Wednesday, May 2, 2012

R M. Klein: Get invalid by use of Court

 Mishna Halachos(14:60): [Translation copyrighted by Daniel Eidensohn] The secular procedure is that when a woman wants to get custody of the children from her husband who is also their father – she will go the secular authorities and claim that he hit her and others such charges and that she escaped with the children and she is now requesting an “order of protection.” The Rabbis who haven’t been properly mentored by great Torah scholars and are not sufficiently learned in Torah claim that this is not the prohibitions of mesira and going to secular courts. In fact not only is this actual mesira but it is kidnapping of the children with the power of the secular judges and it is literally in the category of actual murder. (Look at Maharam Mirzburk printed at the end of Mahari Veil page 173....) Anyone who files a complaint against a Jew to a non‑Jew needs to repent as one who is a murderer. This woman who filed a complaint against her husband and they imprisoned him or other such punishment – it is not an Order of Protection but rather kidnapping the children and actual murder. Thus if either the husband or wife uses this approach they are a murderer and one needs to be very careful of this.

Besides the fact that when a woman goes to the secular courts and intimidates the husband with an Order of Protection or other techniques, it is subsequently prohibited for the husband to give her a get because it is an invalid get which has been coerced by the secular courts. One of my acquaintances came and asked regarding his wife who had obtained an Order of Protection and as a result he had been imprisoned overnight until his lawyer obtained his release. He told me that he was afraid this would happen again and again because she would make up lies about him and torment him all his life. He had decided that he had no choice but to give her a get. The beis din was now prepared to write it. I told him that a get given under these circumstances was invalid by the Torah and it was prohibited to give her a get until she removed all of her charges from the secular court and he had received a letter from her that she would no longer bring him to secular court again. This is elementary and clearly the halacha according to the Torah. It is clear that it doesn’t matter whether the husband is actually sent to jail or that she files a complaint in secular court and they don’t actually jail him.

I told him that he should listen to my advice and that both he and his wife should come and I would listen to both sides and I would make suggestion as to which rabbis to go to who might be able to make peace. Why do they say that rabbis are just for the bad to give a get but not for the positive. In fact there are wise rabbis who can make improvement and to discuss with both sides and to explain to them they are just destroying themselves and their children. That they have to worry in addition to problem in shidduchim for this family because of the fear of future divorces and many other things. In short I gave the advice to at least try counseling....

59 comments :

  1. Well, any other response would have astonished me from the Rabbi who says that child abuse does not exist because it cannot exist because it is, generally, not perpetrated in front of two kosher Eidim...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did he ever investigate if the order of protection was necessary? Sounds like he relied solely on the husband's word, who is a kosher jew and therefore cannot lie, pardon has a chezkat kashrut and is believed.

    How many battered wives did he send back to their husbands?

    How many were injured as a result? How many died?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well any other response from a supporter of someone who wants to shoot the Israeli prime minister (H Schachter, professor of reform) would have astonished me.

    Rav Menashe's sefer is a classic. It needs to be translated into all languages. i wish I had time to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let's be honest. Even if the woman showed up with two broken legs and a cracked skull from being beaten by her husband with a baseball bat and note from her husband threatening her imminent death, Rav Klein, based on his other Teshuva dealing with abuse:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/06/abuse-strict-din-according-to-torah_01.html
    Would not permit her to get a protection order.

    He is by no means qualified to say what is and isn't mesirah, as he holds a universally rejected view. Though in this teshuva the winning line is this:
    One of my acquaintances came and asked regarding his wife who had obtained an Order of Protection and as a result he had been imprisoned overnight until his lawyer obtained his release.
    So the husband violated the protection order, something he had to have known was against him and wound up in jail because of it.

    To head of Stan, yes you may be able to say that I don't know how divorce courts work, and mostly you would be right, I only ever found myself in one once, and at that time my lawyer, who was also my Rav got it defferred back into B"D so fast it made everyone's head spin.

    However I do have an executive protection background and good friends on literally every level of LE. No police officer may arrest someone for violating a protection order unless they themselves witness it being violated. What that means is that this man actually put himself, knowingly and willfully in a position to be arrested. You can read one abuse survivor's story of how that happened here:
    http://www.adkanenough.com/18/post/2012/04/friday-april-27-2012-200am.html

    Honestly there is no good reason for anyone to violate a protection order and get themselves arrested. That Rav Klein thinks there is, or simply doesn't realize that, just serves to show that he is as out to lunch on this as he is on child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you believe that halacha allows someone to go to civil court on their own?
      Must ask a rav first?
      Can only go with permission of a beis din?

      If it depends on what the issue is, please explain exactly what issues would allow someone to go to court?

      Does whether one may go to court depend on whether a BD would be able to enforce (as a practical and legal matter) whatever relief it deems appropriate?

      Delete
    2. Mr. Michael Tzadok:

      In the U. S., a woman can get a man arrested and held in contempt of allegedly violating a protective order by her claim alone.

      Delete
    3. Rabbi Eidonsohn, is Dave really Stan, and if so, why are you supporting this socket puppeting Gneyvas Daas.

