Friday, July 6, 2012

Classical example of false ma'us ali claims

46 comments :

  1. יחיאל: מה תשיב על נידון זה: חמשה רבנים מוציאים "חיוב גירושין" ו"סירוב" מזויף על בעל, האם ראית מימיך חיוב גירושין או סירוב על "אשה" הממאנת מלהתגרש, עודך "טעות" וצריכין ללמד זכות. פקח עיניך וראה

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, not my point. I agree with you. I still say the Weisses' approach is the one which makes the point, not tearing in to people. Why do you think they have shown such restraint? I think the restraint in itself shows that they have the stronger argument. At the same time, "gedolim" who make mistakes, are mevayesh people shelo kedin, etc. have an even bigger taanah against them than your average person. This does not excuse those who use this as cannon fodder for their ALREADY existing lack of respect for gedolim in general. I think if you read my comments more carefully as well as the comments I was replying to, you will find yourself agreeing with me. Just as we give the benefit of the doubt of not knowing the full story for the Weisses, we should do the same for people like Reb Shmuel. Maybe he was fooled into signing the letter, relying on what he heard and saw. Maybe he did not mean it to be spread around, only to go to R' Reuven. (Though I admit that I don't understand why he apparently didn't just call him.) And no, I don't know why he has not yet printed a retraction. But his service to klal yisroel over the years entitles him to some dan lekaf zechus, yes.

      Delete
  2. Translation, please?

    Or summary.

    Thank You

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can not believe you are using Rav Gestetner as evidence of anything. You refuse to publish the Weiss documents proving he was a plaintiff showing that Rav Gestetner is completely oblivious to the facts of the cases decides.

    Until this BD can find another reputable BD to accept its decisions, it can not be relied upon and should not be cited as evidence of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. james is not being honest hee and he knows it. AM Weiss had a hetter arko'oys to try and gain access to his child. ORA and its supporters are the ones who will do anything to suppress the truth in order to support women who break halochoh as well as all norms of decency and continue to act in their children's very worst interests.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To James: There is no other Bais Din to rely on since THEY ARE ALL ON THE TAKE!!!! Lets face it we are close to Mashiach's time and the rabbis are corrupted. Lets take Mechon Lehorooh of Monsey Ny. everyone says that they are reliable. Thats a bunch of **** since they issued a seiruv against 1 lady only for going to secular court becuse her ex-husbands family are billionaires in the oil business, but wont issue a seiruv against other women going to secular court. see http://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2010/09/rabbinic-hippocrisy.html In my dictionary this is called "a Double standard" . So you and Tzadok should stop preaching about Gestetner not being accepted. etc... So was the Rambam not accepted in his days by many and had his books burned! What does that prove?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. James I can't believe that you have the audacity to disrespect Rav Gestetner and all of his sources with this BD not being considered reputable nonsense. The Feinsteins hold of his Beis Din and you know this is all politics. Stop falsely accusing the moderator of withholding documents and prove why Rav Gestetner is wrong. Rav Gestetner actually speaks to the men involved in these cases and hears their sides of the story. Something which is against the policy of the ORA and Rabbonim who believe men always must give a Get no matter what the fact. One thing I can't understand is that Rav Gestetner documents every idea of his with torah, and the rest of the world talks motzi shem ra with never one source to the contrary. I am still waiting for James to give us evidence in his views on gitten. Rav Gestetner's sources aren't good enough for him, so maybe he can finally quote a source in making a point on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That the B"D is not widely recognized(to put it lightly) is a major concern. It also begs the question of why Friedman, who lives in Silver Spring, felt the need to go all the way to Monsey.

      Now if you are going to say that this is the "ONLY" reputable B"D, that is both absurd and mevazeh so many Talmidei Hakhamim that it boggles the mind.

