMichael tzaddok again posts facts completely in accordance with halochoh as prevailing for ashkenazim.
Thank you for finally admitting this.
there is absolutely no chiyuv to have a zabla. Umm... well... We started off well. Rav Moshe Feinstein disagrees with you.
שו"ת אגרות משה חושן משפט חלק ב סימן ג
בענין בעל דין שרוצה דווקא בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= ולא בב"ד קבוע.
כ"ה אדר א' תשל"ו. לרב אחד.
הנה ברור ופשוט שכל בע"ד יכול לומר שרוצה דוקא בזבל"א, וכמפורש בתוס' ורא"ש סנהדרין דף ה' ע"א דהא דמומחה לרבים תניא שדן אפילו יחידי שפירושו אפילו בעל כרחו וכמו כן למדו משם דסתם דיינים שדנין בשלשה הוא נמי שיכולין לדון אפילו בעל כרחם דהוא דוקא כשאינו רוצה לבא לב"ד כלל, אבל כשרוצה לבא לב"ד אבל רוצה בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= אין יכולין לכופו שילך לב"ד בלא זבל"א אף שהוא מומחה, ומסתבר דהוא אף לפני שלשה מומחין אין יכולין לכופו לדונו בעל כרחו דהא לרש"י מומחה לרבים שדן יחידי הוא למ"ד דא"צ שלשה מקרא דבצדק תשפוט וגם עליו כתבו התוס' שאינו יכול לדון בע"כ אלא כשלא רצה כלל לילך לב"ד אף שלדידיה הוי מומחה אחד כמו שלשה מומחין, ודוחק לומר שבתוס' שמשמע שאף במומחה אינו יכול לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לבא כלל לפני ב"ד הוא רק לשיטתייהו שיחיד מומחה שתניא שדן הוא רק מתקנתא דרבנן דלכן לא תיקנו אלא בכה"ג שאין רוצה כלל לילך לב"ד דהי"ל לפרושי זה. וגם הרא"ש הא מפרש הברייתא לתרוייהו למאן דלית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדאורייתא ולמאן דאית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדרבנן ולא הזכיר שיהיה חלוק בינייהו לענין בע"כ אף כשרוצה לילך לב"ד דזבל"א אלמא דליכא חלוק ביניהם לדינא דלתרוייהו הוא מה שמסיק דכשרוצה בזבל"א אין יכולין לכופו וא"כ גם תלתא מומחין אין יכולין לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לילך לב"ד כלל. אבל לדינא אינו נוגע זה דבזמננו ליכא דין מומחה שלכן לא שייך לדון כלל בזה כי כן איפסק גם בש"ע /חו"מ/ סימן ג' סעי' א'. ומשמע שליכא בזה חולק. ורק במומחה פליג הטור /חו"מ/ בסימן י"ג שהוא נגד אביו הרא"ש וכמעט כל הראשונים ועיי"ש בב"ח וצ"ע אבל בזמננו שליכא מומחה לכו"ע יכול לומר שרוצה לפני ב"ד דזבל"א.
והא דכתב הרמ"א דאם דיינים קבועים בעיר לא יכול לומר לא אדון לפניהם אלא בזה בורר היה זה רק בעיירות שבמדינותינו שהיו מתמנים מהעיר שאף הרב האב"ד לבדו נמי היה יכול לכופו מאחר שקבלוהו אבל בנוא יארק ליכא דיינים קבועים שנתמנו מהעיר ובפרט שאיכא עוד אגודות וחבורות של רבנים שליכא אף מינוי מכל הרבנים שבעיר ולכן כשרוצה אחד מהן בזבל"א מוכרחין לילך בזבל"א דוק
In fact many contemporary poskim hold that today given the corruption, zabla is ossur e.g. rav wosner and dayan yisroel yaakov fisher ztl of the bdatz rules that if you went to zabla, ignore the ruling it s irrelevant. More hear say. Sources please. Though I will say this, in Israel, you are right. ZBL"A does not apply in Israel(where those two Dayyanim were posek). However, in the US, lack of a Kavua B"D according to Rav Moseh Feinstein and others, is different.
aharon choose a bais din that holds mo'us olai is no reason for a get
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. However, he did choose to go to Arkaot. I find it interesting that you are only bothered by Arkaot when it is women doing it. When it is men, you are more than willing to look the other way.
and there are many web sites that have these psakim tzedoki so don't demand that i post them. they are not on any arabic sites, sorry.