      Delete
  5. Carry on being mevazeh anyone who is not sefardic or reform YU Michael.


    You are clueless. All it takes to get an order of protection are totally false allegations. Similarly to be booked.

    You are not qualified to say what is mesirah since you admit you don't understand how divorce courts work by your own admission.

    "No police officer may arrest someone for violating a protection order unless they themselves witness it being violated." Baloney. Absolute baloney. in which state is this true? in the state of drunkenness and stupor and delusion which you have fallen into today?

    as good as your claim she'ani lo yachol likroh ivrit.

    Dude you are delusional it's not funny anymore. when you write one teshuva on the level of rav menashe you can speak. let alone 17 volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. michael, what do you hold about a woman who
    1) went to arko'oys without a heter
    2) makes false claims for an order of protection for herself and the children which is dismissed and which the judge refuses to reinstate
    3) made repeated false alegations of child assault and abuse which were dismissed by the child services authorities
    4) made repeated other false allegations to court?

    1)is the man mechuyev to give her a get i.e. can bais din force him to give her a get?
    2) assuming the answer to 1) is no can you protest against this man if he refuses to give a get

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2) assuming the answer to 1) is no can you protest against this man if he refuses to give a get.

      Yes.

      Delete
  7. I don't know how relevant this is, but I've heard that RMK lost a custody battle with his first wife and his son is now a doctor Gertner in Chicago. Hebrwew wikipedia identifies him as a neurosurgeon while Yiddish wikipedia denies his his existence:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F#.D7.99.D7.9C.D7.93.D7.99.D7.95

    http://yi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F

    I haven't been able to find any other info on the web.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. shaul,

      That is incorrect info. And that person is not his son.

      Delete
  8. Reply to Tzadok: "No police officer may arrest someone for violating a protection order unless they themselves witness it being violated."

    The master of obfuscation and disinformation Michael Tzadok is suffering from feminist delusions once again. Fact is numerous frum Jewish men have been incarcerated after their moseres wives made false allegations to the police or courts that their husbands violated orders of protection. I know of cases where frum fathers, in their own premises, were arrested right in front of their children due to protection order abuse by their ex-wives. There are other cases where frum men were sent to Rikers Island on Shabbos.

    None of this brutal mesira bothers Tzadok and his ORA pals in the least. No, the main issue their concerned with is how to force a GET and make it look kosher to the uninformed Orthodox masses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? You were there when it happened? You witnessed the event or are you relying on the cover stories of the men?

      I'm relying on actual police officers who work in cities such as NYC and LA. They tell me, that a person may only be arrested for violation of a protection order when the arresting officer witnesses said violation.

      That isn't obfuscation nor is it disinformation it is fact.

      Once again with the ORA thing... This is giving me a headache. So in the best drone voice that I can summon through the ethers of cyber-space... I do not support ORA. I believe that the actions of ORA are in clear violation of halakha ect... ect... ect... See my other responses for sources and reasons that I think ORA is in violation of halakha, I am not going to bother retyping them every single time you make this accusation.

      By the way, I would really love it if EmesLeYaakov/Stan/Binyamin would quit with the sock puppet act(or at least learn how to not use the same bad grammar and spelling mistakes, so that we are confused if it is really the same anonymous person or not).

      Delete
    2. Oh by the way. Since you claim to be against mesirah and arkaot, I have to ask, do you condemn Aharon Friedman for going to arkaot against his wife without a valid heter or do you not?

      Once again I condemn ORA and their tactics... blah blah blah(since I know you would only ignore me saying it yet again). I just think that halakha is halakha and it shouldn't matter if a man or a woman is violating it.

      Delete
  9. "No police officer may arrest someone for violating a protection order unless they themselves witness it being violated." Baloney. Absolute baloney. in which state is this true? in the state of drunkenness and stupor and delusion which you have fallen into today?

    Which state. NY, NJ, PA, DE, GA, WA and CA. Those are the ones that I have worked in as far as EP and have contacts in the various police forces. Since such things are typically handled on the state level. What my LE friends tell me, I believe, after all they do it.

    michael, what do you hold about a woman who
    1) went to arko'oys without a heter

    Possible Moseret. Sh"A 388:5
    2) makes false claims for an order of protection for herself and the children which is dismissed and which the judge refuses to reinstate
    Definite moseret.

    3) made repeated false alegations of child assault and abuse which were dismissed by the child services authorities
    Definite moseret

    4) made repeated other false allegations to court?
    Mosert and most likeky רגיל לא ציית לדינא

    1)is the man mechuyev to give her a get i.e. can bais din force him to give her a get?
    Mechuyev yes. Force, that is trickier. Depends on what you classify as force. If you mean does he have to deposit a Get should he want heter meah rabbanim, yup, Rav Shternbuch says so. If you mean the use of R"T or even mezonot... absolutely not Her being a moseret eliminates any valid claims she might have had to offer before a B"D, and thus really it is up to her (ex)husbands desire to move on with his life, or just be rid of her.