      For instance right there in Philadelphia there is a Beit Din run by Rav Dov Brisman(musmakh Yadin Yadin from Rav Shach, who's father was Musmakh from the Chafetz Chaim) and Rav Aharon Felder(Musmakh Yadin Yadin by Rav Moshe Feinstein). To head off the most likely rejoinder, this B"D has had no problem entering into direct conflict with Rav Kamenetsky in the past.

      So is this B"D also corrupt and on the take? If so how is it that two such great Gedolei Yisrael as Rav Shach and Rav M. Feinstein so horribly missed that corruption in their students and continued to support them throughout their lives?

      Delete
    2. Tzadok - If also begs the question of why Epstein, who lives in Phily, felt the need to go all the way to Brooklyn to go to a Bais Din which has been accused of being corrupt (http://www.jlaw.com/Recent/singer.html) to issue a "seriuv" against Friedman. (Which was the 3rd Bais Din she tried) And if one doesn't trust the Kashrus of the Triangle K headed by R' Ralbag (certifies Hebrew National as Kosher) then why trust the Kashrus of a "seriuv" coming from his Bais Din??

      Delete
    3. YisStein,
      It has been suggested on this blog that Epstein had no right to go to Rav Kamenetzky in her home town because her family supports their Torah institutions.

      Nonetheless, you are incorrect. Rav Kamenetzky was on the BD that issued the seruv and Rav Belsky only got involved because he thought Schachter was wrong! Belsky started out on Friedman's side and after meeting with him and investigating the matter concluded that he was wrong. See Gil Student's blog for details.

      As for Triangle-K, the problem is not that they are not trusted. The problem is that most frum Ashkenazim in America have accepted the chumra of glatt kosher. Triangle-K is not glatt. It isnt a question of neemanus but of different standards.

      Delete
    4. Most people who don't use Triangle-K, won't use it even for a pareve or milicheg product.

      Delete
    5. James - Tzadok raised the question about Friedman going to a B"D in Monsey when he lives in MD - The point I was making in responding to him (which you missed) was that Epstein didn't go to a local B"D either. The bais din that she went to was not a Philly bais din (even if R' Kamenetsky signed the letter). Take a look at the "seriv" - the B"D is located in NY, NY.

      The problem with the Triangle-K is that most frum Jews in America didn't even rely on the Haskacha before he certified Hebrew National as kosher.

      Delete
    6. YisStein,

      Yes it does. I have indeed wondered why she didn't go to that B"D which is well acclaimed.

      The way it appears is that both parties ran to Batei Din that would side with them. It is disappointing, though not surprising, that Rav Gestetner also decided to write against the Baltimore Beit Din. Quite frankly his statements their regard make no sense. The Baltimore B"D had ordered both of them to drop their court case. They both refused, and it didn't issue a Seruv on either. So to call them feminist because they didn't issue one against Epstein just seems odd.

      I would really like to see what a standard Chareidi B"D would say.

      Delete
    7. You have really wondered why she wouldnt go to a BD in Philly? Perhaps it is because she really just wants a divorce and knows that Aharon would never go to a Philly BD. Thus, she chose a "neutral" BD and one that included a Rabbi (Belsky) that Aharon would talk to and meet with. As I have stated before, and as Gil Student has attested to, Belsky got involved on Aharon's side.

      Delete
    8. Tzadok - Name me a Chareidi B"D that is willing to stand up to a "Gadol" and tell him that he is wrong?? Mechon L' Hoyroa?? What a joke!!

      The fact remains that in late 2010 R' Kaminetsky wrote a letter saying that Friedman was "M'choyuv to give a get" which was 100% k'neged the Baltimore B"D as well as against the Silver Spring B"D (that is before the Silver Spring B"D due to internal pressure jumped on the "siruv bandwagon"). R' Kaminetsky only heard one side of the story then and was not open to hearing the other side since.

      Very few Rabonim are going to publically go against a "Gadol". R' Gestetner is willing to state Halacha as is - EMES not politics.

      Delete
    9. Like I said. The Philadelphia B"D. It wouldn't be the first time that they told Rav Kamenetsky that he was wrong.