Right because you don't actually have sources, and so we leave it with your racial epithet. Nice.
Do you mind stating why you are fine with a man going to Arkaot and not a woman? I wasn't aware that the Sh"A made that distinction.
just look mat how despicable gil student is. he hides behind loshon hora because he can't answer but when it comes to being malbin pnei chavero be'rabim of friedman and the chilul hashem involved in publicizing this in all the goishe newspapers by Ora that he doesn't condemn.
ReplyDeletegil you are a fraud just like your masters schlachter, schwartz who is mafkia kiddushin lemafreiah, broyde the lightweight and wittig with his ridiculous pre-nup.
Unsubstantiated does not equal inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there was any issue with Aharon's going to arkaaot. It was something he had to do to preserve some of his legal rights as a backup plan in the event that beis din would be unable to handle the situation.
The torah doesn't expect us to be suckers.
Unsubstantiated does not equal inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteNo it means unsubstantiated which means that one may not rely on it as a fact.
I don't think there was any issue with Aharon's going to arkaaot. It was something he had to do to preserve some of his legal rights as a backup plan in the event that beis din would be unable to handle the situation.
Please point out where it says that in the Shulhan Arukh, or any poskim, including the Kol Kore given by the seventy Gedolim. Going to Arkaot is a sin, it is blaspheme and it is lifting one's hand against the Torah, and a denial of G-d's existence(see Sma on 26:1 for all of that). Nowhere has any posek given the person the right to go to Arkaot without a psak from a Beit Din. Aharon didn't have one, so he is over for Arkaot. Pure and simple.
See if the wife had gone to Arkaot to protect her civil legal rights in case she didn't get what she wanted out of the B"D everyone here would be screaming about what a Rasha she is. However, when the husband does it, you make excuses. That is not Torah, that is hypocrisy and misogyny.
See if the wife had gone to Arkaot to protect her civil legal rights in case she didn't get what she wanted out of the B"D everyone here would be screaming about what a Rasha she is. However, when the husband does it, you make excuses. That is not Torah, that is hypocrisy and misogyny.
DeleteHey man, argue with what I'm saying, not with what I would theoretically say.
The fact is that beis din isn't as powerful as you're making it sound like they are. With the very real concern that Tamar would not listen to a beis din it would be foolish of Aharon to let his legal options expire.
I do not know much about the SH'A that you are quoting, but if he had a pesak allowing this it's highly doubtful that he'd be subject to a kenas. Most rabbininc kenassos do not apply beshogeg. I'm also not convinced the pesak was wrong in the first place. I will look into this later today.
"See if the wife had gone to Arkaot to protect her civil legal rights in case she didn't get what she wanted out of the B"D everyone here would be screaming about what a Rasha she is."
DeleteIf someone goes to court to protect their legal rights in case they do NOT get what they want out of BD, than they are choosing to obtain their remedy in court, not in BD. But that is not what Friedman did. And the proof is that he canceled the October 2008 pendete lite trial at which the child was likely to be returned to bring the case to BD.
It seems very different if someone goes to court (on a psak from a rav) on an emergency and temporary basis to protect their legal rights in case they DO get what they want from BD but because of the time that would have elapsed had they first gone to BD and not court, would lose the legal ability to enforce the BD decision in court.
Well I looked it up this afternoon, and there about 1001 reasons why the ideas presented in that siman don't apply here.
ReplyDeleteTzadok: Ok as far as innaccuracies here they go:
me:Unsubstantiated does not equal inaccurate.
Tzadok: No it means unsubstantiated which means that one may not rely on it as a fact.
me: Well I guess that makes a lot of your above posts inaccurate. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is upon the side that made this whole affair public: ORA.
Well I looked it up this afternoon, and there about 1001 reasons why the ideas presented in that siman don't apply here.
DeleteWell why don't you give us your top five.
Though thank you for providing yet another example that this has more to do with misogyny then it does Torah.
Here is what is really doing my head in. The vast majority of those who were making such a big fuss about the issur of Arkaot, when it is pointed out that Aharon Friedman went to arkaot without a valid heter, suddenly say it was permissible, because he had to "defend his civil legal rights" in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to.