    2) assuming the answer to 1) is no can you protest against this man if he refuses to give a get
    I can't believe that I have to answer this one yet again. Let me say it boldly and loudly enough so that maybe you can understand it PUBLIC HUMILIATION IS FORBIDDEN BY ALL OPINIONS. RAV OVADIA YOSEF BRINGS IN YABIA OMER(STILL HAVEN'T FOUND THE EXACT PLACE) IN THE NAME OF THE MEIRI, THAT MANY RISHONIM HELD THAT THE RAMBAM'S KOFIN WAS NOT ACTUAL BEATING BUT PUBLIC HUMILIATION AND THUS THERE IS WHAT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THERE, AS THE RAMBAM IS UNIVERSALLY REJECTED. Did you get it that time Stan?

    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Meiri is in Kesubos 63b

      בית הבחירה למאירי מסכת כתובות דף סג עמוד ב

      ואף קצת חכמי הדור מפרשין את דבריהם כופין אותו בהודעה שאם אינו מגרשה אין בית דין משתדלין בהחזרתה ולא פוחתין כתבתה וכל שתחזור קודם שיגרשנה לא תפסיד כתבתה אף לאחר כמה ואף גדולי המפרשים שכתבו בה לא כייפינן לה להתעכב עמו אלא מוציאה לאלתר לאחר שנים עשר חדש בלא כתבה איפשר לפרש בה כן ר"ל אם ירצה לגרש כדי להרויח כתבתה ומה שכתוב בהלכות שחדשו הגאונים באומרת לא בעינא ליה ר"ל מאיס עלאי דיהיב גיטא לאלתר הוא מפני שהם מגלגלים השהאת שנים עשר חדש אף במאיס עלאי ותקנו להחמיר בה שאם רצה מוציאה מיד בהפסד כתבה וכן נראה לי ברור וקצת חכמי הדורות מפרשין בדבריהם יהיב לה גיטא שחייב אלא שמכל מקום אין כופין אותו:
      It is also part 2 of the Kuntres in Otzer HaPoskim EH 77

      Delete
    2. The Meiri is not relevant to the Epstein-Friedman case. What the "Ketzas Chachmei HaDor" are saying is that verbal threats by Beis Din are tantamount to Kefi'ah, and therefore may only be employed where Kefi'ah is warranted. Other Jews, however, can (and should!) taunt and humiliate a recalcitrant husband.

      Delete
    3. i have known rav. menashe klein for the last 35 years [have been davening in his shull],this man is a gevaldige talmid chacham,and has a photographic mind,but when it comes to the fifth shulchan aruch.[ie.common sense ]he is absolutely clueless,this psak of his is an absolute outrage,and should be completely ignored by any normal thinking human being.
      as an example of his lack of common sense.
      if you remmember 20-25 yrs ago when
      the AIDS epidemic came on the scene,and it was discovered that most of the old blood banks where aids infected,and therefore there was a severe shortage of blood,and a health emergency was declared,and an emergency appeal was made by all the rabbonim in NYC and they ruled it is a PEKUACH NEFESH and every healthy jew is obligated to donate blood.
      Well the same shabbos rav.menashe klein got up in his shull,and announced that in his opinion it is absolutely forbiden to donate blood,as there is a prohibition to be CHOVEL BEATZMO,[you are prohibited to injure yourself]
      that is when i realized,this man has absolutely no common sense,and his PSAK'S are absolutely worthless

      CHAIM.

      Delete
    4. Other Jews, however, can (and should!) taunt and humiliate a recalcitrant husband.

      Do you have a halakhic source for this? To this point the best teshuvot from the ORA side have relied upon Rav Ovadia Yosef's various Piskei Din. If you are going to rely upon him for your leniency, you also have to rely upon him for the boundaries of that leniency.

      Delete
    5. It is simple. This is a part of the Harchaka regardless: For example, the harchaka states that alls Jew should refrain from buying from him and selling to him. Imagin then, that he comes to Machane Yehuda and goes from stall to stall looking to make a purchase and everyone turns him away - no doubt some with some choice invective, not discouraged by RT - is this not public humiliation?

      See also what "James" wrote at http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/r-broydes-coerced-get-protesting.html
      at 1:17 am today.

      BTW, intriguing although not conclusive, there is an assertion that RAL Shteinman permitted demonstrations. See:
      http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1140442

      Delete
  10. My problem with Rav Menashe Klein(and it is not only my problem) is that he will not permit going to the police/authorities even when there is clear evidence of abuse. He's written teshuvot about it, and he proved it with his involvement with Kolko case.

    For instance if a man were to(chas v'shalom) walk in on his son being raped by another man(or teacher), and even actually see it with his own eyes, Rav Klein rules that one cannot go to the authorities, because that does not constitute kosher eidut(after alll the father is related to the son, first disqualification, he is only one person, second disqualification, and he didn't see the whole act from beginning to end, third disqualification). He writes that it is even forbidden to warn others.

    Everyone, literally everyone, takes issue with him. The blog owner and Rav Dovid Eidensohn take issue with him. Rav Eliashiv takes issue with him, everyone says he is wrong. Thus I don't see him making a distinction between a wife who's physical well being is actually in danger and one's who is not.

