Monday, October 28, 2013

The Epstein-Wolmark debacle: Making Heroes Out of Villains

Guest post by Rabbi Michael Tzadok Elcohen


Rabbi Eliyahu Fink recently wrote an article for Haaretz entitled "Rabbis Who Beat Men Into Divorcing Their Wives:Villains or Heroes.  The blog owner offered me the chance to critique it here, and I accepted.  In truth it has turned out to be a harder task than I thought.  Not because Rabbi Fink's points and proofs are hard to argue with, but simply because I have never had so much problem doing so with a modicum of respect.  

Personally as a Rabbi myself, I find the even the very question to be offensive.  What is it about these two men, who frankly don't deserve the title Rabbi, that we should even harbor the question that they might be heroes?  What is worse is that he ends with that very point when he says, "That rabbis were inflicting violence is a terrible consequence. But the real villains are the recalcitrant husbands. Let’s not forget that these rabbis were heroes to the chained women. But at the same time, we should not need such complicated heroes."  That someone who is both a Rabbi and a JD (Juris Doctorate), meaning that he is theoretically at least schooled in both Jewish and US law, would conclude that individuals that engaged in vigilante justice are heroes is simply reprehensible.

We must thus ask what brought Rabbi Fink to such a low and degraded moral place in which he would celebrate thugs and criminals as models of Jewish society.  It would appear from a simple reading of his paper that it is the "agunah crisis."  Meaning a woman who is chained and has no way of moving forward with her life.  Unfortunately Rabbi Fink is confusing terms.  He is claiming any woman who cannot obtain a Get on demand is an Agunah, and let us be honest that is simply not the case, and it flies in the face of Rabbis and Gedolim that have worked long and hard to free true Agunot.  Who are true Agunot?  The widows of the soldiers lost in the Yom Kippur War are a good example.  That was a true "Agunah crisis."  Even today we find that women and children are abandoned by their husbands and left, and are true Agunot.  However this is a a rarity.  It is far from being a "crisis" by any stretch of the imagination though, I am sure to such a woman it is very much a personal crisis. Likewise for a true Agunah, you will not find a Gadol who is not willing to do whatever is possible to set her free.

However the "crisis" that Rabbi Fink wants to foist upon us is not one of agunot, it is one of divorce on demand.  He quotes Rabbi Joseph Telushkin on this matter saying, 
"During the twelfth century, Maimonides ruled that if man refused to grant a divorce to a woman who was entitled to it, he was to be whipped without mercy until he did so (Mishneh Torah, "Laws of Divorce," 2:20). The legal precedent for his ruling was the talmudic law, "If a man refused to give a woman a divorce, he is forced until he declares "I am willing” (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 50a). That Maimonides was willing to accept as voluntary a statement elicited by whipping indicates how anxious he was to assist a woman who was being mistreated.
He unfortunately fails to mention the other stipulations that the Rambam gives concerning a Mais Ali. He also fails to mention that the other rishonim pretty roundly rejected his opinion.  Further he fails to mention that the Shulchan Arukh, and poskim say that in a case of Mais Ali where there is clear reason, we cannot force a man to divorce his wife, we are only permitted to inform him of his halakhic obligation.

So when Rabbi Fink says, "While I can’t condone violence and while I can’t support thuggery, we must see these rabbis for what they are. They are knights in shining armor for these chained women. Like our favorite fictional vigilante, they may not be the hero that we want or deserve, but sometimes they are the hero that we need.".  We ought to be repulsed by his statement, more we ought to protest.  More than anything such statements and such praise are nothing less that incitements to violence.  These men, these so called Rabbis, they are not the Lone Ranger or Batman or whatever other vigilante hero, that may have won over someone's boyhood imagination.  Not only was the very basis of their actions against both the halakha and the law, but as the criminal complaint and their subsequent arrest clearly shows, they could not even be bothered with giving the show of respectability, they could not even be bothered with ascertaining the facts.  They exploited desperation and acted out of greed.  Far from heroes they are villains.  Where they could have used their positions to do good, by trying to influence these women to work within the bounds of halakha or even to be reconciled to their husbands, they decided instead to do evil, and to create a chilul HaShem.  Rabbi Fink shame on you for holding them up as some sort of hero.
--

הרב מיכאל צדוק אלכהן

162 comments :

  1. Fink is not to be taken seriously. He is a Zev Farber, albeit much lesser known. Take a look at any of his other rantings attacking frum Jewry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hey preb, lets address Fink's points. no need to insult him personally.

      Delete
    2. I don't see any insults. Preb's comment is on target. Did you ever read Mr. Fink's blog? It could rightfully be described as a hate website.

      Delete
  2. Until there is an equitable & workable situation for both men and women to obtain a GET, when a marriage is dead (either spouse can determine when a marriage dies) anyone who can help either gender will be considered a HERO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Equality is not a Torah value. It is a French value thought up in the 18th century.

      Delete
    2. yoni, incorrect. If one side decides the marriage is dead it is not necessarily dead. The husband has the right to remain married even if the wife wants a divorce. This is Jewish Law.

      Delete
    3. "Equality is not a Torah value". That is abundantly clear. Apparetnly holding these poor women hostage is... Do tell me again why you are ok with that?

      Delete
    4. Funny Dvar Torah, your "this is Jewish Law" is actually NOT what most rishonim and early acharonim say. I've argued this on this blog repeatedly and summarily dismissed. So, here's someone else doing a survey and (surprise!) reaching the same conclusion:
      http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n180.shtml#04

      Delete
    5. No matter how many times our host and people here repeat it, no it is NOT the relevant halakhah. Once a divorce was given, he forfeited that right. The Rama would allow us to apply social pressure (harchaqos R' Tam), put him into nidui, and would even consider the divorce kosher bedi'eved if force were used to secure it.

      I've said this repeatedly, so here is someone else doing the survey of rishonim and acharonim and reaching the same conclusion:
      http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n180.shtml#04

      Delete
    6. Equality is not a Torah value. It is a French value thought up in the 18th century.

      Equality, like derech eretz, is a basic value that precedes Torah. Equality was "thought up" long before the 18th century. However, it took a revolution for equality to become more than a mere thought.

      Delete
    7. Equality, like derech eretz, is a basic value that precedes Torah.
      Derekh Eretz is not equality. Derekh Eretz means that you have to let a Kohen proceed you. It means that you have to rise before a Talmid Hakham, and elderly person or a Kohen. It means that your children have to pay their Rav more respect than they do their own father.
      Derekh Eretz means that you cannot ask a Kohen to take out the trash, or do the dishes, even if you are his wife, because that is beneath his status.
      In short Derekh Eretz is about according appropriate amounts of respect, as dictated by Torah, and operating in certain interpersonal behaviors as dictated by Torah. However, nowhere does Torah put forth the idea of equality. If it did, there would be no Kohanim, Leviim, Kings or Mamzerim.

      Delete
    8. I.wont.be.toldOctober 29, 2013 at 1:42 AM
      "Equality is not a Torah value". That is abundantly clear. Apparetnly holding these poor women hostage is.


      I doubt you will fully understand, as you really do need to believe that Torah is Divine in order to understand. However, in short, these women are not being held hostage. There are halakhic ways and means for them to achieve their ends if they so desire. These "Rabbis" are offering an illegitimate shortcut, that also happens to be quite illegal.

      Delete
    9. Rabbi Berger wronte: "Funny Dvar Torah, your "this is Jewish Law" is actually NOT what most rishonim and early acharonim say. I've argued this on this blog repeatedly and summarily dismissed. So, here's someone else doing a survey and (surprise!) reaching the same conclusion:
      http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n180.shtml#04"
      ======================
      Rabbi Berger your views are the matter have been dismissed because they are not supported by the sources of rishonim and achronim - as Rabbi Bechoffer and others have attested.

