Two rabbis and four other men charged with planning to kidnap and torture Orthodox Jewish husbands to force them to grant their wives religious divorces are set to be freed as early as today on bail that runs into millions of dollars for some defendants.
Home confinement and
other tight restrictions were also placed on the six men, including
Rabbi Mendel Epstein, by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Doulas E.
Arpert this afternoon in Trenton.
Epstein will be wearing an electronic bracelet while he remains under house confinement in his home in Lakewood, Arpert said. [...]
A law-enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation said the
arrests were the direct result of a 2011 case in which a Lakewood
couple, David and Judy Wax, were accused of kidnapping an Israeli national
in an attempt to force him to divorce his estranged wife in Israel.
Proceedings in that case have been repeatedly postponed since the
arrest.
As has been repeated, no halachik difference between epstein's fake gittin and those of the rabbanut. Ask yosef dov meyerson, mr meyerovich, uzi frankel and avi koenig. And michael tzaddok can carry on with his tik number nonsence. Rav nissim karelitz and rav gestetner had the facts. Onus is on tzaddok to produce evidence he knows doesnt exist.
ReplyDeleteRav Daniel Eidensohn wrote in a comment on a previous post regarding this issue:
Delete"Yes you are correct that when one side yells and screams and offers only proclamations and screaming demonstrations - instead of clearly written halachic teshuvos - it does convey an unflattering impression to the other side."
Stan you have yet to offer any actual evidence other than your word. You have yet to provide any verifiable facts. All you have done is offer off the wall proclamations about this or that.
It makes me need to ask, are you an ORA disinformation agent? Because you are doing your very best at making those who oppose them look like absolute nuts, even though there are perfectly rational folks like Rav Dovid Eidensohn that actually do offer reasons for their positions.
Regarding Rabbanut, unless you can provide the Tik numbers for the cases you cannot prove that anything had gone actually wrong. WIthout the Tik# we cannot know what the facts were that were placed before the B"D and thus decide why they ruled the way that we did. Further we cannot know whether it was a local B"D or the National B"D who was in error. There is a huge difference between local Batei Din who are appointed by a local religious council and the National Rabbanut who's B"D resides in Jerusalem and it's Dayyanim are appointed by the Gedolei HaDor in Israel.
You said:Ask yosef dov meyerson...Rav nissim karelitz...had the facts.
Here is what I have been able to dig up on that single case even without a Tik number.
The Karelitz B"D which also serves as the local B"D of Bnei Brak is the one that issued the order to send Meyerson to jail and issued this letter on Oct 2010:
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/aguna-wife-of-r-yosef-dov-meyerson.html
However, the Beit Din HaGadol(you know Rav Shlomo Amar) over turned said decision and said that the original Beit Din exceeded the bounds of halakha. A ruling they made on the 9th of Tevet 5772(aka Jan 4 2012).
Then five months later Rav Shternbuch feels the need to write a letter essentially supporting the decision made by the Beit Din HaGadol and following that Rav Karelitz formally withdraws his initial Psak:
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/myerson-get-rav-sternbuch-rav-karelitz.html
However without the TIk number we cannot know why Rav Karelitz initially ruled as he did or why the Beit DIn HaGadol saw fit to overturn his psak.
However I must ask that you please cease from falsifying the information. This same order of events was presented to you on April 30, 2013.
As far as the other cases, I have no reason to believe that you have not also falsified their details.
You said:As has been repeated, no halachik difference between epstein's fake gittin and those of the rabbanut.
First Rav Epstein tried(in the case at hand a non-exsistant)husband in abstentia. No one has ever claimed or proven that Rabbanut has done that. Further as has repeatedly been shown from Rav Feinstein's psak a B"D in the US is not considered a B"D Kavua and has no authority to force a person to appear before them. However Rav Shach, Rav S.Z. Auerbach and Rav Eliashiv(Piskei Din Vol 7 p225) have all ruled that the B"D HaGadol is a B"D Kavua. So can you please tell me why those Gedolim chose to strengthen the authority of Rabbanut and you somehow know better?
So unless you can provide Tik numbers and verifiable facts and are able to show how those Gedolim are wrong and you are right would you please drop this tired argument?
Also you wrote concerning some of Rav Eliashiv's teshuvot that you didn't agree with on Oct 13 2013, I don't frankly care who wrote the tshuvahs - they are mistaken and deluded. By what authority do you call Rav Eliashiv either mistaken or deluded?
DeleteFurther you wrote on Admittedly I dpon't know the psakim of rav elyashiv when he was working for the rabbanut. tzaddok seems to be claiming by implication that he may have paskened incorrectly then to keep his job and throw men in jail.
Are you actually suggesting that since Rav Eliashiv, as can be verified free and online, and has been previously shown, rules in a manner that you do not like, he only did this to keep his job? Is that not equivalant to bribe? Are you actually suggesting that Rav Eliashiv committed grave violations of halakha and in fact perverted justice and halakha for a paycheck? If so how do you expect us to take you seriously after that?
Time for Tzomet to create shabbos approved ankle bracelet. Mipnei chatoeinu it affects many.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant. Admittedly sad, but brilliant commentary.
Delete"Stan you have yet to offer any actual evidence other than your word. You have yet to provide any verifiable facts. All you have done is offer off the wall proclamations about this or that.".
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding? The facts that this was a forced Get.was posted on this web site including his mesiras moydooh, the psakim of rav gestetner and rav nissim karelitz and the most important fact that a get was re-written by the bdatz. if the woman had a kosher get from the rabbanut already why did she agree to go and get a second get if the first was kosher?