    Rav Eliashiv writes in several places(all of which have been brought on this blog) that an actually abused spouse may go to the police. My problem with Rav Klein, is that he doesn't make that distinction. In fact according to his other teshuvot on the subject(in which he dismissed out of hand the Teshuvot of the previous Gedolei HaDor, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Elazar Shach, and Rav Moshe Feinstein, saying that he didn't even bother to read their works) that wihtout Kosher Eidut one may not speak out against a person, and even with Kosher Eidut one may not go to the police(despite all of the formerly listed, all of whom are Ashkenazi Gedolim with no attachment to YU, saying opposite).
    Really, on this one, when the following Rabbanim say there is no issue of mesirah in actual child or spousal abuse:
    Rav Moshe Feinstein
    Rav Shternbuch
    Rav Eliashiv
    Rav S.Z. Auerbach
    Rav Elazar Shach
    Rav Haim Kanievsky
    Rav Ovadia Yosef
    Rav Mordechai Eliyahu
    Rav Ovadia Hedayya
    And a slew more that Rav Eidensohn listed in his book on the subject... Yeah I am going to hold by them and say that Rav Klein is out to lunch on this issue. I realize a few Sephardim made it into the mix, but seriously... You do recognize that he disagreed with everyone, including four Rabbanim that the greater Ashkenazi world called Gadol and Posek Hador right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet, you will NEVER find Stan speaking ill of R' Menashe Klein ז'ל
      Stan is motivated by politics. If only the YU Morei Ho'rooh had long white bears and fancy peyos and were negative about the State of Israel ... then the Stans of this world would have Derech Eretz.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am surprised at your comment.
      At the time he denied the rumors and I am unaware of any actual proof to the rumor. so why are you bringing it up?

      Delete
    2. Revision based on your comment:

      Since everything quoted here is sevara d'nafshei, let's put Rabbi Menashe Klein in perspective. The same Rabbi Klein in his teshuvos says it is forbidden for a Jew to practice as an accountant or a lawyer.

      Delete
    3. YGB: Where is that teshuva? I don't believe your comment to be accurate. Please cite.

      Not being a lawyer I can understand due to the lying or defending a guilty person. But accountant?

      Delete
    4. שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק ו סימן שיג

      אי מותר לישראל להיות רואה חשבון (אקאנטאן בלע"ז)

      ב"ה ב' מו"מ התשל"א בנ"י יצו"א.
      מע"כ האי צורב עוסק בחוקי חורב וכו' כמר דוד אברהם פרידברג הי"ו בישיבה הקדושה טעלז. אחדשה"ט.

      יסלח לי אם לא תיארתיו כראוי כי בבלתי מכירו קאמינא ויש"מ. ובמ"ש בפעולת רואה חשבון הנקרא אקונטענט בלע"ז אשר חלק עקרי מעבודתו לחפש עצות ותחבולות איך להבריח המסים מהמדינה א"כ איך מותר ליהודי שומר תורה ומצות להיות רואה חשבון שהרי יש בעבודתו משום לאו דלפ"ע וכמה אברכים שומרי תורה ומצות עוסקים במלאכה זו.

      א) והנראה כי ישנם בעבודה זו של רואה חשבון שני מינים יש מין רואה חשבון אשר הוא מבקש עצות ותחבולות איך להבריח המס או מכס אבל העצות הם ע"פ חוק המלכות אלא שלפי שלאו כל אדם בקי בכל החוקים והאופנים שיוכל לפטור עצמו ממס ולמשל עובדא ידענא לפני שנים הי' מס גדול על ברזל המובא מגרמניא ימ"ש ומצרפת לא הי' מס כמעט כלום והי' יהודי סוחר אחד גדול שקנה הרבה ברזל בגרמניא ושכר לעצמו משרד בצרפת ועשה שם קמפאני והקאמפאני שלו בצרפת קנתה הברזל מגרמניא ואח"כ המשרד הצרפתי שלח הברזל מגרמניא לארה"ב הנה הברזל לא זז ממקומו והובא מגרמניה אלא על שם צרפת ובא הדבר לפני הקאנגרעס ואמרו שאין לו לשלם מס רק לפי השיוי של צרפת כי הוא הביא הברזל מצרפת הנה מבואר דאפילו עשה תחבולה גדולה אכתי קיים חוק המלכות וכה"ג וכיוצא בזה אם עושים תחבולות אין בזה איסור כלל.