      Your understanding of the Chacham Tzvi is another example of giving an interpretation - that even if it were true - has not been accepted by the poskim and therefore I could not find a single teshuva where he is cited to allow a get to be forced.

      The analysis you cite, while brilliant, ignores the poskim - including Rav Yosef and the Tzitz Eliezar etc etc don't read the material the way she does. Read her concluding paragraph again. If Rav Schachter or Rav Willing wrote a teshuva based on her reasoning - it might make a difference if other poskim agreed. However your relying on her analysis alone without the agreement of the poskim - and declaring that that is what they have been saying all along - is simply wrong.

      Delete
    10. @Berger - No matter how many times YU / ORA / MO feminist theologians reinvent halakhah to make it conform to feminism, no it does NOT become halakhah.

      YU / ORA / MO feminist theologians operate in a fantasy world where whatever is demanded by feminists magically becomes halakhah that was taught by the Rishonim hundreds of years ago.

      Delete
    11. @I.wont.be.told - "Apparetnly holding these poor women hostage is..." - The Torah prohibition of feminist divorce on demand has absolutely nothing to do with hostage taking, except in feminist imaginations.

      A Jewish wife who unilaterally demands a GET, under her dictated terms of a divorce settlement, is in no way a hostage. No rabbi or male chauvinist is going to force her to live with her husband.

      Rather the Torah, with great wisdom, denies her the right to move on to her next husband-victim until and unless her current husband also decides of his free will to terminate the marriage, and the marriage is properly terminated with a kosher GET and all issues are settled in a just manner according to Torah law.

      If her husband is a normal, decent person, he has the option to continue the marriage until and unless he voluntarily agrees to terminate it..

      Delete
    12. "until and unless her current husband also decides of his free will to terminate the marriage"

      OR IF HIS 100 MALE RABBINIC FRIENDS decide he can terminate his marriage & go on, leaving his ex-wife to be bound to halacha.

      Delete
    13. @simar ir hakodesh - You seem rather unfamiliar with the Jewish divorce laws. Both the ex-wife and ex-husband are bound to halacha, not just the ex-wife as you claim. If a Jewish husband utilized a "100 male rabbinic friends" to obtain a "heter meah rabbanim", then he is required to deposit a GET in Bais Din before he can move on.

      The wife is able to pick up the GET, as long as she cooperates with the Bais Din, including appearing for a din Torah if it is necessary.

      If the wife caused her husband $100,000 in legal damages in non-Jewish courts, or if she abducted the children, she may have to compensate the husband and/or allow him parenting time before she can pick up the GET. But that's terribly unjust according to the feminists, isn't it?

      Delete
    14. Micha Berger:

      You are incorrect. Your utilization of some random woman on the internet who is a member of your e-mail listserv counting up whatever Rishonim and Achronim she can find reaching the conclusion she is seeking does not a majority make. That is not even factoring in all the missing poskim whose Seforim have been lost to the ages.

      Furthermore, Micha Berger, as Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn has repeatedly reminded you, the normative Halacha as cited and brought down by the numerous poskim who rule on this matter, clearly and unambiguously state that a wife is NOT entitled to a divorce simple because she wants one. That idea of yours is stemming only from Westernized and American values that you hold so dear. It is far from a Jewish value and is not supported by Jewish Law.

      And if a wife went to a secular court and obtained a divorce, something she is legally able to do unilaterally even if her husband opposes the motion for divorce and wishes to remain married to her, has absolutely no meaning in Jewish Law, has no effect on his right to remain married to her under Halacha and decline to issue her a Get.

      To repeat, a wife obtaining a divorce in non-Jewish court has no meaning or effect on Hilchos Gittin or a husband's right to remain married to her.

      Delete
    15. I also notice that the British woman on your e-mail list who came to her interesting conclusions is arguing against and questioning various Achronim based on her own thoughts and feelings.

      Delete
    16. She also is mis-teitching up Rishonim and Achronim based on her own understanding and feelings that has no basis in the Seforim she is quoting.

      Delete
    17. Indeed, she sites acharonim, you handwave her sources provide none of your own, and claim it is she who is arguing against and questioning various rishonim and acharonim.

      I didn't cite "some random woman", I save myself retyping her list of sources. Until you actually address those sources, your summarily dismissing them doesn't mean much. You are standing behind giving your brother a platform for insulting one of our generation's gedolei haposqim. I'm waiting for you to actually listen to his shiur on the subject, learn the Tzitz Eliezer. Enough with this "no posqim" garbage and then ignoring or insulting the posqim who disagree with you.

      By showing a willingness to reflexively go on the attack, you rob yourself of much of your voice when you attack those who actually deserve your disdain.

      Delete
    18. Micha, our Gedolei HaPoskim, such as Rav Eliashev and many others, have categorically said that these are Get Me'usa's and any future children of theirs mamzeirim.

      Delete
  3. Repeat after me, "The gender of a spouse in a marital situation that could lead to divorce does not determine right or wrong, credibility or lack of credibility".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 28, 2013 at 8:16 PM

    Bravo!! Your article is wonderful. I will however point out two points.

    1. We have no way to independently confirm these claims. All that is assumed done, is based on an FBI complaint. There is no halachic validity to FBI complaints. Therefore when opining about this matter it may be proper to say "if the FBI complaints are true".
    2. These guys while their actions may have been reprehensible, halachically and legally, still, I am not sure them being found guilty, and spending 25 years behind bars is the correct punishment. Judges in the US have exceptional power to implement" over the top" sentences, as seen in the Rubashkin and Weberman cases. If any or all 10 people involved, got these kinds of sentences, it would be a travesty. I am pretty sure that most of the public would see a year or two in jail as a reasonable punishment. We should be careful not to vilify these rabbis too much, lest it affect an unwanted consequence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These guys caused mamzeirim. It doesn't get much worse.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I disagree. IMO running a gang that meets out physical violence to people based on other people paying exorbitant sums for that purpose deserves very severe punishment. 50 years is appropriate. As opposed to say, Rubashkin, who in my opinion should have gotten 5 years, no more.

      Delete
    3. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM

      Dvar,
      We don't punish bein Adam lamakom. I also haven't heard a Posek who paskened that the kids are mamzerim. Also, If we would punish all those who make mamzerim, we'd have a larger crowd to go after.
      Tal, I don't agree. maybe a year or two. That's it. They had some intention to help facilitate a get. Also they wouldn't have beaten anyone who acquiesced. I may have a soft heart for criminals, but I'd sentence the head guys to no more than 2 years.

      Delete
    4. Asher:

      1) The get was me'usa and useless.

      2) The husbands were not obligated to give a get. A husband doesn't have to give a get just because his wife wants one.

      These thugs were beating and torturing with electric torture tools innocent men. They deserve life in prison.

      Delete
    5. I wouldn't lump Rubashkin and Weberman together as one. Lack of honesty and knowledge to do that!!

      Delete
    6. Part 1 - @ sheker veshav yedaberun - gilui arayos, shfichus damim, and avoda zara money of Egel hazahavOctober 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM

      Al shlosha Pishei yisrael, veal arbaa lo ashivam, al michrom tzadik bakesef...

      'Oy' ! 'Oy' Haloy Even mikir tizak. 'Oy' vey iz mir! What have you done to my Avrumele? To my Itchele and achenu kol beis Yisrael hanesunim batzoro, ubetzaar, ubashivyah, 'oy oy oy',
      hamakom yerachem alehem.