It is you who is presenting false information, no one else. You sound like a KGB hack who denies someone isn't arrested by that notorious organization without a tik number. A black and white mesiras moydoo from the husband proves clearly it was a forced get. 2 gedolim agreed. you want to claim he was gay or repeatedly beat his wife with repeated warnings from bais din you can claim the earth is flat also. Stop the dishonesty already. The evidence has been presented. his mesiras modoo, the 2 psakim and the new get are evidence enough. Stop being dishonest although i won't hold my breath.
the 2 psakim and the new get are evidence enough.
Delete3 Psakim actually. The one from Rabbanut throwing out the original Get came 5 months before Rav Karelitz retracted his psak that Meyerson should be thrown in jail, and Meyerson felt that he needed to talk to Rav Shternbuch because something still wasn't sitting right.
You have consistently insisted on dealing with half facts and half truths.
You have yet to answer why Rav Karelitz ruled that he should be in jail until he gave a get in the first place.
tzaddok what I am suggesting in fact saying outright is that you invent facts and deny verifiable facts. here are the facts.
ReplyDeleteThe former head of Israel's ashkenazi botei din broke the law by taking money for marriages and you can be sure he didn't declare it. he was followed by another chief rabbi whose moral behavior is nonn existent. the chief judge of yerusholayim offers a semicha program which you take home and ask your friends to answer for you and you are then a rabbi. This is the rabbanut that you are talking about. if the head honchos are so corrupt then do we need to say any more?
Shlomo dichovsky is a known feminist who claims that if a woman is in arko'oys you can still be forced to give a get because the man is just using this as an excuse and probably is not so frum himself. Never mind that she is lo tzias dona and the we pasken that we don't listen to her taaynos till she comes out of arko'oys. if the woman is obtaining money through arko'oys in excess of what should be given according to halocho no problem. man can fight it in bais din afterwards. if woman won't play by the rules when she needs a get and runs to arko'oys then after a get is written what chance is there of her following halocho? source check out the web site of YCT's annual journal and you will find it there. With regards to Briskman he fled Israel because the rabbanut paskened he had to give a get even though rav shlomo miller called dichovsky a rosho for this. it was on briskman's web site but he pulled it down after ebing beaten up in lakewood.
as for your pathetic attempts to use the sting case of epstein to claim there was no husband involved. Da. that was a fake case. I was referring to actual cases and the actual cases of the rabbanut. not usre what point you were proving
tzaddok what I am suggesting in fact saying outright is that you invent facts and deny verifiable facts. here are the facts.
DeleteYou have yet to prove any verifiable facts. Please post them. I'm waiting to see them.
the chief judge of yerusholayim There is not chief judge of Yershulayim and hasn't been since Rav Mesas was niftar. No chief Rabbi of the city no chief judge. All of the duties of the local Rabbinical council have long since been assumed by national Rabbanut. Further you still do not seem to grasp that local Rabbanut and Rabbanut Yisrael are two completely different organizations.
The former head of Israel's ashkenazi botei din broke the law by taking money for marriages and you can be sure he didn't declare
I believe that you mean the former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel(who happened to be the choice of Rav Shach and Rav S.Z. Auerbach for the post, but of course Stan knows better). The second half of that statement is nothing more than an unsubstantiated motzei shem ra.
With regards to Briskman he fled Israel because the rabbanut paskened he had to give a get
Again Tik number. Did that pasken that he was חיוב לגט or that he was כפייה לגט. There is a huge difference. Even the Shulhan Arukh says that in a case of מאיס עלי ש a husband cannot is Chayev a get, we simply cannot force him to give one.
Likewise Rav Eliashiv ruled here(Piskei Din 201-206) that in a case of a מאיס עלי the husband is chayev a Get. So without the Tik Number and everything else we cannot really know what was going on or if the Rabbanut did any of your supposed wrong.
as for your pathetic attempts to use the sting case of epstein to claim there was no husband involved. Da. that was a fake case. I was referring to actual cases and the actual cases of the rabbanut. not usre what point you were proving
You were saying that Epstein and Rabbanut were the same in the way that they operate. I explained the ways that they are not. You clearly did not read it very carefully, so I will let you do so again, and try to respond.
You still haven't answered my questions so forgive me if I repost them. I think it is important that people clearly understand how you feel about these Rabbanim so that they can accurately judge your reliability:
Also you wrote concerning some of Rav Eliashiv's teshuvot that you didn't agree with on Oct 13 2013, I don't frankly care who wrote the tshuvahs - they are mistaken and deluded. By what authority do you call Rav Eliashiv either mistaken or deluded?
Further you wrote on Admittedly I dpon't know the psakim of rav elyashiv when he was working for the rabbanut. tzaddok seems to be claiming by implication that he may have paskened incorrectly then to keep his job and throw men in jail.
Are you actually suggesting that since Rav Eliashiv, as can be verified free and online, and has been previously shown, rules in a manner that you do not like, he only did this to keep his job? Is that not equivalant to bribe? Are you actually suggesting that Rav Eliashiv committed grave violations of halakha and in fact perverted justice and halakha for a paycheck? If so how do you expect us to take you seriously after that?
Shlomo dichovsky is a known feminist who claims that if a woman is in arko'oys you can still be forced to give a get because the man is just using this as an excuse and probably is not so frum himself.
DeleteRav Mordekhai Eliyahu wrote in a Teshuva to France essentially the same thing, and explained how the Shulhan Arukh said that would be fine. I can find you his exact Teshuva if you like, but I have already posted it on the Serious Deterioation Dodddelson Weiss thread.
Never mind that she is lo tzias dona and the we pasken that we don't listen to her taaynos till she comes out of arko'oys.
I would like to know why you only apply this halakha to women? Can you explain that for me please. I have asked you several times and you have never given an answer.
Both Weiss and Friedman went to secular court without consulting a Beit Din in clear violation of halakha.
For the record once again I must state that I believe that anyone who goes to secular court without a written psak of a B"D loses their rights in B"D until they vacate their claims in secular court.