      Delete
    5. שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק ו סימן שיג

      ואפילו בדיני תורה במ"ע המחויב לקיימה אם יש בידו אופן ע"פ הצטדקאות לפטור עצמו מקיום העשה נחלקו הפוסקים אי מותר לעשות כן עיין ס' רב פעלים סי' ד' ושו"ת בני ציון סי' י"ד ועוד אחרונים ובספרי משנה הלכות ח"ג סי' ל"ה הארכתי קצת בזה ועיין קידושין ל"ג יכול יעצים עיניו וכו' ת"ל תקום ויראת פרש"י ת"ל ויראת יש לך לירא מן היוצר היודע מחשבותיך שאתה מבקש תחבולות להפטר ממצותו ע"כ ע"ש ועיין ב"ב צ"א ת"ר אין יוצאין מארץ לחו"ל וכו' שמפקיע עצמו מן המצות הרי מפורש דאסור להפקיע עצמו מן המצות ועיין מנחות מ"א ע"א דאמר ליה מלאכא לקטינא וכו' אלא הכי קאמר ליה תצדקי למיפטר נפשך מציצית ופרש"י תבקש תחבולות לפטור עצמך מציצית ע"ש אבל בדיני דמלכותא פשוט דאין שייך זה כלל דכל שיכול לעשות ולפטור עצמו רשאי וא"כ ליכא בזה איסור כלל.

      ב) אבל יש סוג שני שמבקש תחבולות של איסור ושקר וגניבה כדי לגנוב המס ובזה ודאי ליכא היתר ואולי הוא גרע מבעה"ב עצמו דאין שליח לד"ע וא"כ אין בעה"ב עושה כלום אלא בשב וא"ת עכ"פ והאקונטענד הוא המבריח המס דהבעה"ב ע"פ רוב מניח על הרואה חשבון וכל מה שהוא אומר הוא עושה וא"כ הרואה חשבון הוא הוא המבריח המס ולא הבעה"ב ודו"ק.

      ובאחת השיעורים לתלמידי ישיבתינו מלפנים שהרבה מהם כעת יצאו על המחיה ועל הכלכלה בררתי אז בס"ד בבירור גדול כי עבודת אקונטינג הוא מאד מסוכנת לב"ת חדא שע"פ רוב הוא עוסק בתחבולות של שקר ומבקש תחבולות להבריח המסים וזה אם הוא פועל אצל קאמפני יחידית היינו פרטי, ואפילו אינו גוזל ממש אבל כמה שקרים וכיוצא בזה הוא עושה כל היום ועכ"פ אינו יוצא מכלל מדבר שקר וליכא ונשאת ונתת באמונה, וצריך ליזהר בזה מאד. ואם הוא פועל אצל הטעקס דעפארטמענט של הממשלה (אי. ר. ש) והוא המפקח על התיקים מי שילם ומי לא שילם ואם ימצא מי שלא שילם או שלא שילם כראוי עליו מוטל החיוב למסרו להמשרד של הממשלה אז הוא בכלל מסור ממש ח"ו ולמשל נותנים לו י' תיקים לבדוק ובתוכם לערך חמש תיקים של ישראלים ובדק התיקים ומצא באחד או בשתים מבני ישראל שאינם מתוקנים ומסרו למלכות ועי"ז גרם לישראל היזק ממון ולפעמים גם היזק כל נכסיו או אפילו היזק נפשות כמו שקרה זה לא זמן כביר באחד מהגבירים אשר תפשוהו בענין הברחת טעקס והביאוהו לבית המשפט ולקחו כל ממונו וסגרוהו בבית משוגעים ומת והדבר הי' ידוע ומפורסם לפני כמה שנים ובודאי יש עוד מעשים כאלו ועכ"פ אם לא ימות אבל גורם לו היזק ממון וא"כ הרואה חשבון הוא בכלל מסור דמ"ש אם מי שהוא אומר לישראל חברו שילך למסרו למלכות דיש לו דין מסור המבואר בח"מ סי' שפ"ח דאין לו חלק לעוה"ב ע"ש ס"ט דכל המוסר ישראל ביד עכו"ם בין בגופו בין בממונו אין לו חלק לעוה"ב ובפ"ק דר"ה אמרינן המסורות יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין לדורי דורות וגופן ונשמתן כלה והרי הן פסולין לעדות אם נתברר הדבר ואפילו לא מסרו עדיין רק שאומר אלך ואמסור אם אומר כך בפרהסיא נפסל לעדות (מרדכי פ' הגוזל) ואפילו להיש חולקין דדוקא ברגיל בכך הרי אין לך רגיל מזה שזה אומנתו עבור כמה דולר שמקבל מהמדינה הוא יושב ומוסר את בנ"י. ועיין ש"ע ס"ח שם דאין משביעין את המוסר שהראה מעצמו לא שבועה חמורה ולא שבועת היסת מפני שהוא רשע ואין לך פסול יותר מזה ואם הפסידו ממון חייב לשלם כל מה שהפסידו ע"ש פרטי דינים בזה.