      FYI we need no confirmation on solid findings of Government agents. The sting operation was set up based on victims complaints, and was found to be absolutely true beyond the shadow of a doubt as has already been released to the public. Fact findings that have been established to be iron solid true are not considered fbi "Complaints" . The findings established, that these gittin factories manufacturing wholesale mamzerim executed, was for financial and personal pleasure gains e.g. sexual favors. Never mind Kidnapping, Sex and Violence, lllegal weapons,Torture, Death threats, Intimidation and Harassments, Defamation and Character Assasinations, Breaking up families, Robbing children out of parents, Money laundering, Tax evasion, is only the tip of the iceberg. The vast amount up front fee of 100K was to be deposited even before establishing of whether there is a chiyuv Get altogether. Indeed, the sting operation confirmed that the kangaroo COURT obligated a chiyuv Get even where a husband didn't even EXIST, so money hungry they have been. This is like condemning a ham sandwich in abstentia for "auto de fe", with neither bread nor davar achar in Presence of the so called Da'y dayenu dayanim Nor anywhere else, mamash a davar shelo bo leolam, lo haya velo nivra, lo dubim velo yaar, ach verak chalomot beaspamya. Mind you, all this fabricated by being a self declared Judge, Jury, self proclaimed witness and Executioner. Executing Gittin for sexual favors is a scandal of Biblical proportions aka as in zaakas Sodom Va'amorah ki ROBOH, and these 'eishes ish v'esnan zona' were no ghosts, they were for real, even as of today they remain an eishes ish, and their children are full blown mamzerim R'L', meuves asher lo yuchal letaken, velo yeaseh kazos beyisrael.

      Delete
    7. Part 2 - @ sheker veshav yedaberun - gilui arayos, shfichus damim, and avoda zara money of Egel hazahavOctober 29, 2013 at 7:14 PM

      Before this so called court was disbanded by the RAID, they inflicted inhumane pain on unsuspecting victims that were lured, kidnapped by hooded goons, thugs, bullies and international gangsters, waterboarded, manhandled with batons, taser guns, karate chops, without mercy into submission. GEVALD, GEVALD!!! KULAY HAY VEULAY? Sounds like the one in UK, where these giluo arayos techniques and trick-or-treats ROFL have been learned from other RA Banim. Where in the Talmud do you find that the gabay performing malkus or any other chiyuvei onshei beis din to be Hooded, Huh? It is only gangsters and hoods Megadlei Bluriyos, anoshim Pochzin vereikim covering their tracks and their Kung Fu FNU LNU (first name unknown last name unknown) Ashmedai names in fear of retribution, like the Tomás de Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition. Velo yikare lecho od shimcho yaakov ki im yadayim yedei Eisav, veshem reshaim yirkov. These illegitimate "hooded" operations in and of itself talks volumes. Furthermore, KOYFIN oso is the fear of pain malkus, or malkus itself , provided that it is legitimately called for. WATERBOARDING is fear of "death", that is "MEAYEM" lehorgo, there is NO such halacha in kfiyes haget. The findings in the fbi confiscated computers will attest to all this. The long line of ready, willing and able surviving victims will testify to these illegal atrocities with no alleged lashan hara interference shields or otherwise. Federal protection to all witnesses will be provided, should anyone dare in obstructing of justice, achas doso. These Epstein reshaim & Co., S'R'Yirkav, will pay dearly for their deeds, for these mamzerim created, for PILEGESH BEGIVOH aka esnan zona, and for the vast wholesale disseminated CHILLUL HASHEM. B'ein melitz yosher, ein podenu vein matzilenu, No 'bronfenmein' nor allen 'dersho'wines' will be able to help you out beyom hadin. You will sit it out till your achron shebetachtonim will wear out, and for sure they will throw away the key lemaan yishmeu veyirou velo yezidun od,. Lemaan achay lo echshe, ulemaan re'ay lo eshkot. Payback time is here u"Beibud reshaim rina". Uvo letzion goel.

      Delete
    8. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 30, 2013 at 12:44 AM

      Sally, no one is arguing your point. I am talking about the punishment
      Sima, it was an analogy. Rubashkin and Weberman, were both overpunished legally. Even if what they were accused of was true. I will throw in pollard as well. How do

      Delete
    9. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 30, 2013 at 12:49 AM

      Do you like that ?

      Egel hazahav. I haven't heard anywhere that anyone was accused of giving gittin for sexual favors. Your insinuation should either come with proof, or it should be retracted. Making allegations publicly, of what you have no proof of would be Motzi Shem ra..

      Delete
    10. Defenders of weberman prey on childrenOctober 30, 2013 at 4:52 AM

      How can you say the names Rubashkin and Weberman in the same sentence? You some kind of twisted pedo-apologist or nambla member? Sick, sick, sick.

      Delete
    11. Shav vesheker & Egel vedi ZahavOctober 30, 2013 at 4:59 AM

      Selling your soul to the Devil together with your Religion for the Egel hazahav, says more than a mouthful. Shmuos haloy tovos asher shamanu on the Zev Brenner show last Motzoei Shabat, and have read on Frum Follies, that is a whole lot of smoke to choke on and to yet survive. Have we mentioned Megaleh panim baTorah shelo kehalacha? So much for alleged motzi shem ra. The witnessed proof and the rest of the story will be coming soon from the Gmen, video, audio, and the victims themselves, just a little patience my friend. Kvar haya davar meolam. It is not unheard of these atrocities coming bundled and paired in one package as chut hamshulash lo bimhera yinatek, Dor hamabul, Sdom Vamorah, and Vayakimu letzachek as by the Egel hazahav. In addition, the mystery as to why the so called man of caliber has been urged to leave Detroit will only add to the Chilul Hashem. Lo shamanu, lo rainu eno raya, it is because enayim lahem velo yiri, oznayim lahem velo yishmou. In your attempted & failed damage control of Weberman is a tfilat shav vasheker, what he did to this girl, and many other eishes ish is pain beyond comprehension, and Shande for Judaism, but small change next to Epstein, thugs and henchmen Atrocities. What Weberman got, is well deserved but not enough. What Epstein Wolmark and Co. deserves, there is not enough fuel to heat up the gehinom, it is something reserved for the Devil himself to deal with, hu velo acher. In lieu of the electric chair, we will have to suffice with having them rot in jail, after throwing away the key. Veonu tikva achrei mos bnei avlo, shethei takuah bekaf hakela misof haolam ad sofo leolam vaed! This trial will be the Nuremberg Trial of the 21st Century. Ken yovdu.

      Delete
    12. Asher pihem diber shavOctober 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM

      You are incoherent Egel. You are all over the map. From Zev Brenner to Nurenberg to the Egel hazahav, to dor hamabul. Quoting psukim that are irrelevant I can also do. Should I start with ashrei, and end with eleh toldos hashamayim vehaaretz

      Listen bro, I am not an apologist for Weberman. I was talking about the length of sentences, and the power of US judges. Now you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. I unfortunately don't listen to Zev Brenner every weekend, and I am not even sure what frum follies are. I do think that Weberman, Rubashkin. Pollard, and Dreyfus, all are similar in one way. They have a similarity. Their sentences were too long. I say so. Yes I do. Now to take a page out of your playbook, I will quote a passuk that is irrelevant to the conversation Vayagar Yitzchok begror. Laluka shtei banos hav hav. Need I say more ?

      Delete
    13. @ Asher pihem diber shav (October 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM)
      You sound like an Egla Arifa and seem to have a comprehension problem and therefore cannot process more than one bit and byte at a time. Can you walk, and chew gum simultaneously? Let me try once more by the spoon feeding method. Breishis 6:11: Vatishoches Rashi, lashon ervah veavodoh zoro, Vatimale ho'oretz chummus- Gezel = 100K eglei zahav, see same 12:, Ki hshchis kol bossor, znus veavodah zoro going hand in hand. 7:4: Anochi mamtir al haaretz arboim yom, Rashi - keneged yetziras havlad shekilkelu lehatriach yotzrom latzur tzurat MAMZERIM. 7:13: Be'etzem hayom hazeh Rashi, anu shovrim otah vehorgin oto. Summary of Gilui arayos, shfichus damim and gezel, Kappish? Do you see the french connection?

