It would be great if you could post a summary in English of the issues involved in using civil courts: the issur of using civil courts and when it is permitted to use them.
Rabbi Sternbuch brings down the ancient minhag in his 5th volume of teshuvas Shin:Samech:daled(sh )(forgot the exact makom) that after 3 hazmanas a beis din can give a heter for 1 side to go to secular court. I found the beis din of America following this advice in many of their seruvim found on the getora.com website. They state we have invited you 3 times to court to discuss your divorce with your wife and you have ignored our invitations and not gone to any other court either so she now has the right to do what she must in secular court. The machlokes all starts once one side goes to secular court. In some cases a Rav and not a beis din gives a heter to go to court. Please correct me if I am wrong but in the Friedman case he went to secular court for a reason (she ran away with the child and wouldn’t let him see the child) Now he got no heter from a beis din but a Rav. According to Rav Sternbuch he was wrong even if in the end he wanted out of the courts and she wanted to keep the case there!.Now what are the dayanim supposed to do when one side goes to seculart court and claims they have a heter from a Rav for a reason(and there always is a reason in divorces..either child custody, abuse, financial, etc) Should the dayanim demand them to drop the secular case and say that a heter from a Rav means nothing unless one gets a heter from a beis din, or do the dayanim say listen he or she had a heter and therefore what goes in secular court stands and the GET still should be issued because they got their fare share in secular court already. This seems to be the machlokes. Rabbi Shachter was put in Nidiu from a monsey Beis Din for putting a seruv on a man who deposited a get in a bies din http://www.scribd.com/doc/33892912/Strong-Letter-Condemming-RCC-July-2010. Rabbi Shachter holds the beis din is corrupt and the get is possul but as one can see these cases are a mess! Thank you Rabbi Eidonsohn for addressing these issues because most Rabbonim that I have talked to about these issues either know nothing about it or stay out of these messes. Rabbi Schachter has a powerful following of Rabbonim in almost every city in the US that will listen to him and trust his decisions. If rabbonim really disagree with him than we have to demand Rabbonim to publicly state that this is unacceptable behavior. Until then Shitak K’hoda.
Rabosai, we've drilled down here to one of the core conflicts between the Chareidi rabbanim and the YU - ORA rabbanim.
If a Jewish wife divorces / expels her husband using non-Jewish courts, or else abandons him, then according to many of these YU - ORA rabbanim, the marriage is over, and the husband is "chayav l'garesha". (See Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn's comment: "says Rabbi Shachter, if the wife has left the husband, and surely if she has a civil divorce, we may beat the husband with sticks to force him to divorce. This is completely wrong."
Note that the Chareidi rabbanim hold almost the exact contrary position to the allegedly "Orthodox" YU - ORA position: If a Jewish wife divorces / expels her husband using non-Jewish courts, "they (the Jewish wives) should remain unmarried for the rest of their lives." (see halacha 9 in the Kol Koreh).
I think your reasoning is correct but it is not so simple.
What is the case if a woman wants out of a marriage and the B"D tells her she must first obtain a civil divorce? Which is in fact standard procedure for many Chareidi B"D in the US(ask Rav Brisman of the Philadelphia B"D). So the wife does what the B"D says and gets a civil divorce and suddenly the husband has the ability to say she was moser him? Just because a civil court was involved does not automatically put it into this context. Even the wording of the above Kol Kore is a bit more nuanced than you would like to put forward.
Now to the discussion at hand, namely that of Epstein and Friedman. This Kol Kore is more problematic for him than it is for her. He instituted secular court proceedings, with the psak of a Rav(against halakha 3) and not a B"D. Which according to some caused the B"D to actually withdraw from the case entirely. Now that didn't work out in his favor, quite the opposite in fact, and he is upset about it.
Yes ORA's actions are in contradiction to halakhot... however in this case it is not so simple. Since Friedman initiated court proceedings, he crossed out of halakhic bounds first. Not that two wrongs make a right(they almost never do). Yet it is not possible to say that Epstein is a Moredet or a moseret, as it is not stated in the Kol Kore that the defendant in such a case has that din.
Rabbi Michael TzadokApr 2, 2012 12:13 AM The B"D there denies that the case ever came before them. They have done so several times publicly. The only B"D which has ever stated any actual involvement in the case is the one that issued the seruv.
Rabbi Michael Tzadok - I find it odd that a short while ago you wrote that R' Ralbag's B"D was the only B"D involved in this case. Yet now you claim to know why the Baltimore B"D to withdraw.
