Sunday, October 13, 2013

A Rabbi's Tale of Abuduction, Torture - Newsday

 update 10/12/13 NY Post     Click  Rubin case documents 1998

2005 Bedatz protesting against American cattle prod gittin
==================
Rabbis Belsky and Wolmark, amongst those who signed the seruv against Aharon, were accused by Rabbi Abraham Rubin of being responsible for an attack in which Rabbi Rubin was kidnapped and beaten to force him to give a get.
==============================================

A TALE OF ABDUCTION , TORTURE Newsday March 8, 1998  by Dan Morrison

On the evening of Oct. 23, 1996, as Rabbi Abraham Rubin walked home from synagogue toward his Borough Park home, two cars collided up the block at the intersection of 56th Street and 14th Avenue.

Rubin, 31, ran toward the scene of the accident, an apparent diversion. A man standing on the sidewalk in front of him suddenly turned and started punching him and grabbed his glasses. He was dragged into a waiting van, he says, where several assailants began beating him.

He did not have to ask why.

For five years, Rubin, an Orthodox Jew, had been involved in a bitter dispute with his estranged wife.

Rubin says he has refused to this day to grant his wife a religious divorce, known as a get, until she lets him see his two children, who live with her in Montreal.

In an interview that elaborated on charges in a lawsuit he has filed against his alleged captors, Rubin described his abduction and torture.

"I was expecting it, sooner or later," he said.

Inside the van, he said, paid assailants wrapped a black laundry bag around his head. As he was handcuffed and choked, a voice said in sarcastic Yiddish, "Ess vet zein gut It will be good . . .
Mir vilen nor die zalst a yid We only want you to be a Jew ."

As the van sped through Brooklyn, Rubin said, he was asked if he knew  Kol D'Alim G'var, a Talmudic commentary on the theory that might makes right.

The van stopped, and all the attackers left, except one, he said. "The rabbi is coming," he said he heard one of his assailants say. The door opened and new passengers entered.

"Do you understand English?" Rubin said he was asked. "Repeat my words."

Rubin said that when he refused to repeat the 12-line oath that grants a Jewish wife a divorce, punches and electric shocks rained down on him, first just a few and then a torrent - so many that he began reciting the "Viduy," the traditional Jewish deathbed prayer of repentance.

According to the lawsuit Rubin filed against his alleged captors, they zapped him with an electronic stun gun - in all, more than 30 times - including shocks to his genitals.

After passing out for about an hour, Rubin said, he was shaken awake. "Rabbi, wake up," a voice said. "The get is done."

He was transferred from the van to a car. "Don't be a moser," an informer, he said he was told. "If you know what's good for you, don't be a moser."

He said he was thrown from the car, still handcuffed and shrouded, and dumped outside a Brooklyn cemetery. A cab driver found the bloody rabbi and took him to the 66th Precinct. No arrests have been made in the attack.

Rubin, represented by Manhattan attorney Thomas Stickel, charges in a civil racketeering lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn that Mendel Epstein, a well-known divorce mediator, took part in his "abduction and torture." Rubin said he learned the details of the plot during an investigation he and his friends conducted over several months.

Epstein's attorney has denied the charges. The suit also charges several other rabbis with planning or participating in the attack, including Martin Wolmark, a rabbi from the upstate Orthodox enclave of  Monsey, and Israel Belsky, a rabbi from the Ditmas Park section of Brooklyn.

In a telephone interview, Belsky denied taking part in the attack. "I have no connection to any of this," he said. "The guy is a crackpot. The whole thing is a frivolous action."

Robert Rimberg, an attorney for Wolmark, also denied the charges listed in the lawsuit. "As far as I know, and based on my investigation, there is no basis for it," he said. [...]

While no one has ever been prosecuted for a get-related attack in New York City, that may soon  change. Det. Robert Roddenberg of the 66th Precinct said Rubin's case might be the first of its kind to make it into a courtroom.

"Rubin is entitled to his day in court and the best investigation we can do," Roddenberg said. "Rubin is one of the few who have stood up. He was abducted. They beat the - - - out of him.

"They investigators spent an awful lot of time doing this case and it was really nitpicked to do it right," Roddenberg said. "It was done as well as any homicide case could be done. Just like not every homicide case gets solved, will this case get solved? That's up to the DA's office."

55 comments:

  1. "Bais din" is supposed in "certain cases" to beat a husband to give a get .
    To be moser in "such" a case is a terrible Aveira.
    (I am talking in general because I don't know any information about this case.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think there is any justification for vigilante justice whatsoever, and any person is entitled to file a complaint against thugs who beat him.