      Breishis 13:13: Raim vachtaim laShem meod Rashi = Raim begufom, vachataim bemomonam, meod umitkavnim limrod bo. 18:21:Haktzakaatsa haba elay Rashi hakTzaakasa tzaakas riva achas shehorgiha misa meshuno, 19:5: Venedoh oyssom, and Gezel as naval birshus hatorah pachot pachot mishave pruto.
      Again, Gezel, vearayos ushfichas damim bundled together, fershteist Y. Gestetner?

      Maaseh haEgel hazahav, Shemot 32:5: Vayakimu letzachek, Rashi yesh bemashma haze gilui arayos... ushfichat damim and the Egel hazahav aka avoda zara. So there you have the chut hamshulash Batorah haksuvo 3 times three, with the common denominator of Gilui arayos, Gezel hazahav "hav hav " kehhanei kalbin dachtzifin aka Avoda zara and shfichat damim All this is what you call spoon and feed, do you fathom? At the rate you're going and still don't see the French connection, I can't blame you, since most likely never heard of math, let alone about common or uncommon denominator, and have no clue about the Torah or how you even eat it, either on Shabbat, kol yemot hashavua or on weekends. Hevanta?

      As for quoting irrelevant psukim from all over the MAP and self proclaimed expert in so doing, no need for ashrei yoshvei etc. You did just fine anywhere from *meHodu vead Kush sheva ve'esrim umah medino, to Chaye Sarah meah shana, ve'esrim shana, vesheva shonim. Should you ask, vechi ma inyan shmita etzel
      har Sinai, the answer my friend is like blowing in the wind "Orve Porach" as in the Midrash plia ma ro'oh Bas Bita shel Sara sheTimloch al sheve ve'esrim umeah medino, so much for mixing the kashe with apples and oranges and 'Cheivas bero Veoifei shemayo'.

      *(No reference to Hodu, ashrei yoshvei, to Kushing the sidur after davening aleinu leshabeach, it is Map and Geography reference only)

      Delete
    14. @ (Asher pihem diber shav October 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM)

      FYI, Weberman raped innocent 12 year old school girls many times over including married women just because he could, he robbed them out of life and simchat hachayim forever and ever, murdered their soul Rachmana Litzlan asher nechtzav mitachat kisse hakavod then blaming it on them, throwing them out from Shul as an outcast, destroying the parents, the Parents parnassa, the whole family and relatives. How dare you? How could you? Haratzachta vegam yorashta? Have you no shame, Have you no decency? And you still have a soft spot for criminals? My friend, you are way over the top. Shfichus damim of sooo... many people is not dvarim shel ma bekach, the pain and suffering the parents of this yiddishe neshama went through is horrendous. I choke with tears and pains my heart every time this subject comes up and thinking about it. Not even 103 life times can wipe away the Agmas nefesh, Chilul hashem this rashe inflicted on ALL of us, let alone the poor little girl, 'Riboine da'alma Kulei'. And you complain about sentences that are too long. Rubashkin has absolutley no similarity to this issue, it is only a travesty to mention his name together with this rashe, ubichvodom al techad et shemo. Neither does Pollard nor Dreyfus, Faltfus, Dufuss or Shtinkfus. No, there is no French connection here, you just try to water down and downplay the magnitude of Weberman's crime against humanity throwing irrelevant names loosley. To highlight your nuances, let me quote you out of your own playbook. Vehagar, Yitzchok, biGrar. Hagar zu Kturo, Yitzchok as vayakimu letzachek, Bigrar as in Gerei arayos.
      Lelot shtei banos, vaasi katov b'eineichem, velo yoda beshichvah uvkuma, vatahareno shtei bnos Lolita me' hav hav avivhen. Now these are what I would call short sentences ;).
      What you call long sentences, are well deserved, not my opinion, tis' the opinon of The Judge, Jury and the people. These are hard facts on the ground, my friend. Guilty as charged.

      And now for the main dish of high priority and relevance @ asher picho diber shav vasheker,
      u said...
      ** "We don't punish bein Adam lamakom. I also haven't heard a Posek who paskened that the kids are mamzerim. Also, If we would punish all those who make mamzerim, we'd have a larger crowd to go after."**

      & I say
      Epstein and Co, have been singled out and put on notice by none other than R'Elyashiv z"l a Posek haDor. As usual, you conveniently haven't seen and haven't heard the Document posted as Exhibits on this very blog. 1) The Prod gitin are INVALID, 2) She remains an Eishes Ish, 3) The children are MAMZERIM deorayso, meuves asher lo yuchal letaken. And NO, these transgressions indeed are bein ish leishto, not only bein odom lemakon. You seem to double up with him to be megaleh panim batorah shelo kehalacha as claimed in R' Elyashiv's letter. Indeed, the long line of mamzerim producers are from here to Paris and kol haolam kulo, as you will soon soon see. They will not spare the ROD, but will shove it up his, in lieu of the electric chair ad sheyomar rotze ani, 'ich vel shoyn zayn gut'!
      This guy should be strung in Time Square in High Noon.
      BTW, you sound just like yosi gestetner wavering back and forth all over the place. Taanu lo bechitim, veHodu lezecher kodsho. Taanotecha taanot hevel, udmei achoteinu zoakim elay min haadamah. And O' Yeah! One more thing, a spokesman you will never be with your blatant lies, shav vasheker, kishmo ken tehilato. Other than that, you are a great sport.
      Enough said!

      Delete
    15. Asher Pihem Diber ShavOctober 31, 2013 at 6:47 AM

      Egel, I read your brilliant nonsense. I love it as humor, but you best not be a Dayan. Weberman had relations with married women ? Didn't know. I thought he was convicted in secular court for having sexual relations with a minor? I may be wrong, but 100 years for such a crime is unheard of. Your other speculation of crimes is hoin mehevel shtusim vehavolim mayim achurim mesnon zona kibtza vad beis hakise mekomo Devarim shelo yeomru amarta. Vamartem zevach Pesach betumah. Vekulam bechad gadya. Al temaher lehotzi deburcha sheata al Ha'aretz velokim bashamayim. Tov Asher lo tedaber, meshidaber Devarim achurim ketzapichis betzoah rotachas.

      As far as your other point. Again it shows your lack of being a dayan. You are paskening from a story you heard. Is there anything in writing from Maran Rav Elyashiv ZT"L ? Or is your psak just mbeten shamata leravcha demilsa, beayno higea lo lehoraah velo lemorah. Lo Klum velo shum Davar. Stam Amarta mishaol basa vead lasof haolam halachta. The answer my son, is blowing in the wind ? Shir hashirim Asher Le ???

      As far as the explanation of 127. The answer is deep and mystical. Only a "Berliner" can understand it's depth. Esther is Hester. Even in the Hester, she was a Malka, of not just a small area, of 127. Hodu to kush, the whole world. Where did she know that the trick of survival Kavu ledoros, like advasa deyama was through Gadlis Haadam of 127 malchus "a gantza velt kuk"
      Sarah, kulam shavim letova avimelech, pichol tishim Shana akedas Yitzchok, megayeres Es hanashim. Kulam letova. "Nuhr MIT Gadlis Haadam " in dehr yirah simcha.