Can you please explain why you see this differently?
In Rabbi Tzadok's view of the world, if one parent abducts the child, the other parent is required to go to Beis Din, a process that could take months, until a Beis Din decision is reached, even assuming that both parties can agree to a specific beis din. If the the beis din rules that the second parent should have primary custody, the abducting parent can ignore the beis din ruling. If the second parent goes to court to try to enforce the beis din ruling, the court is legally required to afford no deference whatsoever to the beis din's decision (outside of New Jersey and perhaps one or two other states), but must hear the case from scratch. At that point, the court will almost certainly rule that the abducting parent should have primary custody because the child has already been living with that parent before the case was litigated in court. At that point, even though the second parent has been given custody by beis din, the abducting parent will in fact have custody. The beis din may (or may not botherto) issue a seruv against the abducting parent, but there is nothing that the beis din can due to actually enforce its custody decision. Your contention that it is halachically forbidden to go to court upon the abduction of a child is completely absurd. At the end of the day, this claim is ultimately no different than claiming that if someone is being beaten, they are forbidden to call the police, but must instead call some beis din for help.
DeleteIn Rabbi Tzadok's view of the world, if one parent abducts the child, the other parent is required to go to Beis Din, a process that could take months, until a Beis Din decision is reached,
DeleteFirst this is plainly not true. In an emergency situation, a single person can get a heter from a B"D really quickly, usually within 48hrs. They are not trying to get a case, they are trying to get a heter to go to secular court. Something that has been clearly shown on this blog many times to need a heter from a B"D. Both parties do not need to show up to B"D to get a heter from B"D.
At the end of the day, this claim is ultimately no different than claiming that if someone is being beaten, they are forbidden to call the police, but must instead call some beis din for help.
Completely different. One is the case of a rodef. The second is a case where one parent is not currently happy about the parenting situation. That parent(such as Friedman in his case) may not even have halakhic rights to custody.
If one parent abducts the children from the other parent, it is like some Jew broke into your house or some Jew snatched your kids. You don't need to go to beis din. You go to the police directly without beis din. So if the other parent walked out with your kids you go to the court to get them back. (As the court is the police in that case.)
Delete@Amazed and Felix, Thanks for clarifying an important issue where Tzadok has been repeatedly spreading disinformation and confusion.
DeleteTzadok keeps ranting about Weiss and Friedman's alleged use of family courts to obtain parenting time with their children, which their wives were apparently denying them. Tzadok has then attempted to spin these court actions as unjustified halachic violations, which are comparable to women who file full divorce lawsuits against their husbands in non-Jewish courts.
In fact Tzadok's arguments are bogus and there is no comparison between using non-Jewish courts to prevent abduction of one's children, and using non-Jewish courts as a plaintiff to settle all issues in a divorce lawsuit.
My understanding is that in both the Weiss and Friedman cases the fathers were halachically justified in using non-Jewish courts in self-defense to to prevent loss of access to their children. I'm not aware of any valid Bais Din decisions denying Weiss or Friedman access to their children, access that they had apparently been denied in violation of halacha.
I'm sorry but that simply is not the halakha. One may not go to a secular court without a heter from a B"D. Especially in this particular case where halakhic custodial rights may not be in favor of the parent going to court.
DeleteI appreciate your Westernized feelings on the subject, but the Teshuvot of the poskim are clearly against you.
DeleteEmesLeYaacov said: My understanding is that in both the Weiss and Friedman cases the fathers were halachically justified in using non-Jewish courts in self-defense to to prevent loss of access to their children.
Can you offer even a single Teshuva for these statements of yours? I have offered several. Including but not limited to a Teshuva from Rav Eliashiv saying that a father has no halakhic rights to a daughter, and this Kol Koreh signed by 70 Gedolei HaDor which absolutely prohibits any use of a secular court without a heter from a B"D.
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/prohibiting-archaos-civil-courts.html
For those readers and curious parties who's Hebrew may not be so great, I offer this translation, taken from the Mishapat Tzedek website. Full translation can be found there.
Delete1) No Jew or Jewess, wherever he may be, is allowed to go to a non-Jewish court, or to their offices or officers, without exception. If there should be any disagreement between Jews, they should turn to a Jewish Beis Din for their legal proceedings according to Jewish law.
2) It is not permissible under any circumstances, to summon a fellow Jew to a non-Jewish court prior to summoning him to a Jewish Beis Din. If he refuses to appear at the Beis Din after receiving three subpoenas, the Beis Din will issue a Contempt of Court (“siruv”) and treat him as described in Shulchan Aruch.
3) No Jew, even if he is a rabbi or leader, is allowed to permit other Jews to go to non-Jewish court before summoning the other party to Beis Din, without following the procedure as described above (paragraph 2). Just as no rabbi or leader can allow the worship of avoda zora or the desecration of Shabbos, likewise permitting Jews to go to non-Jewish court is prohibited. If one did so, he is considered a “machtei es horabim” (one who causes other to sin) and is required to be excommunicated.
4) A Jew or Jewess who says that they will take a fellow Jew to the non-Jewish courts, and they were warned of their sin and didn’t listen, mitzva laha’rog otam, and whoever acts first is worthy, as is the case of a rodeif (one who chasing a person to kill him). (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat ibid.)
7) It is a mitzva to publicize the names and addresses of Jewish mosrim and their supporters, in order for Jews to know from whom to stay away. Whoever knows of a moser that hasn’t repented, it is forbidden to assist him in any way until he repents.
So I have to ask folks: Is there something about without exception and under any circumstances that is not so easily understood? Where do you see room for an exception for this person or that when these Seventy Gedolim said, without exception.
MT: If someone kidnaps your child you call the cops not beis din. Its not different whether your neighbor kidnaps your kids if your ex-spouse does. You call the authorities.