      It really makes a joke of the Torah to claim it is messira to go to police when someone beats you up!

      Dina de malchuta dina, if bodily punishment by religious authorities is not acceptable in the country you live in, don't do it.

      And, between you and me, I would not like to live in a country where religious authorities habe the authority to mete out corporal punishment (Iran? Saudi arabia? Yemen?)


      Delete
    2. right, the jury system is much more honest and reliable, just ask all the shvartzers on death row.

      Delete
  2. You Cant Handle The TruthAugust 19, 2012 at 5:08 PM

    So now that the Dodelson case has been decided in court, with the judge all but denying Weiss' demand for equal custody, (she just made minor modifications) and a court mandated custody agreement is in place, does Weiss lose all credibility as to why he is withholding his get?
    He claimed he was scared he would never see his child again, now there is a court mandated agreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am confused here. The wife (dodelson) took the husband (Weiss) to court for the divorce. The husband didn't sue for divorce, he only sued to see his kid. We all saw those documents on this site. So if the husband didn't get what he wanted isn't shver. Furthermore, you say "minor" modifications. Were they pro the husband or wife? Just curious. Now, while I don't agree with your "demands" of the husband to give the get to prove he is truthful and halachikly he probably can't be forced to give it, it would be nice to end this sorry chapter soon. However, I gather you know something we don't. I can't tell if your insinuating a financial demand or a custody demand. You seem to feel the custody is sealed and final but I know nothing is final in divorce cases. There's always cards up the sleeve somewhere. Unfortunately, you seem to be saying this isn't over. Maybe the dodelsons should go to a new bais din, since we all know the previous one was corrupt (monsey). But what can she sue for halachikly? Is a woman entitled to.a get because she simply wants out of the marriage? When is one called a moredes? Please understand I don't know who is right or wrong here. I figure both are right and wrong. I am just trying to understand the halachik ramifications here. Between me and you, and I say this with respect to both sides, only one side is.known worldwide for their halachik decisions and they aren't on the dodelson side.

      Delete
    2. "aybe the dodelsons should go to a new bais din, since we all know the previous one was corrupt (monsey)."

      How was the Monsey beis din corrupt?

      Delete
  3. The Stamar rov said mefushesh any decision by a court is going to be le'hepech the torah. since weiss was left with no choice but to go to arko'oys to get the most minimum access to his child, this does not make him obligated to give his wife a get.

    a court mandated agreement is an agreement forced on a father k'neged halocho. he should not give her a get until he gets custody of the choild if he is a boy, and all his legal fees are paid.

    otherwise teshev ad she'talbin sa'ara. if YU don't like it, then let them lump it.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now we get to the bottom of the issue.

      You believe that no matter what anyone finds, be it a BD or a civil court, the father has an automatic right to full custody.

      Delete
    2. what does lump it mean?

      Delete
  4. If satmar rov said that then why is satmar and bobov currently fighting in secular court for years now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it unfortunate that a mitzvah of the Torah is used to batter women over the head even in cases where a husband is doing so to get custody. Just strikes me as disgusting.

      Delete
  5. Its only a matter of time before this all gets blamed on Rav Schachter and YU.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If satmar rov said that then why is satmar and bobov currently fighting in secular court for years now.

    Because there is money involved, dah

    ReplyDelete
  7. COURT - NO COURT - CUSTODY DECIDED - NOT DECIDED
    WHERE IN SHULCHAN ARUCH DOES IT SAY A WOMAN CAN GET UP ONE MORNING AND SAY I WANT A GET -GIVE IT TO ME
    IT SAYS SHE IS A MOREDES AND SHE SITS UNTIL SHE GETS GRAY.
    THATS THE ONLY ISSUE IN ALL THESE CASES
    AND IF TORAH DOESN'T GIVE EQUAL RIGHTS TO WOMAN THEN ITS JUST TOO TOO BAD
    THATS TORAH MI SHAMOYIM WETHER U LIKE IT OR NOT. A MOREDES IS A MOREDES IS A MOREDES.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No you idiot she is not an moredes if she says that he dosnt treat her properly . That is what's written in their Kesuba that he must do.

      Delete
    2. did beis din agree that she wasn't being treated properly?

      Delete
    3. I don't know anything about that case.I was actually responding to the so called "emes vemunah" of I guess the jewish taliban , who wrote in general "THATS THE ONLY ISSUE IN ALL THESE CASES"

      Delete
    4. avf - on multiple occasions over the last few months, on multiple posts on this case, YOU STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT YOU DO HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION ON THIS CASE AND THAT AHARON WAS ABUSIVE TO TAMAR - now that evidence comes up from tamars diary that this is all false, you now say you don't know anything about the case - but you still say she is not a moredes because he didn't treat her properly. make up your mind. also don't say now you don't know the details of this case when in earlier blogs you made it clear you were a relative of Tamars.