      Delete
    16. kcho lecha Eglo meshuleshes, vaaseh lecho mataamimOctober 31, 2013 at 5:49 PM


      @ Asher Pihem Diber Shav (October 31, 2013 at 6:47 AM)

      My dear, you sound like a wounded dog, barking and cursing all over the place. As the saying goes, "Az der hunt bilt, iz a siman az di shtein hot getzilt'. Tov lishmoa gaaras chacham mishmoa shir ksilim, veyotzo srocha behespedo, ad sheyafiach hayoim venassu hatzlallim. Your shilshul hapeh is rechoi noidef alpayim amah al alpayim amah, veal temaher es picho lachti es besarcho, lomo yiktzof E'lokim vachavoil maase yadecha. *** It is highly convenient to deny, claim ignorance, unheard of, ulemachar kreisah bein shineha. This meatball has been given a choice to do 5 years, but he was an oiberchochem, then had a second chance to plead guilty for ten years in the chad gadya, as umodeh veozev yerucham, but he even outsmarted his own attorney and himself, a meabed ma shenosnin lo. Therefore, they taught him balak and who is tattele, lemaan yishmeu veyirau, mipnei tikun olam. Of course you have never heard such, since it is only a Dayan's term, good riddens. At least you are modeh bemiktzas of deserving two years, and kivyachol with minor girls only. As mentioned in the previous, enough said! And O' yes!, one more thing, "leolam yelamed adam et bno umnat nefiche kaleh venekiye", and that is the answer my son, like blowing in the wind, and must add, you are a champion at that. Asides of marbitz glollim quoting self concoted biblical verses, you sound like a big taanis cholem and a yireshalayim.

      *** Try this
      1) http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-rabbis-tale-of-abuduction-torture.html

      2) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-

      3)pRmu61JqqhI/UlaTTF5zTvI/AAAAAAAANBA/tZSIzJRFQcc/s1600/beating+with+stick.jpg

      and this
      http://mishpattsedek.com/mtwp/get-meoso/jerusalem-rabbinic-court/

      and eat it:
      Jerusalem Rabbinic Court Protests Forced Gittin & Using Non-Jewish Courts

      Delete
    17. אשר פיהם דבר שוא וימינם ימין שקרNovember 1, 2013 at 1:22 AM

      As I said before, you are wrong. As simple as that. Throwing around a few psukim is just ואותי השלכת אחר גויך. You are using justifications to put someone in jail for life, from hearsay. Sounds familiar. Isn't that what Epstein is accused of ? Weberman was offered 5 years ? And got 100. Doesn't that probe my point. Judges have exceptional powers in sentencing.

      חזור בך ואני ואתה ובן ישי נטייל בגן עדן התחתון. דהיינו ללמוד תורתנו הקדושה והטהורה בלי שום נגיעות. פסק הלכה צריך להיות בלי שום שמעתי. ולא ולא ח״ו לישנא בישא. לשון הרע כנגד כולם. לך לך אמרינן לנזיר למדברי שקר ולמוציאי שם רע. חזור בך עגל דירבעם. Don't make new yomin tovim. New halachos. We need to follow the Torah. עץ חיים למחזיקים. חזק ונתחזק בעד עמינו ובעד ערי אלקינו. אוי לאזנים שכך שומעות. להוציא שם רע על אנשים לומר ח״ו שעשו גיטין משום ניאוף. והאם החשוד לקטלפרד, חשוד לניאוף כמו שאמרת.

      הוי לאומרים לרע יותר רע, ולהוציא שם רע על אנשים צדיקים בענין זה. ומי יודע אם הדבורים הרעים האלו יותר גרוע מאכילת חזיר ביום טוב שני.

      עת לחשות ועת לדבר,

      Delete
  5. To use an economic metaphor, it seems to me that when the halachic system is functioning properly, it is in essence an artisanal enterprise, not an industrial one. However, at this point in Jewish life, many aspects of society have become more industrial (the ideal of full time learning for all may be a case in point: it was conceived as a Stakhanovite crash program in response to a terrible crisis, and now, for many, in part because of the massive scale, the chinukh is not l'fi darko. This is not a new problem, nor is solely a halachic one: the Alter Rebbe of Chabad wrote Tanya as a response to the impossibility of his providing direct hands on guidance to more than a few of the fast growing number of Chasidim.)

    Meanwhile, there is a disconnect between the social ideal and the reality on the ground, and people are getting hurt in the gap. In that, Rabbi Fink is correct, and there are certainly husbands who deserve every word of his opprobrium, and not all of them have received justice under halacha.

    Did the criminals Rabbi Fink valorizes satisfy an unmet need and not just unmet but illegitimate wants?

    If so, and given that they look a lot like organized crime and not organized religion, Wikipedia's article on mafias may be a useful warning of what might come if some fundamental change is not made (and I don't know what those changes might be, either.)
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia.)

    The writer seems to see this type of organized crime as symptomatic of a breakdown of society:

    "For many businessmen in Sicily, they provide an essential service when they cannot rely on the police and judiciary to enforce their contracts and protect their properties from thieves (this is often because they are engaged in black market deals). Scholars have observed that many other societies around the world have criminal organizations of their own that provide essentially the same protection service through similar methods."

    Using the case of post-Communist Russia as an example, Misha Glenny's book "McMafia" is then cited:

    "With the [Russian] state in collapse and the security forces overwhelmed and unable to police contract law, cooperating with the criminal culture was the only option [...] most businessmen had to find themselves a reliable krysha [mafia syndicate] under the leadership of an effective vor [boss.]"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yoni anyone who can invalidate each and every 2nd marriage of a machashefa who went to arko'oys as required al pi halocho and make a list of the the unfortunate mamzerim that result is a hero. A woman who went to arko'oys almost inevitably shelo kdin and whose husband was forced to give a get to stop the litigation is not allowed to get remarried as per the kok koreh of the 70 gedolim

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. Fink: That is your response to nine out of ten times you are questioned on your posted views.

      Delete
    2. E. FinkOctober 28, 2013 at 11:42 PM
      My response?

      "lol"


      Well thank you for reading at least, however that is really not a response. Though admittedly I didn't think you would respond. I don't think this is an issue that you really want to debate, especially with those who are conversant in the halakha.

      Delete
    3. That says quite a bit more about the questions and the ones posing them than it does R. Fink

      Delete
    4. Jon,

      A guy who the only response he can muster is to "lol" when presented serious halachic sources that refute virtually everything he said, says a lot about the fellow "lol".

      Delete
    5. Kewl, dood. No credibility.October 30, 2013 at 5:01 AM

      lol? This is what children say in text messages. Why would you even write this?

      Delete
  8. I find it interesting that you wrote "used their positions to do good, by trying to influence these women to work within the bounds of halakha or even to be reconciled to their husbands." What could the women do within the bounds of halakha besides stay unmarried? What you must have meant is to influence the husbands to stay within the bounds of halakha by giving the get, but in a way that did not involve torturing him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The husbands had no obligation to give a get. If they want to stay married that is their legal right. Even if the wife doesn't want to stay married.

      Delete
  9. Rav E. Tauber's recent class on Gittin and forced Gets: http://www.chabadsola.com/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/1066796/jewish/Halacha-Series.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does he support Rabbi Fink's position?

      Delete
    2. For the recording of forced get

      http://www1.clhosting.org/media/av/774/Wcwj7742957.mp3

      Listen at 30 minutes

      Delete
    3. Since "Fink" doesn't say what you attack him for and then delete my pointing out how your diatribe doesn't fit his words, it would seem his "lol" is the only possible response. He calls it "thuggery", not the right thing to do. He calls them "knights in shining armor for these chained women" but not heroes. Thugs whose seeming like saviors to these women shows how desperate they have gotten. But why let his own words, as the post itself quotes them, get in the way of a good attack? He literally says he can't condone violence or thuggery, so you take him to mean he condones their actions???