DeleteRaMaTz,
Delete"4) A Jew or Jewess who says that they will take a fellow Jew to the non-Jewish courts, and they were warned of their sin and didn’t listen, mitzva laha’rog otam, and whoever acts first is worthy, as is the case of a rodeif (one who chasing a person to kill him)."
Does this apply to any legal action today, or only when the goyim would kill Jews? For example, I had a dispute with a secular (real mamzer) employer in Israel. Are you saying that I needed a Beis Din to permit me to go to a secular (Israeli) court , and I was liable to death penalty?
What if I have a small knock on my car with another Jew, in chut l'aretz? what is the "mesira" exactly of going to secular court to resolve the dispute?
For that matter, what if there is any other dispute? e.g. a cricket match (or baseball for Americans who do not understand English) between 2 Jewish teams.. Is having a referee or arbiter of the match akin to mesira, if he is secular or non Jewish?
DeleteSamOctober 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM
DeleteMT: If someone kidnaps your child you call the cops not beis din. Its not different whether your neighbor kidnaps your kids if your ex-spouse does. You call the authorities.
By what authority do you go against these 70 Gedolei HaDor? What is your halakhic source? I can make proclamations based on what I feel as well, but they are equally worthless to what everyone here has spouted so far. Without a halakhic source it is just your opinion. What is more the Shulhan Arukh 244:10 says that one is required to treat the Gadolei HaDor as one's own Rav Muvhak. Futher it is written in 242:2 that it is forbidden to disagree with one's Rav Muvhak(and thus a Gadol) unless one has sources and definite proofs that show the Halakha is with him. In fact it says that one who does so is as if he is Cholek on the very Shekhina...
So what are your sources? What are your halakhic proofs that show that you know better than these 70 Gedolei HaDor?
EddieOctober 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM
DeleteRaMaTz,
Does this apply to any legal action today, or only when the goyim would kill Jews? For example, I had a dispute with a secular (real mamzer) employer in Israel. Are you saying that I needed a Beis Din to permit me to go to a secular (Israeli) court , and I was liable to death penalty?
What if I have a small knock on my car with another Jew, in chut l'aretz? what is the "mesira" exactly of going to secular court to resolve the dispute?
Those 70 Rabbanim are almost all from the US, and unless I am much mistaken by the names and signatures that was written some time in the last 20yrs. So I don't see what it should not apply.
In Israel you have a B"D for Dinei Mamanot, both run by the Rabbanut and thus having force of law, as well as others run by groups not affiliated with the govt in any way. So there you definitely should have gone to the B"D.
As far as a knock in your car. My understanding from a Shiur I had with Rav Berenbaum when I was at the Mir, you can make your insurance claim, but you have no halakhic rights to damage done to property in car crashes because it was not in your reshut when it happened. Rav Reisman of Torah V'Daas says the same thing in one of Gemmarra shiurim on Bava Metzia daf 33b... Those can be found online if you want to hear all of the reasoning. So definitely if you have no halakhic rights you cannot call the authorities.
EddieOctober 18, 2013 at 4:25 PM
DeleteFor that matter, what if there is any other dispute? e.g. a cricket match (or baseball for Americans who do not understand English) between 2 Jewish teams.. Is having a referee or arbiter of the match akin to mesira, if he is secular or non Jewish?
Now you are simply Trolling.
Eddie the proclamation of 70 rabbis were simply quoting Shulcah Aruch (388:10)
Deleteמותר להרוג המוסר אפילו בזמן הזה. ומותר להורגו קודם שימסור, אלא כשאמר: הריני מוסר פלוני בגופו או בממונו, אפי' ממון קל, התיר עצמו למיתה, ומתרין בו ואומרים לו: אל תמסור, אם העיז פניו ואמר: לא כי אלא אמסרנו, מצוה להורגו, וכל הקודם להרגו, זכה. הגה: ואם אין פנאי להתרות בו, אין צריך התראה (המגיד פ"ח דחובל). וי"א דאין להרוג המוסר אלא אם כן אי אפשר להינצל ממנו באחד מאיבריו, אבל אם אפשר להצילו באחד מאיבריו, כגון לחתוך לשונו או לסמות עיניו, אסור להורגו, דהרי לא גרע משאר רודף (תשובת מיימוני הנ"ל ומרדכי הנ"ל בשם מהר"מ).
The Shuclhan Aruch is referring to a situation where the mesira of the Jew is life threatening. Therefore the moser is a rodef as the Rema and Gra point out. See the Aruch HaShulchan
ערוך השולחן חושן משפט סימן שפח
הערה: ידוע לכל קוראי הדורות שבזמן הקדמון במדינות הרחוקות לא היה לאיש בטחון בגופו וממונו מפני השודדים והאנסים אף שנשאו עליהם שם משרה כידוע גם היום מאיזה מדינות מאפריקא השוד והחמס שפחות הממשלה עושים ועל טוב יזכרו מלכי איירופא וביחוד אדונינו הקיר"ה מרוסיא ואבותיו הקיסרים ומלכי בריטניא שפרשו כנפי ממשלתם בארצות הרחוקות למען יהי לכל איש ואיש בטחון על גופו וממונו באופן שהעשירים לא יצטרכו להסתיר עצמם שלא ישללו ממונם ויהרגו אותם ועל זה סובב הולך כל דיני מסור ומלשין שבש"ס ופוסקים כאשר נבארם בס"ד כי המוסר ומלשין את חבירו לפני שודדים כאלה הלא רודפו בגופו וממונו ולכן ניתן להצילו בנפשו:
If "The Shulchan Aruch is referring to a situation where the mesira of the Jew is life threatening.", why does it say "או בממונו, אפי' ממון קל".