      Delete
    6. Skipping down to the lawyer part of the teshuva, note the last line:


      שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק ו סימן שיג

      עוד אמרתי להעיר מהרבה בני תורה אשר נעשים עו"ד ולפענ"ד דבר זה ג"כ קשה מאד להזהר להיות ע"פ תורה לא מבעיא עו"ד ממשלתי דודאי אסור להיות כי הוא מוכרח לדון בנ"י בדיניהם ולפעמים אפילו בדיני נפשות ועובר על לפניהם ולא לפני עכו"ם ואם הי' בדיני נפשות ח"ו יכול להיות בכלל רוצח אלא אפילו עו"ד פרטי לעצמו או לקאמפאני ג"כ כמעט א"א ועכ"פ לא ימלט מלעבור על לפניהם ולא לפני עכו"ם כידוע ומפורסם הדבר הזה לפני כל יודע דת ודין דכל עו"ד שהולך לערכאות אינו מבקש קודם ד"ת ושיהי' לו סירוב לדין או כיוצא בזה אלא מיד שיבא אצלו יהודי הרי הוא הולך אתו לבית משפט והרי הוא עובר על דבר איסור גדול וכ"ש אם נעשה דזאדזש בלע"ז ואי אפשר רק אם יהיה עו"ד רק לעשות דברים לעגאלים בלי לילך לערכאות עם יהודים בכלל לא או לאחר שיהיו לו סירוב וכמו שאמרתי שזו כמעט אינו שכיח ולכן אין לבן תורה ליכנס לפרנסות כאלו שיהי' להן נסיונות גדולות כאלו ועיין אברבנאל עה"ת שכתב למה לא הכניס יוסף מאחיו לגנזי המלך שיהי' לו שם איזה משרה ורק שלחם כולם לגושן כי לא רצה לבני יעקב שיתערבו בגוים ודי לו במה שהוא הי' שם באונס ע"ש דברים נפלאים ממקור קדוש יהלכו האברבנאל בעל הנסיון הלזה.

      והנה כל זה שכתבנו הוא לבד מעצם הלימוד בקאלידזש שיש בו איסור מצד עצמו כידוע ומובן ובתשובה אחת הארכתי בזה ועיין שו"ת הריב"ש סי' מ"ה.

      Delete
  12. 1)is the man mechuyev to give her a get i.e. can bais din force him to give her a get?
    Mechuyev yes...

    Dude go get help.

    she has no rights in bais din and this shows that you are clearly off the derech. show me one authentic torah leader who holds you are mechuyev to give a get in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "authentic torah leader"

      You've got to love it when people bandy these words around without ever giving a definition. Agudist politics and no more.

      Delete
    2. Stan why do you insist on twisting my words to say something that I didn't say? Rav Shternbuch says that a man ought to give his wife a Get. However in a case such as this, all that we do for the man is tell him that he should. That is it. No B"D will do more than that.
      Personally I don't know why a man would want to keep such a serpent around. I was more than happy to get rid of my first wife when she started making up lies and such. But again, all that you get from a B"D in such a case is, "it is good to give her a Get." Or "Give her a Get and be done with her."
      Forcing... as in applying any sort of pressureABSOLUTELY NOT.

      Delete
  13. I reiterate that the time has come for Rav Mendel Weinbach to know that Ohr Sameach in the US employs someone with anti torah hashkofos and supports an organization that no only is mevazeh berabim an innocent man but issues fake siruvim on men whose wives are in arko'oys.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am still unsure why this stan person's comments are being published. Are you going to tell me that this last comment on May 2, 2012 01:16 PM somehow adds to the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a better question, can stan post a single comment without. mentioning 'arkoyos'?

      Delete
  15. a jew who denies a single letter of the torah is an apostate. kal ve'chomer one who denies the existence of one mitzvah or halochoh in the torah.

    unfortunately since bechoffer falls into this category by insisting that a woman who is a moyser and is a holeches arkooys can be embarrassed and forced to give a get clearly falls in this category.

    he is entitled to his private views in a free country. he is most certainly not entitled to spew them forth in a yeshiva which is meant to be mekarev yidden to the Torah.

    Bechoffer is part and parcel of getora. need i say more.

    ReplyDelete
  16. oh, according the sevoro that was given by the eminent scholars batmelech and bechhoffer in descending order of Torah knowledge, I guess they completely equally discredit rav pinchas scheinberg for his notorious psak on "penetration". yet these same hypocrites are pretty certain to hero worship rabv scheinberg.

    consistency is never a strong point among those who deny the torah's authenticity. they play it as it suits them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. rav pinchas scheinberg for his notorious psak on "penetration". yet these same hypocrites are pretty certain to hero worship rabv scheinberg.

      Post the Psak please. I would like to see it... oh that's right, it was only ever rumored that that was his psak, as the actual ruling of that B"D has never been made public.

      Do I think he was wrong for his stance on the Kolko case? Yes absolutely.
      Does that discredit his Torah in general? No. It does discredit his stance on child molesters though, again especially as he ignored the gedolim of the generation... but you only seem to care about that when you think it is a Sephardi doing it.
      Do I "hero worship" Rav Scheinberg? No. Actually I think he was out to lunch on a lot of things for instance:
      1) That silk screened divrei STA"M was preferable to that actually written by a sofer.
      2) That one should say Barukh Atah Hashem... Mooh(like a cow) over wheat grass and its derivatives(you know believe me you can call Rav Shalom Gold of the Rova, he is the one who recieved the psak).
      3) Then there was the child molestation thing.

      How many times does a Rabbi have to be a complete Daat Yachid before, and more than just a daat yachid, but actually against all of the other Gedolim of the generation before one says, that though he main contain a lot of gemarra between his ears, he cannot be relied upon for a psak.