ReplyDeleteSo what this says to me is that this is not a matter of halakha but a matter of misogyny. If a woman does it, it's a horrible sin and she is going to go to Gehinom with not chance of ever getting out, whereas if a man does it... well that's Ok maybe the B"D wouldn't give him what he wanted.
Unfortunately these same people tend to be the most vocal opponents of the more lenient positions on forcing a Get. Whereas the halakha may actually be with them on a lot of what they say there, the misogynistic double standard they have on arkaot is going to taint how that is perceived. Why should anyone believe that suddenly they think halakha should be applied equally to men and women, and not simply twisted in support of men. If they do it in one place why would they not do it in another?
Rabbi Tsdadok has it backward. Friedman did not go to court "in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to." Friedman received a psak to file an emergency motion in court (to keep jurisdiction in Maryland) so that Friedman would be able to receive the benefit of any beis din decision in case it ruled in his favor. If Friedman did not go to court and establish jurisdiction in Maryland, any beis din decision in Friedman's favor would have been meaningless because Epstein would have been able to file the case in the PA courts. Rabbi Tsadok is missing the underlying point that Epstein's unilaterally taking the child to PA was taking the offensive in the court process.
ReplyDeleteAs it turned out Beis Din didn't rule on custody because Epstein violated the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case. And the court ruled that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled an earlier trial to bring the case to beis din.
Rabbi Tsdadok has it backward. Friedman did not go to court "in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to." Friedman received a psak to file an emergency motion in court
ReplyDeleteNot from a B"D so it wasn't a valid Psak. ONLY a B"D can issue such a psak.
(to keep jurisdiction in Maryland) so that Friedman would be able to receive the benefit of any beis din decision in case it ruled in his favor.
That isn't what the "fact" sheet said. Furthermore the fact sheet states that the B"D is not recognized by the secular courts(whether PA or MD) in custody issues.
If Friedman did not go to court and establish jurisdiction in Maryland, any beis din decision in Friedman's favor would have been meaningless because Epstein would have been able to file the case in the PA courts.
If the B"D was able to have jurisdiction(as you mentioned above) this would not have been an issue. Furthermore since when do we permit a person to sin, because of a possible danger that someone else might sin in the future.
Rabbi Tsadok is missing the underlying point that Epstein's unilaterally taking the child to PA was taking the offensive in the court process.
That isn't an established fact. Tamar didn't go to court, Aharon did.
As it turned out Beis Din didn't rule on custody because Epstein violated the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case.
Again that's not what the fact sheet said. The fact sheet, which is put out by Aharon's people said that the B"D required that Aharon dismiss the case. He didn't. The defendant does not have the option of dismissing a civil suit, that is up to the plaintiff who was Aharon. Halakhicly speaking the B"D cannot order the defendant not to defend themselves if they so desire.
While the B"D supposedly asked Tamar to sign an agreement that she would not then go to court in PA(there is no proof of this so it is an unsubstantiated claim). Again this is irrelevant so long as Aharn did not dismiss the case.
And the court ruled that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled an earlier trial to bring the case to beis din.
Friedman didn't cancel the case, he postponed it. If he dismissed the case he would not have eventually had a ruling against him because there would have been no case. He never dismissed the case as the B"D ordered. It is just that simple, so the B"D never ruled.
What I am not missing, is the hypocrisy and misogyny that goes with everyone trying to defend Aharon going to Arkaot against halakha. Again we see that if a woman does it, it is a sin. If a man does it, we make excuses. Somehow you then expect people to believe that you won't twist other halakhot in favor of men. That is absurd. If you are willing to permit violations of halakha and distort in favor of men in this case, there is nothing to say that you will not do so in other areas as well.
"And the court ruled that the child should remain in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled an earlier trial to bring the case to beis din."
Delete"Friedman didn't cancel the case, he postponed it. If he dismissed the case he would not have eventually had a ruling against him because there would have been no case."
Nobody claimed that Friedman canceled the case. Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 pendete lite court trial. Friedman also agreed to postpone the final court trial scheduled for December 2008 so that the Beis DIn would have time to decide the case.
This was why the court treated Epstein's relocation of the child as a fait accompli.
And yes, Friedman did ultimately follow the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the case. It was Epstein who violated the Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the case. And once Epstein had filed counterclaims, Friedman could not cancel the case unilaterally.
"Halakhicly speaking the B"D cannot order the defendant not to defend themselves if they so desire."