DeleteCertainly the Aruch haShulchan makes the distinction between the old Kingdoms, and the modern ones. How about the Israeli secular court system? It would be nice to think that the Israeli judges are nice people, but some are ultra chilonim, others are Israeli Arabs. But the Legal system is developed by the Knesset - a Jewish Government? It would seem the view on Israeli law depends on how one views the Medina. Rav Mendel Lewittes zt'l argued that the Medina has the status of Melech, as per the derashot haRan. Of course, I don't think people in the Eda would necessarily agree.
In the old days - revealing that someone had money was also dangerous to health.
DeleteYour question was whether going to secular court without permission of beis din created the status of rodef. That I answered.
Now you are asking about what constitues a legimate government - which is a different question. In particular whether dina d'malchus applies to the Israel secular government as it does to the British government.
MT: Are you seriously saying that if your child was kidnapped by a gangster you would take the gangster to beis din to get your child back instead of calling in the authorities. That is what your answer to me is saying.
DeleteIt is an interesting question though - i.e. we have a secular Jewish court system in Israel, which many Israelis will use, usually unaware of the BD system.
DeleteMT: Are you seriously saying that if your child was kidnapped by a gangster you would take the gangster to beis din to get your child back instead of calling in the authorities. That is what your answer to me is saying.
DeleteSam, there is a rather large difference between a Gangster and a parent. Prime difference is that one is a police matter, and the FBI statistics say that you have 48hrs to retrieve your child before it is dead. The other is a case of disputed halakhic rights to a child which a secular court cannot define or arbitrate. That needs to go before a B"D before any secular court proceedings can begin.
Sam further I have to ask, why is it that you haven't brought a single source? I'm really not interested in your logic or inventive arguments. If you have a source bring it.
MT: If a couple is married and suddenly without any prior warning the husband leaves the marriage and the home, and takes with him their 5 kids aged between 1 year through 9 years old... The wife should bring him to beis din and wait until beis din convenes, hears the case and issues a ruling before taking any additional action to get her kids back? Or should she get the secular authorities involved to get her kids back far quicker, considering the possibility the beis din process may be long and dragged out?
DeleteIf the latter, why is the reverse any different?
A parent unilaterally relocating a child is considered an abduction under secular law.
DeleteMT: A court cannot define or arbitrate disputed halakhic rights to a child.
DeleteNo argument there.
But in the United States, neither a beis din nor a parent who has been given custody by a beis din has the ability to enforce its decision - and (outside of New Jersey) that is the case even if the parents have signed a binding arbitration agreement with a specific beis din, and the beis din has followed all the legal requirements for binding arbitration.
And once an abducting parent has held the child for period of time, that becomes a fait accompli.
Thus, once a parent abducts a child, going to beis din is a completely meaningless exercise that almost guarantees the abducting parent will maintain custody of the child - regardless of what the beis din rules is the right answer with regard to custody under halacha.
As soon as you can bring some teshuva from some Gadol I will actually consider this otherwise it is meaningless.
Delete"I'm sorry but that simply is not the halakha. One may not go to a secular court without a heter from a B"D."
DeleteThe police are not a court of law Rabbi Tzaddok. Calling the police in an emergency situation is the NOT the equivalent of going to secular court. And the notion that one could obtain an "emergency heter" from a Beit din "within 48 hours" (?!?) for an actual emergency is the most idiotic thing I've heard in a while.
"Rabbi Michael Tzadok":
DeleteThere are some good points above refuting you that you haven't addressed. One that holds resonance is whether you similarly believe if a father walks away with the kids if the mother must wait until beis din can hear and act before she can challenge the unilateral removal of the kids from her, even if that will take months or significantly longer? (And even then it might be unenforceable and the secular courts will recognize de facto custody of the parent who walked away with them since the other parent made no official court challenge.)
Or do you only believe it cannot be done if it is the mother walking away with the kids?
The police are not a court of law Rabbi Tzaddok. Calling the police in an emergency situation is the NOT the equivalent of going to secular court.
DeleteSimply not how it works in a dispute between a couple.
Or do you only believe it cannot be done if it is the mother walking away with the kids?
I did answer this. The blog owner for some reason did not publish it. However my answer is simple, I believe the halakha stands whether it is husband or wife.
A parent abducting a child out-of-State is effectively opening a case in civil court just as much as if that abducting parent had actually technically filed papers in court. This is particularly true when the abducting parent communicates with the other parent only through the abducting parent's civil court secular lawyer who insists that there will be no negotiations and that the abducting parent will unilaterally set when the child may see the other parent. And this is even more the case when the abducting parent refuses the other parent's pleas to jointly see a rav to resolve the case either through mediation or at beis din.
Delete"Rabbi Michael Tzadok":
DeleteIt can easily take months or significantly longer for beis din to convent, rule and enforce a judgement. Are you suggesting the parent whose children were kidnapped must wait all that time frame before the can expect to get their kidnapped children back!?!
A second point is that by not immediately filing a case in family court, the parent whose children were taking loses significant legal rights, as the court is then likely to view the parent who took the children to have done so with the agreement of the losing parent. And then if the grabbing parent defies beis din, the losing parent may have no recourse in civil court even if beis din authorizes it, as it will be too late.
Very pertinent and unanswered questions, Dvar Torah.
DeleteMichael Tzadok - have you any retorts?
Deletesorry not shlomo miller shlomo fisher please correct.
ReplyDeleteregarding your reference to that controversial teshuva of r sternbuch (if my memory serves me correctly) where he was suggesting mous olai may be grounds for forcing a get, he admitted it was new and suggested it could only be adopted upon consultation and agreement with other gedolim. don't quote half a teshuvas and leave the rest and most important part out tzaddok
ReplyDeleteI haven't brought up that particular Teshuva of Rav Shternbuch at all. Please stop making things up.