Please do explain how in a matter of 30 minutes you went from saying there was no prior B"D involvement to knowing why the previous B"D withdrew. (For the record Epstein walked out - you can go to the December 22, 2010 Washington Jewish Week where Rabbi Shuchatowitz from the Baltimore B"D says that they were waiting for Epstein to come back).
Rabbi Tzadok: "He instituted secular court proceedings, with the psak of a Rav(against halakha 3) and not a B"D. Which according to some caused the B"D to actually withdraw from the case entirely. "
Are you asserting that the Epstein-Friedman case was in BD before it was in civil court, and that after the case was already in BD, Friedman initiated civil court proceedings?
Rabbi Tzadok, Where was it reported that the Baltimore BD claimed that the case was never before them? Has anyone ever denied that the Baltimore BD held several hearings on the case with both parties present? Has anyone ever denied that the Baltimore BD was the only BD that held hearings on the case with both parties present? Has anyone ever claimed that some other BD had the case before the Baltimore BD? What Tablet story are you referring to? This story on Tablet does not claim what you say it says. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/94445/congresss-chained-woman Regardless of whether you think Epstein should receive a get, why do you automatically assume that Friedman's supporters are lying?
6ft yout hashkofos belong 6ft under. Since when is halocho determined by what is "legal" or not? and don't even start withthe MO distortion of dina de'malchusa dina!
Tzadok's opinions are so subjective as to be totally baseless. if he considers this nuanced, then perhaps he also considers the shulchan oruch/ rema's opinion on mosrim sheyordim legehoniom le'dorei doros ve'ainom olim also as nuanced!
Nuance does not mean subjective, it means that it needs a careful reading to be understood.
For instance the Kol Kore states that any Jew who reports another Jew to the police is over for mesira. However, many of the Rabbanim who signed this Kol Kore have written Teshuvot that it is in fact a mitzvah to report a molester.
Specifically they say in the Kol Kore three things that are of importance to the Friedman-Epstein case: 1) That only a B"D can give permission for a spouse to moser another in divorce proceedings. 2) No single Rabbi can give permission for a Jew to take another to secular court. 3) No Jew is permitted to assist a Jew who is moser another Jew.
Then these are the facts as have been reported on this blog(links if you would like). 1) Friedman took his wife to B"D 2) When Friedman wasn't getting the desired results in B"D and he was afraid that his wife would take the matter to secular court, he decided to pre-empt her. 3) A single Rav gave permission for him to take her to B"D(against the above Kol Kore). 4) The court did not find in his favor. 5) Another B"D(run by the UOR(formerly under Rav Feinstein now under Rav Ginsberg issued a Seruv. 6) As per the above Kol Kore, it is forbidden for any Jew to aid Friedman until he does teshuva.
Why do you keep repeating a lie. Rabbi Ralbags B"D issued the seruv. The same Rabbi Ralbag that certifies Hebrew National as kosher. That seruv is a joke like like his he hechsher. If you would like the truth look at tne next two posts on this blog
Because it is not a lie. Look on the wiki page for the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, you will see that Rav Ginsburg heads it and its Beit Din. The next two posts do not so much illuminate the truth as they present another(Friedman's) side of the matter. Admittedly the truth is becoming murkier all the time.
However there is now apparently this: A Cherem from the Vaad of Greater Washington- http://www.freetamar.org/doc/vaad-dc-letter_img
Actually you want the truth. Here is the truth. You have contradictory news articles. You have contradictory "fact sheets" you have contradictory poskim.
The further this blog digs into this the more murky the issues become. Though one thing is clear. I have way too much Pesach cleaning to do in order to actually try and dig up all of the facts(if that is even possible from Israel). Without the actual facts, it is impossible to say one way or the other what the halakha is(that too is a halakha). So I am withdrawing from this discussion in anything but the most general of terms.
Maybe you're right, maybe she's right, maybe he's right. I'm really not sure anyone is actually searching for the truth so much as trying to defend their own entrenched position on agunot ect. Quite honestly I don't think the discussions that we have on this blog are going to effect anyone who actually matters, so it all seems a bit pointless at this point.
Have fun, continue if you want. But I am going to concede at this point that I actually have no idea what is really going on in this case.
Rabbi Tzadok: "1) Friedman took his wife to B"D 2) When Friedman wasn't getting the desired results in B"D and he was afraid that his wife would take the matter to secular court, he decided to pre-empt her."
Rabbi Tzadok, Are you asserting that the Epstein-Friedman case was first in BD, and that after the case was already in BD, Friedman initiated a civil court case?
There is recognizing Dina demalchuta dina and then there is believing that it supplants Halakha.