DeleteThe Beis Din never asked Epstein not to defend herself in court. They ordered her to agree not to bring the case in PA - an option she would never have had if Friedman had not brought the case to Beis Din.
firstly while i am sure that rav dovid e knows what he is talking about, and the fact that tamar is a moredes, and rav elyashiv's psak means no get, this case is far from my main interest. i am not intricately familiar with this case nor is it my main preoccupation.
ReplyDeletemy main interest is the fact that in general der schlachter and getora side with women who are in arko'oys. they issue fake siruvim under the bifurcation principle of the death bin of america that going to arko'oys for money is fine and you can still be tzias dina. the cases of menachem lowy and meir kin are prime examples of this. this case of epstein is a slippery one not a slam dunk showing the corruption of der schlachter.
we should be focusing on the corruption of der schlachter in general as showing his utter contempt for halocho as in the 2 cases i mentioned.
tzeddoki you are the hypochrite. you are worse thsan getora. not only have you not condemned them but you have further previously claimed
1) being in court is not mesirah.
2) being lo tzias dina does not make you lose you rights in bais din
3) that it is the prevailing view that a plaintiff who is in arko'oys without a valid hetter has to pay the defendant's legal fees.
even on 2 and 3 the death bin of america argue with you.
if i did not know better i would think you were an am ho'oretz. i know better and know that you are a kofer.
Stan I was waiting for you to pop in. Thank you not proving me wrong in thinking that you are a hypocrite and a misogynist.
Deletetzeddoki you are the hypochrite. you are worse thsan getora. not only have you not condemned them but you have further previously claimed
1) being in court is not mesirah.
No that is not exactly what I said. I said that if one believes that they have a legitimate claim. This is the ruling of the Rema 388:5, then amongst the Notei Kelim on that Siman S"K 25 as well as the Sma S"K 17 GR"A S"K 34 the Bier Hetiv S"K 22, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger.
2) being lo tzias dina does not make you lose you rights in bais din They don't that is clear from the Rema C"M 26:1
3) that it is the prevailing view that a plaintiff who is in arko'oys without a valid hetter has to pay the defendant's legal fees.
Again you are maliciously misquoting me. I said:
this one is a bit more complicated. This halakha(as brought in 26:4)is a very short version of the Responsa of the Rosh Klal 18 siman 4 and 5. From there it devolves into two cases each of which I will deal with here:
1) The defendant does not show up to court(does not hire a lawyer or in any way try to defend himself). Here it is a machloket. According to the Bach and Kuntras Ve’eileh Hamishpatim rule that in such a case, the claimant is still exempt from paying the legal fees and court costs, and is only required to pay back what he himself recieved in excess of what he would have received from a B"D on account of the other damages being a gerama. The GR"A and Orach Mishpat rule that these other damages are not a gerama, and that since the defendant was completely passive in keeping with the ruling of the Gemarra B"K 27 Where it states that if a person placed a coal on his fellowman’s clothes he must pay for the damage, and cannot claim “why didn’t you take it off,” because the other can reply “why should I take it off, in the end you will have to pay me.” This is still a machloket poskim.
2) In which the defendant actively tries to defend himself, and thus hires a lawer ect. In this case according to the Bach, the GR"A the Kuntras and Orach Mishpat the defendant is liable for whatever fees that he thus incurs, and the plaintiff is only liable for whatever he received in excess of what he would have received from a B"D.
So in a case where the defendant hires a lawyer and actively tries to defend themselves in the court, they lose their rights for recompense on legal fees.
even on 2 and 3 the death bin of america argue with you. Only when you misquote them and take them out of context.
However all of that is beside the point. You have argued from the beginning what a horrible sin Arkaot is(which I do agree that it is), yet when a man does it you are willing to look the other way.
Which leaves only one conclusion. You are perfectly willing to twist the Torah to fit your own misogynistic views. That is rather sad. Anyone who isn't willing to condemn Aharon Friedman for going to Arkaot really has nothing to add to the conversation on forced Gittin, because it is clear that your loyalties do not lie with Torah but with the oppression of women, even if Torah has to be violated to pull it off.
tzeddoki you are the hypochrite. you are worse thsan getora. not only have you not condemned them but you have further previously claimed
DeleteThis is also not true. I have condemned ORA, repeatedly on this blog. Would you like the links to the posts? Either you are maliciously lying(most probable) or you simply have a kindergarten level of reading comprehension.