Deletetzaddok just answer this with a yes or no: are you claiming that the only time that the rabbanut jails a man is in a case of where shulchan oruch says it is muttar to be kofin him like being gay, being warned mutiple times to stop beating his wife by bais din, if he becomes a tanner and that they do n ot jaijl for mo'us olai. thus is just a simple yes or no question. no megillahs required.
ReplyDeleteNational Rabbanut- That is precisely what I am saying Only in times when the Shulhan Arukh permit.
DeleteRabbanut Azorai(the two are not connected)- Depends on the Azorai.
Tzaddok you are the one who deals in half truths. Rav karelitz never paskened to throw husband in jail. He paskened chayav legaresh and retracted after being shown emphatically he was wrong. Why he made a mistake is his problem not mine. Stop inventing facts. And explain the corruption of the rabbanut.
ReplyDeleteWell he was the local Beit Din that ruled on the case. See Stan you do not have all the details... Neither do I, I might add.
DeleteAssuming that he was actually placed in jail(which we also have not yet seen actual proof of) two things could have happened:
1) A Beit Din Azorai could have, admittedly against halakha, ruled Kofin B'Get.
2) A Beit Din Azorai could have ruled Chayev L'Get, and then the wife could have gone to arkaot here in Israel and used that to get a secular judge to try to imprison her husband. I am currently helping a man in that very position...
It seems to me that the wife actually may have chosen the latter route. Reason being that if a regional B"D were to have ruled Kofin B'Get than Rav Amar would not have needed to throw out the case entirely, he would have been able to simply change the ruling...
However if the secular court here in Israel got involved, Rav Amar's typical strategy was to shut things down entirely. Unfortunately with the supposed "Agunah" crisis, laws have been passed that allow people to seek divorce outside of the Beit Din system. You cannot very well blame Rabbanut for that.
The problem Stan is that you are not providing all of the details and I am simply far too busy to bother with trying to be an investigative reporter.
R. Eidensohn mentioned eivah on another one of these threads. The eivah quotient in this case is huge, much more, in my opinion, than other scandals because (a) these people are perceived as religious leaders, not some marginal Orthodox person; (b) the crime here, unlike, say, child molestation, is not one committed due to psychological disturbance; the people involved are perfectly rational, though lawless and greedy; and (c) the crimes were done in an organized fashion, like the mafia.
ReplyDeletePutting apart any other consideration, I am astounded at how irresponsible these rabbobim are. If this were Poland or Russia of 150 years ago, we would be worried about a pogrom starting. BH we live in a country that respects law and order, that requires a fair trial to punish the guilty, and limits the punishment to those involved and not the whole community.
Some have been sheltered for a long time because of comfy political, personal and financial relationships with politicians and DA's. They get to think the law can never touch them.
DeleteTal:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the Eiva quotient, and perhaps just as bad, I believe, is the utter confusion within our Chareidi ranks...
Why is it that when Rabbonim act badly the rest of the Rabbinic establishment stays silent?
See the Maharsha on the Gemara in Shabbos 119b about how the inattention to the mitzvoh of תוכחה as it pertains to the שרים rebuking ONE ANOTHER caused the Churban Bais Hamikdosh:
The Gemara:
אמר רב עמרם בריה דר''ש בר אבא א''ר שמעון בר אבא א''ר חנינא לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שלא הוכיחו זה את זה שנאמר {איכה א-ו} היו שריה כאילים לא מצאו מרעה מה איל זה ראשו של זה בצד זנבו של זה אף ישראל שבאותו הדור כבשו פניהם בקרקע ולא הוכיחו זה את זה
The מהרש"א:
שריה הם הם המוכיחים לאחרים אבל זה לזה לא הוכיחו וחיישינין לגומלין ... משל שאין משגיח בכל מעשה חבירו מראשו ועד סוף רק על זנבו וסופו בקצת
In my humble opinion - this silence is deafening!
As the Maharsha stated: חיישינן לגומלין.... Which really alludes to the Gemara in Sota 41b about how flattery and blackmail will rule בעקבתא דמשיחא:
אמר ר' שמעון בן חלפתא מיום שגבר אגרופה של חנופה נתעוותו הדינין ונתקלקלו המעשים ואין אדם יכול לומר לחבירו מעשי גדולים ממעשיך
And as Rashi explains:
נתעוותו הדינין. שהחניפו הדיינין את בעלי הדין: ונתקלקלו המעשים. שהגדולים ראו עוברי עבירה ולא מיחו בידם מפני חנופה: ואין אדם שיכול לומר לחבירו מעשי גדולים ממעשיך. שמתוך שלא מיחו בעוברי עבירה למדו הדורות את מעשיהם ונמצא כולן עוברין:
I am afraid that our generation is witnessing a vicious cycle of corruption that begets more corruption because anyone daring to raise his voice will have his real and perceived ills publicly aired and his character assassinated.
Chazal tell us that kidnapping - which was part of the Epstein/Wolmark modus operandi - is what לא תגנוב in the Aseres Hadibdos is all about. Dis these fellows ever lose sleep on the fact that they might be trampling on the עשרת הדברות?
Rendering a psak without a Bais Din agreed upon by both parties and where both parties have a say is in contradiction to C"M 17:5:
אָסוּר לַדַּיָּן לִשְׁמֹעַ דִּבְרֵי בַּעַל דִּין הָאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ. .... וְלֹא יִכְתֹּב שׁוּם חָכָם פְּסָק לְאֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי הַדִּינִין ... שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לוֹ דַּעְתּוֹ בְּלֹא פְסָק, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע דִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, שֶׁמָּא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבָרָיו יִלְמְדוּ לְשַׁקֵּר;
See the ברכי יוסף who very vociferously protests the practice of some Rabbonim to pasken without hearing both sides, which seems to have already been a problem in his days, by writing:
ומאנה הנחם נפשי על זה וכיוצא בו שראיתי באיזה מורים וגדולי הערים וכבר אמרו חז"ל כל פרצה שאינה מן הגדולים אינה פרצה.. וה' הטוב יכפר בעדו השב ישיב לנו שופטנו כבראשונה ודי בזה.