For instance if the government tells you that your matzah oven has to meet certain specifications, and that your matzah bakery has to meet certain specifications. Fine. Dina d'malchuta. If they try to tell you that you have to leaven your matzah, or that you can't bake matza, or that your flour has to be processed with water... or whatever is in violation of halakha... Then we ignore that.
The same here with mesirah. Without a solid halakhic basis for mesirah. A psak from a B"D, or an accepted exception(such as with a child molester) we do not moser another Jew. Full stop. Whether it violates the laws of secular state or not does not matter. The law of our Torah comes first and there is no higher law than that.
Michael tzadok you obviously have your head in the sand. Ralbag is corrupt and Belsky is corrupt and belsky has been told by the godol hador to stay away from gittin. You can shout till the cows come home but you can't change the facts. Epstein went there because she knew whom she was getting. I don't care if the Vilna goan preceded these biryonim on the stationery.
Also produce evidence that after a year one has to give a moredes a Get or one is chayav to pay her mezonos. This is your own invention. Where is it in halochoh as universally accepted? Where is it in the Kol Koreh?
lastly thanks for the lessons in what nuanced means. i won't be nuanced now -you don't what the h*** you are talking about!
Assume one spouse relocates a couple's child out-of-State and refuses to return. Also assume the family lives in a country in which BD has no legal power, particularly with regard to child custody.
Does halacha require the second spouse to effectively give up that spouse's practical ability to have the child returned even if BD were to rule that the child be returned?
TRANSLATION, PLEASE, someone.
ReplyDeleteThanks
If you click the link at the top of the page they have a translation
DeleteRav Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if you could post a summary in English of the issues involved in using civil courts: the issur of using civil courts and when it is permitted to use them.
There are a number of articles in English at JLaw
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jlaw.com/Articles/
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/litigation_in_secular_courts1.html
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/Arkaos%20V1.3.pdf
There are also a number of recordings at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.yutorah.org/search/secular court
JLaw and YU tend to give a very left-wing oriented outlook on the issues.
ReplyDeletedid you see any difficulties in the articles dealing with civil courts?
DeleteRabbi Sternbuch brings down the ancient minhag in his 5th volume of teshuvas Shin:Samech:daled(sh )(forgot the exact makom) that after 3 hazmanas a beis din can give a heter for 1 side to go to secular court. I found the beis din of America following this advice in many of their seruvim found on the getora.com website. They state we have invited you 3 times to court to discuss your divorce with your wife and you have ignored our invitations and not gone to any other court either so she now has the right to do what she must in secular court. The machlokes all starts once one side goes to secular court. In some cases a Rav and not a beis din gives a heter to go to court. Please correct me if I am wrong but in the Friedman case he went to secular court for a reason (she ran away with the child and wouldn’t let him see the child) Now he got no heter from a beis din but a Rav. According to Rav Sternbuch he was wrong even if in the end he wanted out of the courts and she wanted to keep the case there!.Now what are the dayanim supposed to do when one side goes to seculart court and claims they have a heter from a Rav for a reason(and there always is a reason in divorces..either child custody, abuse, financial, etc) Should the dayanim demand them to drop the secular case and say that a heter from a Rav means nothing unless one gets a heter from a beis din, or do the dayanim say listen he or she had a heter and therefore what goes in secular court stands and the GET still should be issued because they got their fare share in secular court already. This seems to be the machlokes. Rabbi Shachter was put in Nidiu from a monsey Beis Din for putting a seruv on a man who deposited a get in a bies din http://www.scribd.com/doc/33892912/Strong-Letter-Condemming-RCC-July-2010. Rabbi Shachter holds the beis din is corrupt and the get is possul but as one can see these cases are a mess! Thank you Rabbi Eidonsohn for addressing these issues because most Rabbonim that I have talked to about these issues either know nothing about it or stay out of these messes. Rabbi Schachter has a powerful following of Rabbonim in almost every city in the US that will listen to him and trust his decisions. If rabbonim really disagree with him than we have to demand Rabbonim to publicly state that this is unacceptable behavior. Until then Shitak K’hoda.
ReplyDeleteRabosai, we've drilled down here to one of the core conflicts between the Chareidi rabbanim and the YU - ORA rabbanim.
ReplyDeleteIf a Jewish wife divorces / expels her husband using non-Jewish courts, or else abandons him, then according to many of these YU - ORA rabbanim, the marriage is over, and the husband is "chayav l'garesha". (See Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn's comment: "says Rabbi Shachter, if the wife has left the husband, and surely if she has a civil divorce, we may beat the husband with sticks to force him to divorce. This is completely wrong."