      Delete
    4. Rabbi Berger none of your comments have been deleted. I double checked the spam folder - there are no comments of yours that have been deteted!

      Regarding rabbis who create posul gittin by torturing the husbands - don't know how you can call them "knights in shining armor" They do present themselves that way and they might even be perceived that way by someone who doesn't understand the halacha. However it is critical to point that out and to condemn them - something which I didn't see in his article.

      If he had clearly condemned them and explained why they were wrong - then there would have not been a problem. However he is not correctly presenting the halacha. Saying that he can't condone violence - simply means he can not praise it - but it surely doesn't come across that he is saying that they are terrible wrong because they are in violation of halacha and are producing an invalid get and have no right to torture anyone or make an incredible chilul hashem.

      His concluding paragraph:http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-opinions/.premium-1.551819

      "That rabbis were inflicting violence is a terrible consequence. But the real villains are the recalcitrant husbands. Let’s not forget that these rabbis were heroes to the chained women. But at the same time, we should not need such complicated heroes. There are preemptive solutions and they must become universally instituted. "

      No where does he point out that ma'os alei is not grounds for divorce. Nowhere does he point out there force - even if legal - can only be used in a limited number of cases. His point is to push for prenuptial agreements - which have been typically rejected in the Chareidi world.

      His point is - look how terrible the situation is that these trapped women are driven to have their husbands tortured and even those this is illegal and I don't condone it I can understand why they pay 100k to have it done by certain rabbis.

      Delete
    5. Micha,

      I'm sorry but he clearly calls them heroes. Complicated heroes, but heroes nonetheless.

      He says clearly, Like our favorite fictional vigilante, they may not be the hero that we want or deserve, but sometimes they are the hero that we need..

      Not the hero we want or deserve but the hero we need... That is clearly calling them heroes. Have you read the comics of "our favorite childhood vigilantes", it would most certainly seem not. While they solve a very juvenile need for justice, even the best of them were borderline sociopaths, and many were straight out psychotics.

      Yet I digress, how are these the heroes that we need? He is not saying the "heroes" that these women "felt" they needed. He is says quite clearly the "heroes WE need." So at the very least he is giving a very garbled message.

      I never said he condoned their actions, however, I did say that his statements are an incitement to more such violence. In fact I find it to be a very typical statement in certain circles. Those that verbally condemn the use of military force, but are happy to have soldiers to send of to do the dying and the killing when they feel the cause merits it, and then make speeches about how horrible violence is and the great and unfortunate sacrifice that these military heroes have gone through looking down on their actions while thanking them for doing them. That is precisely what he is doing here.

      Delete
    6. P.S. I don't delete your comments, this is not my blog.

      Delete
    7. Rabbi Tzaddok hit the relevant point. He switched from so-called "heroes" of the chained women to the pronoun WE, calling them all of our heroes.
      Saying "We shouldn't need such complicated heroes" is an assertion by the author that he views them as complicated heroes of our society and that he wishes we didn't need them, but alas, we do. There is no other way to interpret this, Rabbi Berger. If R Fink perhaps misspoke, maybe he should clarify and edit this misguided sentence rather than taunting with little-kid-chat-speak acronyms. And if he didn't misspeak but truly views them as complicated heroes, how can you defend him?

      Delete
  10. Many many gedolim have already paskened that the get is no get and the children mamzeirim. The vast majority of these cases involve machashefa s in in arko'oys stopping the father seeing the children and demanding money she is not entitled to al ou halocho.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And the biryonim of the rabbanut encourage not only this behavior but stam women who are mordos on their husbands.

    ReplyDelete
  12. tzaddok explain how you can reconcile this article with the rabbanut which jails men while their wives are in arko'oys. ask avi kenig. i am not going away

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simply Stan the Rabbanut is not the monster you want to make it out to be. If it were, you would already be in jail for your identity theft. However, a Rabbanut B"D saw no place to give a heter for me to press criminal charges against you.

      Delete
  13. This is intellectually dishonest. In the recent cases discussed on this blog the husband also wants to be divorced - he just wants money or more money. This has nothing to do with divorce on demand.
    AZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AZ please provide a halachic analysis instead of pronouncing guilt of innocence. You don't seem to understand the underlying halachic issues

      Delete
    2. Is it not true that the case of maus alai means that the wife says that she finds her husband disgusting, and the husband says that he loves his his wife and wants to stay married. In the recent lakewood staten island case which your brother and you are writing about the husband never wrote in his letters that he published that he wants to stay married all he is saying is that he wants a few hundred thousand dollars and more custody and then he will give a get. If instead he would say that he is not giving a get because he wants to move back in with her and live togetherthen that would be a case of maus alai
      Am i not right about the definition of maus alai?
      AZ

      Delete
    3. Many of these men are ready & willing to go on with life without the 'dead-love wife", they are just waiting for the MILLION gold coins to enter their bankroll.

      Delete
    4. If the guy is actually repulsive to her, triggering a reflex of disgust, all agree that a gett may be compelled. The topic of "ma'us alai" is whether her saying "he is gross" is sufficient grounds to compell the gett, or whether we have to be afraid that she's exaggerating for effect, out of hatred / anger, or because she knows the halakhah.

      Presumably he wants to stay married, or else he would simply give her the gett. Nothing about claims of love, though.

      Delete
    5. AZ,

      A husband has the halakhic right to withhold a "Get" until he gets the custodial rights halakha affords him and he gets all the monetary assets and property that halakha affords him.

      If the wife illegitimately takes away his halakhic custodial rights or steals his marital property, using the secular courts for either of those objectives, he has the halkhic right to withhold and decline to divorce her until she returns and rectifies her halakhic violations against him.

      Delete
  14. If a husband refuses to provide his wife with the 3 obligations of food, clothing, and relations, then he is obligated to give his wife a get. In these cases where the husband wants to be divprced but just doesn't want to give a get he is by definition someone who refuses to fulfill his 3 obligations. So he is required to give a get.
    AZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please provide a source that when the wife is a moredes and demands a get because she doesn't "like" him anymore and thus separates from the husband that he is obligated to give her a divorce!

      Delete
    2. I agree that if the husband says that he loves his wife and wants to stay married that he doesn't have to give a get.
      What i am arguing here is that the above is not the scenario of the lakewood staten island divorce that has been discussed on this blog. The husband is not saying that he loves his wife and wants to stay married. If he would say that he wouldn't have to give a get. All he is saying is that he wants money and more custody
      AZ

      Delete
  15. In the cases discussed on this blog neither the husband nor their supporters have ever claimed that the husband wants to stay married. The husband just doesn't want to give a get because of money or custody. This has nothing to do with maus alai, maus alai is when the husband says he wants to stay married. In these cases the husband refuses to live together and be married. He just doesn't want to give a get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AZ you are wrong - please look at the halachic sources instead of giving your own wishful thinking

      Delete
    2. Or ignore them, as you're doing.

      You literally dismiss a plethora of sources ont he ground that "the posqim" don't rely on them, and then show incredible chutzpah by vilifying those posqim who do. You are so far from the right person to say "please look at the halachic sources" on this one. "If Rav Schachter or Rav Willing wrote a teshuva based on her reasoning - it might make a difference if other poskim agreed." my foot! You already called him to task for disagreeing! You know better.You apparently didn't ever listen to his shiur on the subject, either.

      As for equality, that's a red herring. We're talking about one person's ability to make life miserable for another. The issue is not whether or not that ability is symmetric, only how to stop making her life miserable.