      Delete
    5. avf you are not are not being consistent and you are insisting you know facts about the case - which I know are not true

      Delete
  8. YCHTT. You seem to be an insider of the Dodelsons. I am puzzled what claim you can possibly have, the Weiss's immediately responded to the hazmanah from Mechon with a response that they want Zabla, which is their right. If the Dodelson's have any claim, they can just call the Weiss's borrer and have a Din a Torah. The Dodleson's never did that, and instead responded in a thuggish manner by suing in court for divorce and support (which is Assur Lechol Hadeos). This entire matter is an outrage by the Dodelson's.

    ReplyDelete
  9. your forgetting the follow up to the DA hynes's part of that lawsuit.

    Hynes put a number of rabbonim on kidnapping charges, then droppedd the charges in exchange for the rabbonim not bringing up his biggest political problem at the time -- his (purposely) messing up the crown heights prosection (hynes was running for NYS governor at the time.) a deal was struck, "we" wont bring up crown heights, and he will drop the charges. both sides kept up their part of the deal, although hynes lost the primary (he had little chance anyway.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looking at the dockets, I can see that Rabbi Rubin lost the case, before trial. Was there any testimony?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I remember when this case broke.I was working for Rav Belsky,SHIlT"A.There was a photo of him in the NYPOST.A coworker asked him about it and he simply said "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers".

    ReplyDelete
  12. In general, what is Rabbi Belsky's position on the issues of gittin, so-called agunas, coercion, maus alei, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Seems like a pattern in these cases.
    First the woman kidnaps the child or children and does what she can to prevent the children from having any relationship with their father; then the woman (with help from a bunch of masked rabbis) kidnaps and beats the father.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Belsky regularly collaborates with Mendel Epstein on gittin including psak for kefiyah. I do not know if he is actually involved in kidnappings. But in writing a psak for kefiyah he knows darn well where it might lead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yerachmiel: How do you know that Rabbi Belsky regularly works with Epstein on divorce matters? Do you have anything that demonstrates this as a fact?

      Delete
  15. Its a shame that did not employ the Eidensohns.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Kol D'Alim G'var, a Talmudic commentary on the theory that might makes right."

    Someone refresh my memory--who is the mechaber of this sefer?

    Also, isn't there an opinion that Kol D'Alim G'var refers to bringing proofs, not force?

    ReplyDelete
  17. According to press reports, what has been revealed so far is only the tip of the iceberg.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 14, 2013 at 12:52 AM

    Shades, kol dealim gavar is a halachic concept when neither side has a chazakah "any of the known strengths to his argument of ownership". No proof of parental ownership, no proof of living on the property, and no one physically holding on to the item. In that case the "kol dealim gavar applies". It is an argument as to what that means physical strength, or any type of strength of argument. The term does not apply to kidnapping people in order to profit. That is actually closer to another biblical saying, and is actually one of the 10 commandments "Lo Tignov"


    Rumor has it, another slew of FBI arrests are coming in the next few weeks. That is what I hear through the grapevine. I was hoping the embarrassing actions of some were over. It seems it may not be.

    ReplyDelete
  19. See Shiur #11: Kol De-alim Gavar - Resolving Insoluble Cases by By Rav Moshe Taragin

    http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/metho67/11metho.htm

    "At first glance kol de-alim gavar is a manner for Beit Din to withdraw from the judicial process. In the absence of any evidence or legal devices Beit Din remains helpless and can only excuse itself from this case! Once Beit Din has withdrawn, the two litigants may settle their dispute independently. The Rosh, however, redefines the procedure of kol de-alim gavar. It does not constitute a WITHDRAWAL of Beit Din but rather a different method of achieving pesak (judgment). Beit Din assumes that the rightful owner will invest greater energies in recovering his legitimately owned item. This Solomonic wisdom is employed as a method of arriving at a Beit Din-supervised form of pesak"



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Kefiah " Psak" was signed by Belsky,Ralbag, Stein, Steinberg, Wolmark.
      The "reasoning" given was that ones wife dies as a result of husbands unfilled vows. Rubin had promised to give a get. While the promise was annulled before the giving of the get as is customary ( the get was not given at the very last semoment, due to a dispute regarding visitation), nevertheless......
      No I am not making this up. I couldnt think of this

      Delete
  20. Withholding a Get in order to force a wife to give access to children is also a wicked deed. The men are never allowed to use this form of blackmail so Rubin deserved his beating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it any more wicked than a wife refusing to accept a get unless certain conditions are met?