      Delete
  17. DaveMay 2, 2012 01:59 PM
    "shaul,

    That is incorrect info. And that person is not his son."

    Which person? And did he have a kid from his first marriage? It's a stira in wikipedias and it's a mitzva leyashev.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stan, Stan, Stan.

    It's only YOUR Torah that makes him an apostate. You know, the Torah of your chosen Aguda Rabbis. Nobody else exists. We can see how little OUR Torah has become part of you by your continued lack of Kavod HaBriyos, let alone Kavod HaTorah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From his content and tone it seems that Stan is way off to the right of Agudah.

      Delete
  19. is it permissible in this case to accuse michael tzaddok of deliberately misrepresenting the truth?

    http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courthelp/faqs/domesticviolence.html

    What happens if an order of protection is violated?
    A. If a respondent or defendant violates (disrespects) an order of protection, the person with the order of protection can call the police, who can arrest the respondent or defendant. The person with the order of protection can file a "violation petition" in Family Court, talk with the district attorney's office (or other local prosecutor's office) or can go to the local Criminal Court. The person with the order of protection can choose to do all three of these things. Upon proof of the violation, the judge can make changes in the order of protection and put the respondent or defendant on probation. The judge can set a jail sentence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you call the police. If they find the suspect in violation of the order, he is arrested. They are not going to hunt him down to arrest. If the suspect has left the scene, the best you can do is petition the court with proof of a violation. Thank you for once again demonstrating once again your lack of reading comprehension.

      Stan have you ever had to guarantee someone's safety? Have you ever had an EP client with a protection order against someone(actually most of mine had several). While I will concede that you may supposedly know more about how divorce courts work, I promise you that I know more about how proection orders work, as the safety of myself and my clients as well as my livelihood depended upon it.

      So let us talk about protection orders, of which there are two kinds:
      Ex-parte: A temporary order that can be generally obtained without evidence, though it is temporary pending an actual hearing.
      Final: A permanent(or semi-permanent depending on the State) order that requires solid evidence of abuse.

      Once a person gets an ex-parte order(even if waiting for a final order) they cannot simply call the police and have the accused arrested. The police will need to see the suspect in violation of the protection order. Otherwise they have to file a petition with court and hope for the best in the meantime.

      While that distinction may not make much difference to you it made all the difference in the world to me. It meant that it was in my best interest and that of my client to... um... ensure that the suspect didn't leave the premises until the police arrived. Why? Because the police would not hunt downt he person for me... the best I could get was a card from a concerned officer(usually a fan of my client) saying to call if the person made another appearance. If the police didn't like my client, it became even harder... but that is another story.

      So yes if a person is arrested for violating an order of protection it is because they knowlingly did so, end of story.

      Delete
    2. Stan,

      You are wrong. When it says that the person CAN call the police who CAN arrest the suspect, it DOES NOT mean that a call to the police will necessarily result in an arrest.

      Read the last two sentences. UPON PROOF of the violation, the judge can make changes in the order of protection. If you are correct, the judge wouldnt need proof, he could rely on the word of the woman. Obviously, that is not the case.

      Delete
  20. Thanks, Stan for demonstrating once again demonstrating Michael Tzaddok's brazen disregard for the truth and his contempt for non-feminist Chareidi Ashkenazi poskim. Tzaddok's long-winded comments continually confuse and obfuscate numerous halachos and facts, and seem to border on delusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Stan/Binyamin/EmesLeYaakov for once again engaging in sock puppetry.

      Truth is, unless you have worked in EP/LE you are operating on hear say was to how a protection order works. I have worked in EP/LE. Have you?

      his contempt for non-feminist Chareidi Ashkenazi poskim.
      S.Z. Auerbach is a feminist? Rav Eliashiv is a feminist? I had no idea.

      long-winded comments continually confuse and obfuscate numerous halachos and facts, and seem to border on delusions.
      I understand that decent composition may be hard to understand for someone lacking in basic reading comprehension... do try though.

      Once again. If you are against mesirah why have you not condemned Aharon Friedman for going to Arkaot without a valid heter according ot the Sh"A and the Kol Kore that you published?

      Delete
  21. continue to obfuscate and misrepresent tzaddok.

    "No police officer may arrest someone for violating a protection order unless they themselves witness it being violated." Baloney. Absolute baloney. in which state is this true? in the state of drunkenness and stupor and delusion which you have fallen into today?"

    your long winded garbage answered nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NYC law and NY State law permits police to arrest a suspect for violation of protection order only under two circumstances:
      1) They witness the suspect in violation of the protection order.
      2) A judge orders the arrest on account of a complaint after having reviewed the evidence and found it sufficiently truthful.

      That's it. Call the NYPD and ask.

      Stan you know nothing of how LE works. A police officer could lose his badge, his sargant and captain their rank, if they permitted a person to be arrested on a false claim. You have never worked in this field. I did quite successfully.

      You know less about how this works that you claim I know about divorce proceedings and divorce court.