An understanding of child custody law and jurisdiction is necessary to understand what happened in the case, and especially why a rav issued a psak that Friedman file an emergency motion in the Maryland courts – but afterward suspend the court process and take the case to beis din for a decision. The psak was designed so that Friedman would not be precluded from the benefit of a beis din decision should beis din rule in his favor - not so that Friedman could have the matter ultimately decided by court.
ReplyDeleteFriedman's filing an emergency motion was not the first step in the court process, but a defensive move necessitated by Epstein’s prior actions. The first step in the court process was Epstein's unilaterally relocating the child out-of-State. As noted in the original post, the law looks upon such behavior very badly. However, the other parent generally must quickly file suit in court to oppose such relocation or is viewed as acquiescing to the relocation of the child.
Epstein claimed she would consider reconciliation only if Friedman let her keep the child in PA for two months. Friedman later agreed to do so and Epstein signed an agreement that this would not be detrimental to Friedman with regard to custody or change jurisdiction. When the two months were over, Epstein refused to come back. She also
generally refused to let the child see Friedman other than on Sundays (and said that she would not do so for several years). She also refused Friedman's request that they go to a rav together to discuss how to resolve their dispute.
From a legal viewpoint Epstein's continuing to hold the child in PA was extremely prejudicial and time sensitive - both because it would transfer jurisdiction of the case to the PA courts and because the child's continued residence in PA would be prejudicial in adjudication no matter what the forum. In the meantime, the child's access to Friedman was extremely limited. What was Friedman supposed to do at that point?
Physically grab the child back? Friedman technically had a legal right to do so, but Epstein could have run to court requesting an order of protection, and a judge could nonetheless have held such action against Friedman.
If Friedman went to a beis din, Epstein could have delayed the process and then refused to appear. In the meantime the child would remain in PA. If Epstein refused to appear at beis din, the beis din would be powerless to force Epstein to appear before it, as beis din in the U.S. does not have police powers. It is true that if Epstein had refused to appear before beis din, beis din could have eventually told Friedman that he could go to court. But Friedman’s going to court at a later date would be futile, because Epstein's holding the child in PA would transfer jurisdiction of the matter to the PA courts. [As it was, when Friedman went to court, Epstein argued (in violation of the Reconciliation Agreement with Friedman) that the time Epstein had kept the child in PA should be prejudicial and that the MD court didn't have jurisdiction]. In addition, even if Friedman could have kept the matter in the MD courts, the amount of time that would have lapsed would be extremely prejudicial to Friedman. And again, although civil law frowns upon the unilateral relocation of a child (as noted in the post, civil law refers to such action as an abduction that is reprehensible and unjustifiable), the other parent's not quickly going to court to bring the child back (and such inaction includes trying to have the matter resolved by a beis din), is deemed to be acquiescence to the relocation. Thus, if Friedman did not go to court immediately, he would lose any avenue whatsoever for seeking the child's return, as even if a beis din would later have ruled in his favor, such a decision would have been meaningless from a legal standpoint and a beis din in the U.S has no police power.
So Friedman asked a sha'ila of a rav (and the rav he asked did not have any connections, financial or otherwise, to Friedman's family) and was told that he may bring an emergency child custody motion in Maryland court, but that afterwards he must bring the case to a beis din, if Epstein subsequently agreed to do so, before any further proceedings in the court. The psak was not that Friedman could seek a decision on the substance of the matter from court, but that he could preserve jurisdiction in Maryland and get Epstein to agree to adjudication in Beis Din, so that the unilateral relocation wouldn't be treated as a fait accompli. The premise of the psak was that once the parties had agreed to adjudication in front of a specific beis din, they would abide by the beis din's decision and agree to submit the beis din's decision to the court as their settlement.
ReplyDeleteAt the emergency hearing, Epstein lied as to whether she had unilaterally relocated the child, and violated the agreement with Friedman. Thus, in the interim the court ruled that the child would largely remain PA.
Epstein subsequently agreed to bring the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din. This put Friedman to the test as to whether he wanted the case decided by court or by beis din. Friedman had every reason to believe (as explained in the original post) that the child would be returned at the trial scheduled for October 2008, while he could not know what the Beis Din would do. In addition, if he agreed to cancel the October 2008 court trial, and the case would (for whatever reason, either because Beis Din would not rule on custody or because Epstein would not abide by the beis din's ruling) be later decided in court, Friedman would be severely prejudiced by the amount of time the child had remained in PA. Friedman had his choice to make and he chose to follow the psak and cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din.