      Delete
    3. Micha,

      It is not ignoring the sources it is taking all of them into account in a way that every Teshuva I have come across reads them. See the teshuva by Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu Ma'amar Mordekhai Even HaEzer 2:18, where he specifically says that according to Ashkenazi halakha that we should hold according to the Rema and Rashba, and that though they hold those Gittin B'Diavad, we should not rely on that, and the husband has the right to refuse a divorce when being forced, and to only give a Get that Kosher L'Chatchila.

      Delete
    4. Rabbi Berger your comments are very strange coming from someone who passionately defends Orthodoxy and halacha. Why is it inappropriate to dismiss sources that the poskim don't view as relevant? When you cite the Chacham Tzvi - and I tell you no poskim understand it the way you do and no one cites it - why do you think that I deviating from the time honored way halacha is poskened? What poskim are you talking about? You claim that Rav Schacter does in fact cite this Chacham Tzvi - please show me a single teshuva where it is cited to justify forcing a get in a case of ma'os alei. If in the course of several hundred years not a single posek thought it relevant - why does it suddenly become a building block of halacha? It is not as if this subject has been the estoteric play ground of a few ivory tower theorists. The failure to utilitze this Chacham Tzvi in the way you are claiming show such an understanding has clearly been rejected from practical halachic considerations! Apparently the poskim agree with Rav Tzvi Gartner that the Chacham Tzvi is only applied in a case where the husband loses nothing by giving a get - which is the cases where have been talking about.

      As Rav Sternbuch and others have noted - halacha is determined by poskim offering their views and seeing whether they are accepted. This is especially true in the area of gittin - where it is critical that a get is kosher across the spectrum.

      Delete
    5. Please see Rabbi Fink's original article - link is at the top of this post

      Rabbis who beat men into divorcing their wives: villains or heroes?
      What really stings about rabbis and 'get gangs’ is the story of the agunot who hired them. And that their actions have precedent in Jewish law.

      The FBI arrested two prominent Orthodox Jewish rabbis and two of their associates overnight Wednesday in New York. Allegedly, these rabbis arranged back-alley beatings for men who refuse to divorce their wives. Understanding their alleged crimes requires a short background in Jewish Law.

      Jewish law recognizes that some marriages may end in divorce, and includes provisions for how it should be done. In order to divorce in Jewish Law, the husband, who accepted the responsibilities of marriage and the financial obligations of divorce at the wedding ceremony, must formally end the marriage with a divorce document, a “get.” This document must be given by the husband to the wife.

      Most divorces go smoothly with the parties in full cooperation. The husband gives the get and all ties are severed. However, there is a significant number of cases in which a recalcitrant husband refuses to give the get. It can be for financial reasons, it can be for vindictive reasons, and it can be simply because the husband is holding out hope for reconciliation. Whatever the reason, when a husband does not give his wife a get, she is chained to him and cannot remarry under Jewish law. We call this woman an agunah.

      Few things play at the heartstrings in a more profound way than the agunah. The woman is a double victim. She is a victim of an arcane, one-sided system of dissolving a marriage and she is a victim of a husband who is taking advantage of that system.

      A woman can become desperate for her get. It can begin to consume her life. Protests and social pressure might help, but sometimes the recalcitrant husband digs in his heels.

      In extreme cases, the woman in these dire straits would call the two rabbis who were arrested on Wednesday evening. For a fee, the FBI describes, these rabbis would make the husband “an offer he couldn’t refuse.” Allegedly, the rabbis’ thugs would physically coerce deadbeat husbands to give their desperate wives a get. Using props more familiar to mob films and torture scenes, the FBI complaint describes, the thugs would beat husbands until they actually handed over a signed get. Perhaps most shocking of all is that their actions, according to the complaint, were sanctioned by a rabbinical court.

      It’s a clumsy solution, but it has precedent in Jewish law. It has its roots in the Talmud and is explicitly codified by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Divorce 2:20).

      Delete
    6. part 2


      Rabbi Joseph Telushkin explains the precedent well in his book "Jewish Wisdom" (Ch 22):

      “Because the Rabbis were conscious of the inherent unfairness in divorce laws, over the centuries they established new laws to protect women. The tenth-century Rabbi Gershom, who also issued a decree against polygamy, legislated that it was illegal to divorce a woman against her will, a law that has remained in effect since. During the twelfth century, Maimonides ruled that if a man refused to grant a divorce to a woman who was entitled to it, he was to be whipped without mercy until he did so (Mishneh Torah, "Laws of Divorce," 2:20). The legal precedent for his ruling was the talmudic law, "If a man refused to give a woman a divorce, he is forced until he declares "I am willing” (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 50a). That Maimonides was willing to accept as voluntary a statement elicited by whipping indicates how anxious he was to assist a woman who was being mistreated”

      However, in the United States this kind of activity is illegal, and the public is painting these rabbis as villains.

      It’s not so simple. In the ugly mess of the agunah crisis, these rabbis could be a woman’s only hope. While I can’t condone violence and while I can’t support thuggery, we must see these rabbis for what they are. They are knights in shining armor for these chained women. Like our favorite fictional vigilante, they may not be the hero that we want or deserve, but sometimes they are the hero that we need.

      Disgusted might not adequately describe our feeling over the allegations of violence and mafia-like tactics toward recalcitrant husbands, but these rabbis were heroes to women left with no options.

      There is no doubt that these arrests will serve as another wake-up call to the Orthodox Jewish community. The agunah crisis must be solved.

      One solution for preventing an agunah crisis is the “Halakhic Prenup.” This is available and comes recommended by foremost rabbinic authorities. The prenuptial agreement triggers a daily fine of $150 if a husband withholds a get. It’s not a very elegant solution, but it works. The Halakhic Prenup is gaining traction and hopefully our discomfort with violent solutions will push more rabbis to insist on it at every wedding they officiate.

      Perhaps there is also an alternative solution: a conditional get that triggers after an agreed upon event. There are halakhic nuances that would be required to make it work, but I believe there is a way. Perhaps all Orthodox Jewish marriages should include a conditional get that triggers with a specific future event. If the husband refuses to give a new get during subsequent divorce proceedings, the conditional get takes effect. I think it’s at least an option worth exploring.

      Until such time that all Orthodox Jewish marriages are subject to the Halakhic Prenup or some other preemptive solution we will have an agunah issue. That it came to violence in the most recently reported case is a very sad commentary on what it feels like to be an agunah.

      That rabbis were inflicting violence is a terrible consequence. But the real villains are the recalcitrant husbands. Let’s not forget that these rabbis were heroes to the chained women. But at the same time, we should not need such complicated heroes. There are preemptive solutions and they must become universally instituted.

      Delete
    7. @Berger - "only how to stop making her life miserable" - Since the wife decides what makes her "miserable", there are no longer any objective Torah justice or values in divorce matters. It then follows that halakhah or Torah justice or the father's misery or children having a father in their lives or preventing the wife from destroying the father in civil courts, are all issues that don't really matter any more.

      The only thing that matters in YU / ORA / MO hashkafa is alleviating the wife's alleged misery by pressuring the husband to accept all her demands, regardless of their halachic legitimacy.

      Cited from a letter issued by Rav Gestetner's Bais Din:
      “… the “ORA” group – shamefully known for their disgraceful actions against the Torah ...to whom many False and invalid GITTIN could be credited – which is causing the sin of ESHES EISH and ARAYOS to be allowed, as well as MAMZERIM B’MACHANEINU ....They (ORA) are following the crooked way of the Reform movement, as if in every conflict between husband and wife – the wife has to have the upper hand – to be able to force him to give a GET while depriving him of his rights, as well as in every detail of the conflict she has to have it all according to her wishes. And a husband who is willing to give his wife a GET, but insists on his basic human and halachic rights, is immediately being overwhelmed and publicized falsely as a (disobedient person) and is being shamed, humiliated and embarrassed as though he is a SARBAN (chaining) his wife, while quite the contrary, whereby the wife would only want a GET in a way that deprives her husband of his rights, it is only the wife that is chaining herself rather than the husband chaining her.”