Can you imagine being a Talmid in Wolmark's yeshiva? I learn in a Yeshiva where the Rosh Hayeshiva is that fellow who missed out on לא תגנוב in the עשרת הדברות?
And as Tal pointed out - there doesn't seem to be the mitigating factor of psychological disturbance.... but upon second thought I'm sure the defendants will find an expert witness to vouch for something in the DSM, if it will help their case...
here is the tik number:
ReplyDeleteCourt: Kings Civil Supreme
Index Number: 013509/2006
Case Name: KENIG,NECHMA vs. KENIG,ABRAHAM
Case Type: Contested Matrimonial
Track: Standard
RJI Filed: 05/10/2006
stop the lies already. she was in arko'oys. please explain why the rabbanut forced a get. there is no such thing as being kofin a get when the plaintiff is in arko'oys.
Is this a joke? You do realize that is not a Rabbanut tik number right? Once again you offer a single piece to a puzzle, and claim it is the whole case...
Deleteyour claims tzadok that the gedolim appointed meyer lau and his succesor may be the only truths you can produce. they appointed corrupt politicians to the posts of chief rabbi because they only have utter contempt for the rabbanut and know that to send a talmid chochom of stature to the tzionim is a pure waste of his time .
ReplyDeleteWhat an absurd and utterly baseless statement.
DeleteCertainly, the appointment of Yonah Metzger was an act of contempt. Say what you will about tziyoni issues, Metzger was a shocking polar opposite in all respects to R. Kook. The only thing really frum about him was the long litvish rekkel to cover up his true character.
Deletethe only way tzaddok can wiggle out of the sheer corrupt semicha produced by one of the chief justices of the rabbanut is to claim he is not the official chief justice. pathetic tzaddok what else can i say.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't proved a corrupt semikha, but that aside there is no Jerusalem Rabbanut currently. So your claim is once again utterly baseless.
DeleteRevisionism again tzaddok. You claim there is no evidence that yosef dov meyerson was arrested. You claimed aharon friedman wasnt assaulted. We all remember how that ended for you.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I said. You are once again distorting facts.
Deletetzaddok you have alleged on this site that rav gestetner is corrupt. where is your evidence? some silly letter from the rabbanut claiming so without presenting a single tik no to prove this?
ReplyDeletewhat about quoting a halocho he has broken...
where i come from this is called hypocricy.
Not talking about that on this thread.
DeleteYou are all the evidence necessary. You have said that you are one of the Dayans in previous threads. We need only see, as RaMaTz has proven, that you don't have, and never have had all the facts to know that if you sit on his beis din it is quite obviously corrupt.
Deletetzaddok you made false claims against both friedman and weiss claiming they are just like women who run to arko'oys and accusing myself and emes l'yaakov of hypocricy. you also call for tik number and all the facts.
ReplyDeletewell the facts are against you. in friedman's case his wife stopped appearing in bais din and was lo tzias dina. he then obtained the psak of a single rov to go to arko'oys. while most people today hold that you need the psak of a bais din, his rov may hold differently. furthermore he withdrew his claim in arko'oys which was not for money but to prevent his wife absconding. There are poskim that hold in the case where the father lives in a different town from mother the daughter goes to father. see one of the teitelbaums.
in the case of weiss, the mother was stopping the father from proper visitation. he obtained a psak for rav wohlhandler to go to arko'oys just for this purpose. the feinsteins obviously hold in this case that the psak of a single rov was sufficient. his wife then went ahead and went toa rko'oys about everything else.
while one should obtain a psak from a bais din, for you to compare someone who is going to arko'oys after his wife is lo tzias dina like in friedman's case to the general case of a woman running to arko'oys for a fake order of protection and money they are not entitled to is not in line with either facts or halocho.
in friedman's case his wife stopped appearing in bais din and was lo tzias dina.
DeleteActually that isn't what the documents provided have shown.
he then obtained the psak of a single rov to go to arko'oys.
The Kol Koreh signed by 70 Gedolim clearly states that is not permitted. You don't get to choose when you do or do not like the halakha, and when you do and do not follow it.
in the case of weiss, the mother was stopping the father from proper visitation. Who said he had any halakhic rights to see the child?
he obtained a psak for rav wohlhandler to go to arko'oys just for this purpose.
Again against the clear ruling of the Gedolim. It is amazing how you have no problem looking the other way when a man does it.
his wife then went ahead and went toa rko'oys about everything else.,
Not true, as the documents clearly state.
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/procedural-summary-of-epstein-friedman.html
Deletehttp://www.friedmanepstein.com/
In the Epstein-Friedman case, Epstein refused to obey the Baltimore Beis Din's orders to dismiss the civil court case both before the case went to trial, and afterwards. At trial, Epstein successfully asked the court to rule that the child should remain in PA because the child had been there for so long before the trial. Epstein specifically argued that Friedman had waived any right to object that the length of time the child had been in PA shouldn't be prejudicial because Friedman had agreed to cancel an earlier pendete lite trial in order to bring the case to beis din.
Friedman received a psak to bring a civil court case in MD on an emergency basis, but to then bring the case to beis din before proceeding further in the civil courts. Friedman did exactly that, despite Epstein's lying to the court as to whether she had unilaterally relocated the child (Epstein would later admit that she had done so).
DeleteYou are the one who decided to talk about evidence on this thread. Now I am asking you again what evidence have you got that rav gestetner is corrupt? Stop obfuscating already.