But Epstein used Friedman’s canceling the October 2008 trial to have her relocation of the child treated as a fait accompli. The matter dragged on for months at beis din. Epstein ultimately violated the beis din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case, and so the case went to trial in court in June 2009 instead of April or October 2008.
The court ruled (at Epstein's urging) that the child should stay in PA because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had canceled the earlier court trial to bring the case to beis din.
It is now clear that the flaw in the psak given to Friedman was not that it was too lenient (in allowing the Friedman to file an emergency court motion), but that it was too strict (in prohibiting Friedman from proceeding with the court trial after bringing the emergency
motion and instead requiring him to suspend the court case and bring the case to beis din). Ultimately, Friedman lost any chance to have the child returned because he agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to beis din.
And then Friedman is publicly vilified, while Epstein is turned into a hero whose every action in the matter is lauded as “kedas ukedin”. Epstein's actions and the actions of the rabbis supporting and encouraging her make a complete mockery of the beis din system in the U.S.
So Friedman asked a sha'ila of a rav (and the rav he asked did not have any connections, financial or otherwise, to Friedman's family) and was told that he may bring an emergency child custody motion in Maryland court
ReplyDeleteA single Rav may not give such a psak. Full Stop. It was an invalid heter.
What does it matter if he had connections or supported the Rav Financially? The Shulhan Arukh says that even a dayyan that is supported by one of the litigants does not have to recluse himself from a case. C"M 9:2
If (3) before making a monetary claim against someone in Beis Din, a person gives a gift to one of the Dayanim, [6] the plaintiff is unable to claim that the gift disqualifies the Dayan from judging the case. On the other hand, if the Dayan wants, he is permitted to refuse to judge the case (such as when he knows that his heart became biased) (Tur), but it is only (4) [7] middas chassidus (non-obligatory piety).
It is now clear that the flaw in the psak given to Friedman was not that it was too lenient (in allowing the Friedman to file an emergency court motion), but that it was too strict (in prohibiting Friedman from proceeding with the court trial after bringing the emergency
motion and instead requiring him to suspend the court case and bring the case to beis din). Ultimately, Friedman lost any chance to have the child returned because he agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the case to beis din.
Thank you for again showing the hypocrisy of this. No one, male or female has the ability to set aside the halakha for their own convenience. Nothing like good old misogyny dressed up in a garb of piety.
And then Friedman is publicly vilified
Which is also completely forbidden. However, his case would be much stronger he if did not violate halakha by going to arkaot, and violate halakha again by refusing a hazmanah to a B"D.
When people are ready to admit that he was wrong and acting against halakha then we can have a legitimate conversation about the halakha of a moredet. Until then everything said will be tainted by misogyny, because of the obvious double standard.
there are opinions that hold a rov can issue a hetter. i personally do not agree with them.
ReplyDeleteyet the thugs at the death bin claim that for criminal cases you do not need a hetter and kidnapping a child across borders is or should be a criminal matter tzedokki.
as for your previous mo'us olai chiyuv mezonos, lets get one thing clear. any time a woman is in arko'oys, she cannot ask for a get or for mezonos from a bais din because she has no rights in bais din.
furthermore if she made false claims to child services or any other mesirah, she should be in jail al pi halochoh because bais din has a power to prevent this and should prevent this.
as for your previous mo'us olai chiyuv mezonos, lets get one thing clear. any time a woman is in arko'oys, she cannot ask for a get or for mezonos from a bais din because she has no rights in bais din.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully. Regarding the case that is in court, one has no rights in B"D, as the Rema makes clear in C"M 26:1.
furthermore if she made false claims to child services or any other mesirah, she should be in jail al pi halochoh because bais din has a power to prevent this and should prevent this.
There is no proof that she did.
Your lack of a condemnation again speaks volumes. You don't care about halakha, your misogyny gets in the way. You clearly are willing to twist the Torah. I say that whoever goes to Arkaot without a valid heter from a B"D as per the Sh"A and the Kol Kore that YOU brought here is a sinner, and has lost their rights regarding that case in B"D. If they win in Arkaot the B"D has the right to take away anything they deem they weren't entitled to al pi Torah, and if they lose, again as per the Rema, they have lost too bad for them, it is there punishment. Doesn't matter if if a man or a female.