      Sources please! Your statement has nothing to do with halacha.

      Are you part of the KKK that decides which one of the people you disagree with gets tortured?

      Delete
    2. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM

      I don't know the Rubin case. From your comments it would seem to me you never had your kids taken from you.

      It seems that you don't know the pain of a man whose life is collapsing around him, all he has is lost, his own kids won't speak to him (courtesy of his wife) and to top that all off, the "Rabbonim" are all shaking their heads at him at best, being Rodef him at worst, to do something he has NO chiyuv to do.

      Because you don't know this pain, let me explain to you how it feels. It feels as if someone tears out your heart, your kidneys, your liver, your eyes, your everything. It is comparable to having a child kidnapped, and not knowing what happened to him, or a child killed and not knowing who killed him. That's how I would describe it.

      So, before you go spewing your nonsense about how big of a Rasha a guy is for not giving a get "toch kdei dibur of when a Aishes Chayil WANTS it" , like the multitude of chanefim, some of whom are dressed in cloaks, first feel the pain of the destroyed man for a moment.

      Delete
  21. Children, The last refuge of scoundrels.
    So often the children do not want to see the father of their own accord, but what can the husband do but blame machinations of his wife?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Often the children do not want to see the father. He will then blame his ex-wife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Often when the children don't want to see the father it is because the mother has worked very hard to give a negative view of the father

      Delete
    2. Correct. In the rare event that a child doesn't want to see his/her father, that is inevitably the result of an evil vindictive woman who is indoctrinating that hatred in her child.

      The typical case where an ex-wife refuses to allow her children to see her father is where she does so out of hatred. Such evil needs to be stopped.

      Delete
    3. I don't know actual percentages, so 'often' was not true.
      (but neither is 'inevitably')
      I do know though, of 2 cases, close to me, where the case was clear, and no matter what was done, people would always accuse the mother of inciting the children.
      R. Horowitz does say that there is a huge problem of vindictive parents using the children as 'weapons', such that he's been writing about it and having numerous workshops.
      But I will agree, that it the vast majority of cases it is in the child's best interest to keep a positive relationship with both parents and be left out of adult considerations.

      Delete
    4. I don't know actual percentages, so 'often' was not true.
      (but neither is 'inevitably')
      I do know though, of 2 cases, close to me, where the case was clear, and no matter what was done, people would always accuse the mother of inciting the children.
      R. Horowitz does say that there is a huge problem of vindictive parents using the children as 'weapons', such that he's been writing about it and having numerous workshops.
      But I will agree, that it the vast majority of cases it is in the child's best interest to keep a positive relationship with both parents and be left out of adult considerations.

      Delete
    5. It is not inevitable, but I stand corrected that it is not 'often' either.
      There are some situations that I know of personally, that interaction with the father is so unpleasant that the children have requested not to see him. Nothing the ex-wife can do will convince his family that it was not of her doing. Being that it is SO unnatural.
      Thanks

      Delete
    6. Chana, your comment is quite true, and is a ray of light in the thick darkness of crime and feminism.

      The irony is that if most women who wanted a GET would offer the fathers a fair settlement deal allowing both parents to maintain their relationship with their children, and also allowing the fathers to possibly remarry, then most of the fake agunot cases would disappear.

      If frum women could organize a group promoting family preservation, and promote (only if necessary) divorce with fair terms for both spouses, this would benefit women far more than the AGUNAH GET gangsters ever have.

      Where are the frum women with pro-family values who are speaking out publicly?

      Delete
  23. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 14, 2013 at 7:18 PM

    Sarah,

    A young child under the age of 13, decided ON THEIR OWN to cut off ties with either parent. It is the MOST unnatural thing for a child to do. It is ALL lies lies lies. There are more cases of frum kids who make it to the NFL, than kids who decided on their own cut off ties with a parent under the age of 13. All parents deserve their kids. As I heard from a Gadol byisroel, "withholding visitation is abizrayhu of lo signov"

    ReplyDelete
  24. u man-bashers should read up on parental alienation.

    asher pihem speaks the truth.

    there are some vicious women out there - motivated by therapists [...] to destroy men.

    their modus operandi is based on spreading lies and slander and never giving the man an opportunity to defend himself.

    no communication - it's my way way ot the highway.

    shop around for rabbonim that are ready to but into the lies without checking - just like epstein and wolmark didn't bother checking if the man even existed.


    may Hashem have mercy on the abused - both male and female!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 14, 2013 at 9:51 PM

      Broken,

      While it is almost NEVER a child who decides to cut off from a parent. It is VERY common for the mother to make it difficult, if not impossible for the father to maintain a close relationship with his children. How many families do you know where the divorced father doesn't speak anymore to his sons/daughters ? These cases are unfortunately common, and almost ALWAYS due to the mother not encouraging/ restricting visitation.