      Once again, why have you not condemned Aharon Friedman for being moser his wife? Rav Menashe Klein's teshuvot make it very clear that he is a moser. If you hold by Rav Klein why have you not condemned Friedman? You claim others distort, while you are doing it yourself. Every time you post I am going to respond with this so that the world may see your hypocrisy.

      Delete
    2. Tzadok, your earlier comment on this posting stated "that a person may only be arrested for violation of a protection order when the arresting officer witnesses said violation."

      Your more recent comment abruptly adds the condition: "A judge orders the arrest on account of a complaint after having reviewed the evidence" - you've thus contradicted your earlier comment.

      Tzadok, you're one confused guy.

      Know that the "complaint" (of a protection order violation) might be an email received by the wife from her ex-husband asking what time can he pick up the kids - I know a case where this happened.

      Also know that the "judge" may simply be an administrative officer. The feminist domestic violence laws have essentially stripped American fathers of all constitutionally guaranteed due process rights.

      Unlike the feminist ORA politico "rabbis", the true Gadol Rav Menashe Klein ZT"L was fully aware of the totalitarian horrors of American ARCHAOS, and he vehemently condemned the brutal MESIRAH being committed by certain Jewish women against their husbands.

      Delete
    3. Your more recent comment abruptly adds the condition: "A judge orders the arrest on account of a complaint after having reviewed the evidence" - you've thus contradicted your earlier comment.
      If there is enough evidence to convince a judge... well then he violated the protection order.

      Know that the "complaint" (of a protection order violation) might be an email received by the wife from her ex-husband asking what time can he pick up the kids - I know a case where this happened.
      Were you the arresting officer or the defense attorney? If not you do not know that. This is pure hear say. Go to any prison in the world and you will find it full of innocent people who are only there because of a misunderstanding/set up.

      Unlike the feminist ORA politico "rabbis", the true Gadol Rav Menashe Klein ZT"L was fully aware of the totalitarian horrors of American ARCHAOS, and he vehemently condemned the brutal MESIRAH being committed by certain Jewish women against their husbands.

      First you persist in your hypocrisy. When you make an outcry against Aharon Friedman going ot Arkaot then you can talk about this. Otherwise you demonstrate that you are misogynist hypocrit. You have no problem with a man going to Arkhaot against a woman, but the other way around and suddenly it is the sin of the century.

      Second Rav Klein's psakim on mesirah have been universally rejected here is a short list of the Rabbis who rejected them:
      Rav Moshe Feinstein
      Rav Shternbuch
      Rav Eliashiv
      Rav S.Z. Auerbach
      Rav Elazar Shach
      Rav Haim Kanievsky
      Rav Ovadia Yosef
      Rav Mordechai Eliyahu
      Rav Ovadia Hedayya
      And a slew more that Rav Eidensohn listed in his book.
      I guess that all of these are feminist ORA politico "Rabbis".

      Delete
  22. pitputim, bechofer et al show me a valid source in a situation where the facts are indisputable where a woman who is in arko'oys without a heter bais din and is oyver mesirah with false claims has halachically the right to demand a get and a bais din has halachically the right to order a get.

    in the rema it is clear the opposite is true. you can attack the messanger as much as you like. i want bechofer to answer this so that his answer can go straight to rav weinbach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again you are acting hypocritcally. Why is Ok by you for Friedman to be moser his wife in arkaot?

      Delete
  23. i have already addressed this elsewhere on this blog more than once but you prefer to totally misrepresent in your usual style just like you misrepresent the poskim and even how one can be arrested.

    get help dude take a lie detector test.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i have already addressed this elsewhere on this blog more than once but you prefer to totally misrepresent in your usual style
      Yes you made excuses. You never condemned him going to Arkaot, just as you refuse to yet again.

      just like you misrepresent the poskim
      You have yet to be able to give a single source that shows that anything I have said is wrong in this respect.

      even how one can be arrested.
      This is something that you are clueless in. I worked executive protection for over a decade. In that time had dozens of clients with literally hundreds of protection orderss against various individuals. My very life depended on understanding how those intricacies worked.
      I did that job well enough that now, I am semi-retired. I make my living by training people in Executive Protection, and manage a EP concierge service that myself and some friends set up. When half of the CEO's of the S&P 500 have you on speed dial to handle their personal security needs, you can try to tell me what you think you know about protection orders. When the USSS has brought you in to lecture at the JJRTC then you may finally be qualified to argue with me on protection orders.

      Delete
  24. "Rav Menashe's sefer is a classic. It needs to be translated into all languages. i wish I had time to do it."


    Great news! Daas Torah has already translated another of his teshuvos!

    "Reporting Abuse: Rav M. Klein's rejected view
    This is a good example of a posek requiring strict Torah restrictions for reporting a molester to the police. This view is widely criticized by such poskim as Sho'el UMashiv, Rema, Shach, R' Eliashiv, R' Moshe Halberstam, Tzitz Eliezer, R' Ovadiah Yosef, and Minchas Yitzchok."

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/06/abuse-strict-din-according-to-torah_01.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. where are my comments? pravda owner and marketing man for belsky and bechoffer claiming they are outstanding talmidei chachomim.

    explain your anti briskman attitudes already?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.