Note that the Chareidi rabbanim hold almost the exact contrary position to the allegedly "Orthodox" YU - ORA position: If a Jewish wife divorces / expels her husband using non-Jewish courts, "they (the Jewish wives) should remain unmarried for the rest of their lives." (see halacha 9 in the Kol Koreh).
I think your reasoning is correct but it is not so simple.
DeleteWhat is the case if a woman wants out of a marriage and the B"D tells her she must first obtain a civil divorce? Which is in fact standard procedure for many Chareidi B"D in the US(ask Rav Brisman of the Philadelphia B"D). So the wife does what the B"D says and gets a civil divorce and suddenly the husband has the ability to say she was moser him?
Just because a civil court was involved does not automatically put it into this context. Even the wording of the above Kol Kore is a bit more nuanced than you would like to put forward.
Now to the discussion at hand, namely that of Epstein and Friedman. This Kol Kore is more problematic for him than it is for her. He instituted secular court proceedings, with the psak of a Rav(against halakha 3) and not a B"D. Which according to some caused the B"D to actually withdraw from the case entirely. Now that didn't work out in his favor, quite the opposite in fact, and he is upset about it.
Yes ORA's actions are in contradiction to halakhot... however in this case it is not so simple. Since Friedman initiated court proceedings, he crossed out of halakhic bounds first. Not that two wrongs make a right(they almost never do). Yet it is not possible to say that Epstein is a Moredet or a moseret, as it is not stated in the Kol Kore that the defendant in such a case has that din.
Why not investigate the reason the that the wife or husband abandoned the beis din and went for justice to a secular court?
DeleteRabbi Michael TzadokApr 2, 2012 12:13 AM
DeleteThe B"D there denies that the case ever came before them. They have done so several times publicly. The only B"D which has ever stated any actual involvement in the case is the one that issued the seruv.
Rabbi Michael Tzadok - I find it odd that a short while ago you wrote that R' Ralbag's B"D was the only B"D involved in this case. Yet now you claim to know why the Baltimore B"D to withdraw.
Please do explain how in a matter of 30 minutes you went from saying there was no prior B"D involvement to knowing why the previous B"D withdrew. (For the record Epstein walked out - you can go to the December 22, 2010 Washington Jewish Week where Rabbi Shuchatowitz from the Baltimore B"D says that they were waiting for Epstein to come back).
IT was reported in the Tablet that the Baltimore B"D claimed they never came before them.
DeleteIt was reported in the Washington Jewish Week that they did and that the B"D withdrew its involvement on account of the secular court being involved.
Because the story of the Washington Jewish Week coincides with that of Friedman's supporters, I have chosen to believe the latter.
He was moser his wife in secular court and the B"D dropped the case.
Rabbi Tzadok:
Delete"He instituted secular court proceedings, with the psak of a Rav(against halakha 3) and not a B"D. Which according to some caused the B"D to actually withdraw from the case entirely. "
Are you asserting that the Epstein-Friedman case was in BD before it was in civil court, and that after the case was already in BD, Friedman initiated civil court proceedings?
Rabbi Tzadok,
DeleteWhere was it reported that the Baltimore BD claimed that the case was never before them?
Has anyone ever denied that the Baltimore BD held several hearings on the case with both parties present? Has anyone ever denied that the Baltimore BD was the only BD that held hearings on the case with both parties present? Has anyone ever claimed that some other BD had the case before the Baltimore BD?
What Tablet story are you referring to? This story on Tablet does not claim what you say it says.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/94445/congresss-chained-woman
Regardless of whether you think Epstein should receive a get, why do you automatically assume that Friedman's supporters are lying?
Look s like a desperate attempt by those 70 Rabbonim to regain prerogatives they have lost (for good reasons, I suppose).
ReplyDeleteThis letter actually infringes on state prerogatives, so I ask myself whether it could not be considered illegal and punishable by law.
6ft yout hashkofos belong 6ft under. Since when is halocho determined by what is "legal" or not? and don't even start withthe MO distortion of dina de'malchusa dina!
ReplyDeleteTzadok's opinions are so subjective as to be totally baseless. if he considers this nuanced, then perhaps he also considers the shulchan oruch/ rema's opinion on mosrim sheyordim legehoniom le'dorei doros ve'ainom olim also as nuanced!
ReplyDeleteStan,
DeleteNuance does not mean subjective, it means that it needs a careful reading to be understood.
For instance the Kol Kore states that any Jew who reports another Jew to the police is over for mesira. However, many of the Rabbanim who signed this Kol Kore have written Teshuvot that it is in fact a mitzvah to report a molester.