      Delete
    10. Both parties took the case to the Baltimore Beis Din. It held several hearings into the case and did not rule that a get should be given.

      Delete
    11. Friedman followed the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case. Epstein refused to follow those orders. Rabbi Tzadok's claims to the contrary are just false.

      Delete
    12. Bob the statement of fact put out by Friedman says he didn't leave secular court when the B"D told him to, because Tamar didn't. That's fine. I don't see a reason to take this out of the hands of the Baltimore B"D. Which is a criticism that Rav Gestetner levels at two other Batei Din while doing the same.

      He also possuls the Baltimore B"D. But that is another discussion.

      Delete
    13. Neither side had the ability to unilaterally dimiss the case, as both sides had filed claims.

      Delete
    14. Rabbi Tzadok,
      To accuse Friedman of refusing the Baltimore Beis Din's orders to drop the case, which is your assertion above, is far different than saying (your later assertion) that Friedman didn't drop the case (based upon your mistaken premise that he had the unilateral ability to do so) in a manner not ordered by the Baltimore Beis Din.

      Delete
    15. Bob, I said they both didn't leave. Though the Plaintiff typically has the ability to unilaterally withdraw and thus drop their case, that is a different matter.

      Why would the Philly B"D be impartial? I dunno, probably because they have a reputation for being such. Probably because Rav Brisman is highly regarded by Chareidi Gedolim, and so is his B"D. Possibly because his B"D is universally recognized, and respected even by those who he opposes.

      Delete
  7. Any bais din can messs up,even if it was a bais din of rav rshach or reb moshe feinstein. No one is infalible last I checked. Batei din a re all run by human beings so when the torah says key hashochad yeaver enei chachomim veesalef divrei tzadiki,they were talking to human beings such as rav shach and rav feinstein just as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As for the comment about Rabbi Belsky,
    Try calling him and asking him what happened. Word has it - he "couldn't handle the pressure from the other side". Once again, it seems it all comes down to the Epstein's money and power. I think If you read through Gestetners document, everything is clearly explained. Gestetner obviously researched this case from all angles, not just by talking to Friedman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ill take the written document over the "word has it" of an anonymous commenter. Gil Student has documented the case and your "word has it" is just plain wrong.

      Even his biggest detractors on this blog will admit that Belsky can handle alot of pressure.

      Delete
    2. Gil Student did not document anything. He simply made unsubstantiated claims.

      Delete
    3. Gil student is not an anonymous commenter like you, Stan, emes, or myself. There is a lot more credibility given someone who put his name on what he writes.

      Gil lives in Brooklyn and was affiliated, for a while, with the OU. He is in a position to ask rav belsky what happened.

      I trust his account of the facts more than yours, "shoshana"'s or "Stan"'s. Until you can cite me a real person who knows rav belsky stating otherwise, his account of the facts stand.

      Delete
    4. Gil never spoke to Rav Belsky about it, and never even claimed to. Gil simply reported what Jeremy Stern from ORA, who Gil supports, claimed. Gil never claimed otherwise.

      Delete
  9. עמוק וישרJuly 8, 2012 at 9:14 PM

    it's very obvious to all readers of this blog that the only tool with which Micael Tzodok tries to meneuver the minds of the readers is by distracting their minds off the subject.

    let us make clear this point once and for all, there is a famous saying "don't kill messenger, kill the message", in other words, the dispute here is NOT: who is more powerful, more famous, rav kottler,rav kaminetzky, rav belsky, ect. ect. or rav gestetner, (evrybody knows the answer, but) that's irrelavant. the dispute here IS: between "emes" and "sheker" what is right or wrong AL PI HALACHA, and this is a very seerious question which can not be pushed around with Micheal's maeningles statements and remarks.

    here we have a 4 page "birur halacha" stacked with hondreds of sources by which rav gestetner supports his PSAK DIN, he points out in the summery (on page 6) 4 reasons why any GET given before the unjustified siruvim will be acknowledged by the signers that they errred, is posul.

    rav gestetner ends with a brilliant with a dramatic punch line: that ALL PI HALACHA the real "meagnim" of this women is not the husband at all, but those who signed the false sirivum, now he put them to the "test": let them show their "tzidkus" that not only are thay ready to sacrifice the husbands life beacause the big mitzvah to free the so called (false) agonah, but olso their oun "kovod" to be מודה that thay erred.

    in short:
    1) Michael, you have to dispute all the sources that rav gestetner quotes "one by one", with real answers not empty ones.