However you have clearly demonstrated a recalcitrance to condemn a man who has gone to arkaot even though you have said that arkaot is a sin.
Don't even try to say that I say that ORA/Schacter are in the right on this situation. I believe that they are acting completely against halakha, and as per a Yabia Omer I read this past Shabbat, they may even being employing the Rambam's Kophia which all of the Rishonim say is assur.
However that does not retroactively justify Aharon Friedman for going to Arkaot. At most you can make a claim that he is exempt from having to pay Tamar Epstein's legal fees.
But then I'm not a misogynist that will twist Torah to exempt men when they are clearly sinning.
A and B have a dispute. A acts unilaterally regarding the dispute in a way designed specifically that a civil court will rule in A's favor. B has good reason that if B brings the case to court immediately, the court will rule in B's favor, but if the matter is brought to court at a later date the court will rule in A's favor. If B brings the matter to BD, and the BD rules in B's favor, BD cannot enforce its order and if A will not abide by the BD's psak, all BD can do is tell B to take the matter to court. However, at that point, B will lose in court.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Tzadok, you claim that if B brings the case to a rav, the rav cannot pasken that B bring the case to court (even temporarily) in order to at least somewhat mitigate the prejudice of A's unilateral action? In other words, B has no choice but to go first to BD even though if BD rules in B's favor, B will not be able to obtain the benefit of that decision?
Rabbi Tzadok, you claim that if B brings the case to a rav, the rav cannot pasken that B bring the case to court (even temporarily) in order to at least somewhat mitigate the prejudice of A's unilateral action? In other words, B has no choice but to go first to BD even though if BD rules in B's favor, B will not be able to obtain the benefit of that decision?
DeleteHow long do you think it takes a B"D to rule? Something like this shouldn't take more than a day, if the facts are as you say. Pure and simple. His refusal to dismiss the case after the B"D ordered him to do so is also a problem.
Mostly however your argument is built on a number of assumptions. 1) You assume that Tamar is lying when she says she relocated with Aharon's approval. 2) You assume that she wanted to have the case tried in a PA court(there are minimum residency requirements for that, they very by county, so you would have to check to see what they are, and that will give you a time frame). 3) You assume that Tamar would not abide by a B"D's ruling. 4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it). 5) You assume that Aharon's attempt to use mediation to resolve the dispute will be prejudicial, that too is a fallacy, so long as he can actually show that he tried to use mediation.
Fortunately halakha works with facts not assumptions. The facts are that Aharon went to secular court without valid heter and without approval of a B"D, and stayed there even after a B"D ordered him to dismiss the case.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Why is 1 through 5 considered to be assumptions and your last paragraph considered fact?
DeleteThere are no verified facts here, only claims. The claim from the Friedman camp is that Aharon got a pesak that BD's permission was not necessary for the kind of arkaot action he was taking.
No one has claimed that Aharon stayed in court after BD ordered him to dismiss the case. Not the Friedman camp, and not ORA. This is pure fabrication on your part.
According to the claims of the Friedman camp, Aharon has some legitimate complaints against Tamar in regards to custody, and it's unreasonable to demand that he fulfill his obligation to give a get until Tamar fulfills her own obligations.
"1) You assume that Tamar is lying when she says she relocated with Aharon's approval."
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
Tamar claimed, falsely, at the emergency motion that she had taken the child with Aharon's permission. She later admitted in court filings that she had taken the child without Aharon's permission. This was also the finding by the Court. Have you seen Tamar or Ora claim otherwise?
"Something like this shouldn't take more than a day, if the facts are as you say."
DeleteTake more than a day?
BD will generally issue three hazmanos, A defendant can argue that they want the matter before another BD. The process can easily take weeks or months.
"2) You assume that she wanted to have the case tried in a PA court(there are minimum residency requirements for that, they very by county, so you would have to check to see what they are, and that will give you a time frame). 3) You assume that Tamar would not abide by a B"D's ruling."
Epstein in fact tried to have the case tried in PA by arguing that the MD court did not have jurisdiction (in violation of an agreement she had signed with Friedman); had Friedman waited longer, the MD court may have accepted her argument.