Specifically they say in the Kol Kore three things that are of importance to the Friedman-Epstein case:
1) That only a B"D can give permission for a spouse to moser another in divorce proceedings.
2) No single Rabbi can give permission for a Jew to take another to secular court.
3) No Jew is permitted to assist a Jew who is moser another Jew.
Then these are the facts as have been reported on this blog(links if you would like).
1) Friedman took his wife to B"D
2) When Friedman wasn't getting the desired results in B"D and he was afraid that his wife would take the matter to secular court, he decided to pre-empt her.
3) A single Rav gave permission for him to take her to B"D(against the above Kol Kore).
4) The court did not find in his favor.
5) Another B"D(run by the UOR(formerly under Rav Feinstein now under Rav Ginsberg issued a Seruv.
6) As per the above Kol Kore, it is forbidden for any Jew to aid Friedman until he does teshuva.
Why do you keep repeating a lie. Rabbi Ralbags B"D issued the seruv. The same Rabbi Ralbag that certifies Hebrew National as kosher. That seruv is a joke like like his he hechsher.
DeleteIf you would like the truth look at tne next two posts on this blog
Because it is not a lie. Look on the wiki page for the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, you will see that Rav Ginsburg heads it and its Beit Din.
DeleteThe next two posts do not so much illuminate the truth as they present another(Friedman's) side of the matter. Admittedly the truth is becoming murkier all the time.
However there is now apparently this: A Cherem from the Vaad of Greater Washington-
http://www.freetamar.org/doc/vaad-dc-letter_img
Actually you want the truth. Here is the truth. You have contradictory news articles. You have contradictory "fact sheets" you have contradictory poskim.
DeleteThe further this blog digs into this the more murky the issues become. Though one thing is clear. I have way too much Pesach cleaning to do in order to actually try and dig up all of the facts(if that is even possible from Israel). Without the actual facts, it is impossible to say one way or the other what the halakha is(that too is a halakha). So I am withdrawing from this discussion in anything but the most general of terms.
Maybe you're right, maybe she's right, maybe he's right. I'm really not sure anyone is actually searching for the truth so much as trying to defend their own entrenched position on agunot ect. Quite honestly I don't think the discussions that we have on this blog are going to effect anyone who actually matters, so it all seems a bit pointless at this point.
Have fun, continue if you want. But I am going to concede at this point that I actually have no idea what is really going on in this case.
Rabbi Tzadok:
Delete"1) Friedman took his wife to B"D
2) When Friedman wasn't getting the desired results in B"D and he was afraid that his wife would take the matter to secular court, he decided to pre-empt her."
Rabbi Tzadok,
Are you asserting that the Epstein-Friedman case was first in BD, and that after the case was already in BD, Friedman initiated a civil court case?
Well, if you do not recognise dina de malchuta dina, there is nothing to discuss...
ReplyDeleteThere is recognizing Dina demalchuta dina and then there is believing that it supplants Halakha.
DeleteFor instance if the government tells you that your matzah oven has to meet certain specifications, and that your matzah bakery has to meet certain specifications. Fine. Dina d'malchuta. If they try to tell you that you have to leaven your matzah, or that you can't bake matza, or that your flour has to be processed with water... or whatever is in violation of halakha... Then we ignore that.
The same here with mesirah. Without a solid halakhic basis for mesirah. A psak from a B"D, or an accepted exception(such as with a child molester) we do not moser another Jew. Full stop. Whether it violates the laws of secular state or not does not matter. The law of our Torah comes first and there is no higher law than that.
Michael tzadok you obviously have your head in the sand. Ralbag is corrupt and Belsky is corrupt and belsky has been told by the godol hador to stay away from gittin. You can shout till the cows come home but you can't change the facts. Epstein went there because she knew whom she was getting. I don't care if the Vilna goan preceded these biryonim on the stationery.
ReplyDeleteAlso produce evidence that after a year one has to give a moredes a Get or one is chayav to pay her mezonos. This is your own invention. Where is it in halochoh as universally accepted? Where is it in the Kol Koreh?
lastly thanks for the lessons in what nuanced means. i won't be nuanced now -you don't what the h*** you are talking about!
I have pointed out the piece three times in the Yaskil Avdei. See there.
ReplyDeleteA halachic question:
ReplyDeleteAssume one spouse relocates a couple's child out-of-State and refuses to return. Also assume the family lives in a country in which BD has no legal power, particularly with regard to child custody.
Does halacha require the second spouse to effectively give up that spouse's practical ability to have the child returned even if BD were to rule that the child be returned?