    2) without doing that you are making a fool out of yourself, and it proves rav gestetners statement that the real "meagnim" of this woman are those who signed the false siruv against the husband.

    Michael, this is a hard one, you'v got homework now, if you can not stand the heat you shouldn't get into the kitchen in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy known as a blak-or-white I don't have to disprove "hundreds of sources". In fact Rav Gestetner has to prove why all of those sources that he quotes, and all the condemenation and scorn he pours on the Washington B"D and the Agudat HaRabbanim(though he possuled them back when Rav Moshe Feinstein still ran it) doesn't apply to him as well.

      If as as states, and lists all of these wonderful sources, that another B"D has no right to get involved, when the two have already agreed to and signed to be judged by certain B"D. Why does he have the right to then get involved?

      Once again that is what we call corruption. When the rules apply to everyone else but you.

      Delete
    2. Michael: Please cite whatever evidence you have or lack that Rav Gestetner ever "possuled" any Beis Din Rav Moshe sat on, while he sat on it.

      Thank you

      (I'll assume you erred until such proof is provided by yourself.)

      Delete
    3. I have one his piskei Din against the Agudas HaRabbanim from when Rav Moshe was the AB"D. I've been collecting any that I could find over the last few weeks and been loading them slowing onto my scribd for later reference.

      End point, Rav Gestetner has long considered any B"D but his own corrupt, didn't matter who was sitting on it.

      Delete
  10. Here Tzadok goes again. Should we google this tzadok and find yet again the opposite of what you claim e.g. Oslo or a non-existent documen t Yitzchok meier moregernshtern?

    what is the date, was reb moshe sitting on the bais din etc? inventions and chalomos again!

    Yes rav gestetner does not need to list many sources but he chooses to do so and that is his prerogative. Unlike the Rabbanut and Mochon Le'horo who started up this time with the wrong family who know a thing or 2 about halocho. Post your alleged document tzadok. we are waiting. should i check the wiki again of oslo for your inventions and chalomos>

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the interests of transparency I believe tzaddok should reveal how much he is being paid by the rabbanut and Ora and the BDA or someone aligned to their cause to defend the indefensible and it clearly is much greater than zero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Stan here you go with the personal attacks again. What's wrong? You don't like it when Rav Gestetner's psak din is self-contradictory?

      As far as what I am being paid by ORA(nothing), BDA(nothing) Rabbanut(nothing). In case you didn't notice I was actually suggesting that they go to a universally recognized B"D run by a Musmakh and close Talmid of Rav Shach.

      Delete
  12. Rabbi Gestetner asserts that there is definitive evidence (contemporaneous notes by the wife) that there are no grounds for chiyuv gerushin and that there was not even a valid claim of maos alai.
    For those attacking Rabbi Gestetner, do you claim that Rabbi Gestetner is making this up? Do you disagree with his halachic analysis? Or are you just going to stick to ad honimem attacks on Rabbi Gestetner because you can't dispute the substance of the letter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick,

      I don't dispute the substance of the letter. I frankly don't know enough about the case to do so. I have two problems:
      1) Rav Gestetner's B"D is nearly universally rejected.
      2) His issuing of Psak Din is in contradiction to many of the sources he quotes and the criticism he levels at the Washington B"D and Agudas HaRabbanim.

      Delete
    2. The psak din is in contradiction to what sources that he quotes?