ReplyDeleteNo. You have produced ZERO evidence for any of your claims. Until you do, I will no longer discuss this issue with you.
DeleteTzaddok are you denying that you previously humiliated yourself when you claimed there was no evidence friedman was assaulted?
ReplyDeleteTzaddok there are no no circumstances that would permit forcing a get if the woman was in arko'oys if the husband offered to go to bais din as in koenigs case. Now you produce any evidence you like but the wife wasnt even there so how does a bais din make a ruling to force a get unless its the tzionishe corrupt rabbanut. You required just a letter drom a clerk with no cases or halochos involved to claim r gestetner is corrupt. I havw produced far more evidence to prove rabbanut is corrupt. There are not different standards for you than fron everyone else.
ReplyDeleteStan - rabbanut, just like every other institution, and person, is corruptable. Gifts and bribes corrupt. Hence, the backers of the Chief Rabbis, who want their own to get the high salary, and benefit from their Hechsher sales, are the corrupting factors.
DeleteOnce again you demonstrate your ignorance. Far more than a clerk. He had been the Rishon L'Tzion's asst for many years. Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu himself published two sefarim containing his own Teshuvot, half of them bear the same signature. Why? Because this "clerk" was the one that copied them over for him.
DeleteTzaddok are you denying that mrsvfriedman didnt just stop attending bais din? Are you falsely alleging she was always tzias dina?
ReplyDeleteThis clerk besmirched an innocent man and accused him of what the rabbanut is guilty of - corruption. he provided not a shred of evidence. Tzaddok just because you are part of the self appointed corrupt sefardi elite doesn't make it any less corrupt. Where is the evidence that Rav Gestetner broke the halocho? Where is the evidence that he is corrupt? of course you will defend your ethnic pals with all your might but who cares. Volvos for Oslo that is what they are.
ReplyDelete"What an absurd and utterly baseless statement." the only thing that us absurd is your naivite. When are either rabbis considered part of the gedolim? answer: never.
ReplyDeletewithout providing evidence that rabbi eliyahu wrote the same thing as dichovsky, i will be don lechaf zechus that he never wrote such nonsense. the halocho is clearcut, if you are lo tzias dina you can't call someone to bais din.and if he did so what? this is an ashkenazi forum and don't force down your sefardi pesakim of dubious quality on us.
ReplyDeleteas for your claims of mo"us olai that rav elyashgiv says to force a get i very briefly looked at it. 1) i don't know that he agreed with the pesak and more importantly the case seemed to be where someone took a second wife but couldn't support the first. that is very far from a regular mo'us olai case. I would n ot draw wild conclusions from such a pesak.
Rabbi Tzadok, stop claiming that you hadn't claimed Friedman was never attacked on Tisha Baav outside Epstein's house.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/08/aharon-friedman-assaulted-in-wifes.html
Rabbi Michael TzadokAugust 4, 2012 at 8:45 PM
I am saying this is made up.
I called the Lower Merion Police department(610.649.1000. I spoke with public relations officer Walsh. He said that they have no report any any assualt, attempted assualt or attempted abduction on the day in question, or in regards to a Mr Friedman.
tzaddok stop speaking outside both sides of your mouth already. You justify Dichovsky's blatant violations which are the absolute antithesis of the kol koreh and then you slam friedman and weiss for not following it. Which one is it? the jol koreh or the violations of dichovsky?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore and most importantly in friedman's case his wife was lo tzias dina. and in the case of weiss he asked a rov for permission and while i agree with you it is insufficient to compare it with a woman who goes to arko'oys to destroy her husband is not a comparison. it could be that feinsteins still hold a single rov is sufficient.
Tzaddok we are still waiting for reasons as to why meyerson was jailed by the rabbanut why briskman and uzi frenkel had to hide and escape from the jails and why avi kenig and mr meyerovitch were forced to give gittin on visits to israel.
ReplyDeleteAnd cut out the tik baloney already
How do you explain dichovsky being the head dayan of the rabbanut and twisting halocho and going against the kok koreh?
ReplyDeleteIf that isnt proof of a rabbanut violating halocho then what is?
He was never the head dayan you liar. He was only ever a dayyan, and he hasn't been a part of the Beit Din since 2008:
Deletehttp://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9C
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99
Tzaddok you your readers an apology. Furthermore you clearly dont know nearly as much about the rabbanut as you try and fake to us. Google dichovsky and see at Jerusalem post article on 03/02/2011 by jonah mandel titled "rabbi dichovsky appointed director of rabbinic courts". I guess according to you director means clerk!
ReplyDeleteWho is lying now tzaddok.
Didn't you call Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan a clerk just above? That's who's job he took. Rabbi Ben-Dahan was never a Dayan on the Beit Din. Director of Rabbinic courts is a political appointment, it is not a Rabbinic one. Stop lying Stan.
DeleteAgain we see tzaddok at his best - talking out of both sides of his mouth and obfuscating. The position of ben dahan is political he tells us. And in this position this man claims without a shred of evidence that rav gestetner is corrupt. So tzaddok presents as his fake evidence but really no evidence that rav gestetner is corrupt a letter from a politician.
ReplyDeleteI remind readers how this issue came up. I accused the rabbanut of corruption and presented as one item of evidence the nonsence of dichovsky claiming a get can be forced (it cannot) when a woman is in arko'oys. Tzaddoks fake refutation was that dichovsky retired. So what? Was he thrown out? No. His reward for his psak which is the antithesis of the torah is a role by Tzaddoks own admission a very senior role - a pilitical one. If this doesn't even prove to tzaddok with his naivite how corrupt his beloved rabbanut is then nothing will.
Tzaddok please stop assuming people are s I stupid and gullible. the sefer shows how the rabbanut employs secular law such as alimony equitable distribution and gittei meuseh. Even rhe child support violates halocho.