      In many cases the father is so humiliated by the treatment, that he either decides to disconnect, to avoid dealing with the pain, or limits his own visitation. Usually, this happens within the first year of the separation. Once the connection is broken, it almost never gets better. Of course the mother is quick to point out how the father didn't play as active a role in the child's life as he should have. What she fails to mention however, is how she made it all but impossible for the father to do just that. It happens sometimes that the father is awarded custody and does the exact same to the mother, but that is rare.

      The ones who share equally in this outrage are some Rabbonim, not the Gedolim ch"v, but Misgadlim who love nothing more than coming on a white horse to save a damsel in distress. They are not following Halacha, nor any moral code, and often give terrible advice. They are self made psychologists, Dayanim, and Lawyers, Judge, and Jury all in one. All involved in "Helping Klal Yisroel". Epstien is only the beginning. We need wholesale change in the way we go about divorce, and the way our Batei Din are working.

      Delete
  25. Asher:


    Everything you wrote has happened to me, plus so much more.

    Add the mother's vehement denials that she ever spoke a bad word about me.... until I played the recordings of her conversations with my children (I secretly tapped my own telephone line - which is legal). She wasn't fazed... nothing changed.

    Add to that the calling Police and the slander that I don't listen to Rabbonim - until the Rov they were relying on to humiliate me switched sides when he "dug deeper" - and they promptly found another Rov who never bothered listening to me or to those speaking on my behalf - including that very Rov on whom they originally relied.

    Their "new' Rov is a very well-known fellow from Monsey who says nice, fiery Mussar Droshos - and has not one iota of Yiras Shomayim..

    It's in choshen mishpot siman yud zayan seif heh - no listening to one baal din without the other.

    do these people think that they own the torah? How do they get away with it - and continue to be well respected... like epstein and wolmark were by so many people until a week ago?

    i wish rabbi eidensohn exposed this other fellow from monsey. I know i'm not the only one he did such thinks to....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asher Pihem diber shavOctober 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM

      Broken,

      Hang in there. We live for only a few years. It's all a test for us. We will make it.

      You said it perfectly. They think they "own" the Torah. Instead of looking at the Torah to see what the Torah says, They determine between themselves what they want "Daas Torah" to be, then look for proofs that their view is correct.

      Don't lose faith in God and the Torah, like so many who went through the same treatment from these "Rabbonim" do. It is not because of them that we believe. Our Mesorah is not through these guys. There are many many Gedolim who are on our side. All the Gedolim in the history of klal Yisroel have nothing in common with these guys. Nothing at all.

      Delete
  26. how did they ever get away with this for so long???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both rabbis have long been known to be doing this. It has been relatively well-known in the community for over two decades.

      Delete
    2. I am speaking of Rabbis Epstein and Wolmark.

      Delete
  27. Asher:

    your words are 100% true - and yes - it's all a nisoyin, but on a scale of 1-10 it rates about 100....

    rabbi eidensohn is fearless when it comes to naming names of sexual abusers. I wish he was also fearless in naming names of rabbonim and so called "frum" therapists who clearly flaunt halacha.

    it's obvious to methat in my case a few hours of good detective work from an honest b"d would unravel the deceit and slander from the other side - and i'm sure i'm not the only one in such a position.

    i just have a problem finding "good guys" with a "backbone" (several have either stated or alluded that they're afraid of the blow-back)

    i wish rabbi eidensohn helped advance a solution - by shining a bright light on these nefarious character's actions.

    I think lots of them live for kovod - and if their reputations would be sullied they'd desist.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't know who you all are, but clearly you are a bunch of hurting men who feel only for yourselves. You may have been good to your wives, but i know plenty of men who were "not good", to put it mildly.
    It is understandable that you are shutting your eyes to the abuse that goes on between frum couples these days. How sad, but it is reality.
    If it took a cattle prod to break a man's stubbornness in not giving his wife a get, then he deserved it. How many women have suffered, and still are suffering from these men!

    Anyway, this discussion will have no end because everyone here is biased through past experiences
    May Moshiach come soon and end this all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I know plenty of wives who, to put it mildly, "were not good", were verbally and emotionally abusive, etc. Open your eyes and smell the coffee. It is the reality. G-d only knows how many men suffered and are still suffering from these women.

      And beating people only, at best, creates mamzeirim. What good is such a "get"?

      Delete

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