      Delete
  13. עמוק וישרJuly 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM

    THE BOTTOM LINE:

    any inteligent reader of this blog can detect this simple but very strong fact.

    rav gestetner proves his opinons and piskay din with sources from the bigest poskim, begining from old times upto our times, and all his decisions (by a מחלוקת הפוסקים) is based according to כללי הוראה והכרעה.

    vs. the so called gedolim (feminists) who Michael tries so unsuccessfully to advocate, shake psukim out of their sleeves against the opinion of the pokim without giving any sources.

    the big question here is: what gives them the licence to רודף the husband and put him publicly to shame just because he follows different psak of theirs which is based on strong sources בהלכה did we see such a bahaveur from גדולי ישראל in the past, dosent this whow a lack of יראת שמים why don't thay fear from the great איסור of המלבין פני חבירו ברבים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא why dose thy husband not the right to follow a true psak with strog sourcec while the women have the right to follow psukim which are proved wrong from all sourcec?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rabbi Tzadok,
    Why should anyone believe that the Philadelphia Beis Din would be impartial as between Epstein and Friedman?
    Besides Rabbi Kamenetsky's letter denouncing Friedman, several of the Philadelphia rabbis attended at least one ORA demonstration against Friedman (if Jeremy Stern's statement as to their attendance is true) even before the co-called seruv by Rabbi Ralbag's beis din, and immediately after the statement by the Washington Vaad in December 2010 (before they changed their mind about the matter) that Friedman had done no wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tzadok, no personal attack, no one defends the indefensible unless they have problems to put it euphemestically or are getting paid.

    Reb Chaim oyzer paskened as such, i do not need Rav Chaim Kanievsky or Rav Elyashiv who holds mo'us olai no get forever, just for the record.

    I also have .

    now I am still waiting for the document you claimed where rav gestetner went against reb moshe while he was sitting on the bais moron shel kol bnei hagola hagoan hagodol rav menashe ha'godoldin. not that that would be a problem. reb moshe explicitely told moron shel kol bnei hagola hagoan hagodol rav menashe ha'godol.

    tzadok remember your allegations are being closely monitired. you need to produce the documents. still no yitzchok meier stern from googling.

    ReplyDelete
  16. tzadok, you are telling everyone to go to the talmid of rav shach. yet your own rabbi, chacham ovadia did NOT listen to rav shach with the most disasterous consequences for klal yisroel called Oslo which you tried to write revisionist history about.

    are you now admitting your eida's mistakes and that rav shach was right about who was ready for leadership or just doing your usual hypochricies?

    ReplyDelete
  17. i forgot to paste ha'goan hagodol moron shel kol bnei hagola rav menashe hagodol.

    tzadok i also await your documentation to show how rav moshe who was niftar in 1986 i believe was able to approve "the wording" of the second get law in 1992. i gues you are a novi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said that Stan. It is another invention of your imagination.

      Delete
  18. A quote from what Michael Tzadok said:

    "Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 2, 2012 9:54 PM
    Ever hear of the NY GET LAW Tzadok?
    Which do you mean? The one that Rav Moshe Feinstein supported or the one that states: in a contested divorce, any applicant whose marriage was solemnised by a religious celebrant must file a statement that he or she has taken, or will take, all steps within his or her power to remove all barriers to the other spouse’s remarriage; or the other spouse has waived in writing the applicant’s obligation to file the statement. Considering that Rav Moshe Feinstein backed the first and the language of the second I don't see how either constitutes Mesirah.

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/07/moser-shulchan-aruchrema-cm-3885.html#comment-form

    From
    http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=plr

    In 1992, the New York State Legislature passed a second so-called "get law,"24 indicating that the state is continuing to address the agunah problem with legislative measures.

    24:24. Act of July 17, 1992, ch. 415, [1992] N.Y. Laws 1212 (codified at N.Y. DOM. REL. LAw § 236B(5)(h), (6)(d) (McKinney Supp. 1995)).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good job, Stan. http://mekubal.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/surrender/ Thank you. From all of us.

    ReplyDelete

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