If Tamar wanted to relocate the child, she should have first asked for permission from a BD to do so; the fact that she did not, as well as her refusal to mediate, or go with Friedman to see a rav together to try to find a way to adjudicate the dispute may have led the rabbi who gave Friedman the psak reason to believe that she would not abide by a BD order.
And at the end of the day, Tamar did not listen to the BD's orders regarding dismissing the case, both before the case went to trial in civil court, and after the case went to trial in civil court.
"4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it)"
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
In general, most states will accept binding arbitration (including by a BD). Thus, if the arbitrator rules, the court will generally accept the arbitrator's decision absent some abuse. But this is not the case for child custody; a court cannot accept binding arbitration in the case of child custody - certainly not in MD and I believe in other states as well. The case cited for this proposition in MD in the procedural summary is Kovacs v. Kovacs, 98 Md.App. 289, 633 A.2d 425 (1993), which actually involved the Baltimore BD.
Do you have a citation under PA law that a court must accept binding arbitration in the case of custody?
"5) You assume that Aharon's attempt to use mediation to resolve the dispute will be prejudicial, that too is a fallacy, so long as he can actually show that he tried to use mediation."
DeleteRabbi Tzadok,
In the Epstein-Friedman case the time Friedman spent trying to reconcile, in mediation and in beis din was extremely prejudicial; in fact it was the basis for the court's decision that the child stay in PA. This was despite a binding reconciliation agreement that the custody schedule under that arrangement would not be detrimental to Friedman and a binding mediation/arbitration agreement between the parties that the custody arrangement before final adjudication would not be prejudicial. In fact, Epstein specifically argued to the court that the child's time in PA should be prejudicial (and that the child should thus stay there) because Friedman had voluntarily canceled the October 2008 pendete lite trial to bring the case to BD.
Do Epstein's supporters on this blog (such as Rabbis Tzadok and Student) have a problem with Epstein taking Friedman to court (after the original case was already decided) to demand that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits"?
ReplyDeleteIf she instigated the trial yes it would be a problem. However, she did not, as the procedural summary will attest. Here motion was part of her "Defendant’s Amended Motion for Contempt, November 18, 2010".
DeleteAs she was the defendant she was not the one to take the case to the court. Please do not be mislead by the procedural summary's intentionally misleading and duplicitous language. Tamar was still the defendant which means it was still Aharon's case.
Tzadok, we get it. You're trying to make a point about hypocrisy and misogyny. But you don't have the facts to back yourself up. You keep trying to find new ways to distort what other commenters are saying and what the above summary is saying. When we told you Aharon needed to preserve his legal rights you took that to mean "in case the B"D didn't go the way he wanted it to". Now you're making up new offenses when the summary clearly says that he ulitmately complied with BD's requests regarding the civil trial.
DeleteBeis Din then told Aharon to postpone or dismiss the civil trial, .....
Aharon filed amotion to postpone the Court trial as per Beis Din’s order , despite the further legal prejudice as explained above). The Court denied the motion to postpone the trial
I'm not saying that we should take every word or any word of this as fact. I'm saying we should be able to have a conversation about the possible merits of his claims without having to endure your twisting of everyone's words in an attempt to show that Friedman's supporters hate women.
Epstein filed the contempt motion in November 2010 when there were no other motions pending. She was not file that in response to a motion by Friedman.
Delete"Here motion was part of her "Defendant’s Amended Motion for Contempt, November 18, 2010".
ReplyDeleteRabbi Tzadok,
The original case was decided by an order issued in July 2009. Epstein re-opened the case by filing a contempt motion to have all the child's time with Friedman limited to "supervised visits."
Epstein referred to herself as the Defendant in her contempt motion in November 2010 as Friedman had been the first party to formally file any motion in the case several years earlier - not because Epstein's contempt motion was in response to a new motion filed by Friedman after the July 2009 Order.
"4) You assume that the court will not abide by the B"Ds psak(at least in PA, can't speak for Maryland) so long as a binding arbitration agreement was signed at the start of arbitration(i.e. B"D proceedings PA law will abide by it)"
ReplyDeleteRabbi Tzadok: you are making assertions of fact about the legal process that are just not true, and using these assumption to condemn Friedman.
Are you a custody lawyer or otherwise an expert on custody law?
A really quick search shows that under PA law, a binding arbitration agreement regarding child custody is not binding on the court. See Miller v. Miller, 423 Pa.Super. 162, 620 A.2d 1161 (1993).