      Delete
    8. Your reasoning is circular. You dimissed -- with extreme chutzpah -- the opinion of a poseiq because he relies on a shitah you feel the posqim find irrelevant. For that matter, you ignore the Ritva, the Rosh, the Rama, the Tzitz Eliezer... The TE (4:21) in turn had his list of sources -- including Rashi, Ri and the Rashbam.

      You also conflate the Rama, who prohibits kefiyah but allows protesting and also holds bedi'eved the gett would be kosher with the opinion you're supporting.

      Quoting batei din that have a history of using polemic rhetoric and guzma in what is pretending to be a level-headed pesaq (see your "Chareidi Implosion" series) isn't really going to do it for me. Stick to actual shu"t.

      Delete
    9. BTW, another proof you decided to villify REF before digesting what he actually said: "Until such time that all Orthodox Jewish marriages are subject to the Halakhic Prenup or some other preemptive solution we will have an agunah issue. That it came to violence in the most recently reported case is a very sad commentary on what it feels like to be an agunah."

      Sad commentary means turning them into heroes?

      Delete
    10. Micha,

      We don't have an Agunah issue. These women do not fit the definition of an Agunah. An Agunah, the real thing, is a woman who's husband either deserted her or disappeared.

      Post 9/11 there may have been some actual Agunot, women who's husbands tragically died in the terrorist attacks but for whom remains were never found to thereby prove their death. Those are Agunot. Women who run off on their husbands for whatever reason, whether it is מאיס עלי עם אמתלה or not, are not Agunot.

      We could just as easily call Feminism a crisis. We went from an equal reporting of divorce between men and women in the 19th century to an increasingly unbalanced situation so that by the end of the 20th century 75% of all divorces filed in the US were done so by women, the statistic is even worse amongst the college educated, 90%.

      Honestly, and I know this is a bit of an absurdity, we could say that if Fink or any others who are puffing up this fake Agunah Crisis were serious about implementing a situation that would pre-emptively reduce the number of women left without a Get, they could just bar them from higher education. Shut down Stern, do not perform weddings for any women who have gotten a University education... ect... that would instantly cause a 15% decrease. That would be a good thing right?

      Or maybe they should start to examine what it is about the culture in the US, including the US Jewish community, that raises women to be disproportionately dissatisfied with their marriages.

      Sad commentary means turning them into heroes?
      Or sad commentary that we have to resort to violence... Again the same thing can be said about war... The US invading Afghanistan is also a sad commentary of several contributing factors, all of which theoretically could have been prevented, however does that make the war any less just or the sailors who ultimately ended Osama Bin Laden any less heroes? No. Same here, while the situation is a sad commentary that doesn't make those who are willing to take action and have done so any less heroes in Fink's book. They were tragic and complicated heroes apparently, who like his favorite childhood vigilante were forced by the pressures of the hour to violate the law... blah, blah, blah.

      Fink sees criminals as heroes. He sees men who took money to torture a man(who didn't even exist) without ever hearing his side of the story as knights in shining armor, not the heroes we deserve but the heroes that we need(BTW a reference to Batman, quoted directly, though without attribution, from "The Dark Knight"[thank you google]). Perhaps if Fink would spend less time watching vigilante movies and more time studying Sefarim it wouldn't be a blood fest when critiquing his writing.

      Delete
    11. Rabbi Berger wrote: "Your reasoning is circular. You dimissed -- with extreme chutzpah -- the opinion of a poseiq because he relies on a shitah you feel the posqim find irrelevant. For that matter, you ignore the Ritva, the Rosh, the Rama, the Tzitz Eliezer... The TE (4:21) in turn had his list of sources -- including Rashi, Ri and the Rashbam."

      I would suggest you reread the Tzitz Eliezer - he is not in agreement with your position. In fact your views are not in accord with normative halacha. Contrary to your claims - I am not ignoring the sources.

      You simply are lashing out blindly - this is not the first reiteration of this issue and you have in general misunderstood the sources as they are clearly presented in the poskim - including the Tzitz Eliezar.

      The issue for you is primarily what you perceive as defending the kavod of Rav Schachter.

      Your rage is not a substitute for clear proofs from poskim.

      Bottom line a claim of get me'usa is not justification for a forced get. If there is an objective basis for her repulsion than there are poskim who allow pressure such as that of Rabbeinu Tam. Baseball bats or cattle prods are not allowed.

      Delete
    12. @Daas Torah - "defending the kavod of Rav Schachter" - Now you're penetrating the fog of war by throwing light on an essential factor in this dispute. The ORA / YU / MO crowd has bet all their cards on their one "gadol", Herschel Schachter, who is being increasingly lambasted in the non-MO world for egregious halachic violations committed by the ORA organization ( the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot ) that he leads.

      I have spoken to various men who were victimized by the YU ORA organization. These men described their ORA persecutors as basically ignorant, irrational fanatics who do not even understand the most basic concepts of Torah law. For example, some ORA activists allegedly accused an engaged, single Jewish lady of planning to commit adultery, because she planned to marry a Jewish man who had received a HETER MEAH RABBANIM!

      Many of the ORA supporters may now become completely irrational and unraveled by the simple suggestion that their "gadol" Herschel Schachter has led them very far astray from Torah true values.

      http://rabbischachter.blogspot.com/

      Delete
  16. The previous comment was from me
    AZ

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daas Torah,
    You yourself wrote that the husband is allowed to agree when they get married to increase the kesubah to any amount - for example a million dollars. In the days of the gemarah a 2,000 dollar kesubah was enough based on the structure of society. In our generation we have a moral obligation to increase the kesubah to 50% of assets - and the halacha allows us to do that at the time of marriage. So when people insist on just a 2,000 dollar kesubah don't let them hide behind their misinterpretation of the torah.
    AZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AZ you are totally wrong. You can't retroactively declare at the time of divorce that the husband is obligated. The husband has to agree in advance

      Delete
    2. I didn't mean retroactive. I meant going forward by every wedding the Roshei Yeshiva should insist that the kesubah should be written stating that 50% of the assets go to the wife. Are you in favor of this proposal?
      AZ

      Delete
    3. AZ,

      You could not be more incorrect. First of all, as a practical matter, the Kesuba's today do NOT award the wife 50% of assets. Nor should they. Second of all, there is no reason to follow the new age non-Jewish custom, which was implemented in recent decades, of giving the wife 50% of the husbands marital assets. And they are the husbands. In Jewish Law ALL marital assets, property and moneys belong to and are the property of the husband. The only exception are assets the wife owned prior to marriage. Once married, even income earned by the wife during the marriage belong to her husband. And she cannot spend any money, including her income, unless her husband allows it. This is Jewish Law.

      Delete
  18. "Simply Stan the Rabbanut is not the monster you want to make it out to be. If it were, you would already be in jail for your identity theft. However, a Rabbanut B"D saw no place to give a heter for me to press criminal charges against you."

    tzaddok are you threatening me? Exactly whose identity did I steal? I think this post of yours shows exactly who and what you are...

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Simply Stan the Rabbanut is not the monster you want to make it out to be. If it were, you would already be in jail for your identity theft. However, a Rabbanut B"D saw no place to give a heter for me to press criminal charges against you."

    Let's face it tzaddok this is the 2nd time you have threatened someone on this blog. you have previously wished violence on stan despite denying it. I am extremely surprised that the blog owner even published this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan,

      You see threats where there are none. I will not go to arkaot without a valid heter from B"D. B"D denied such a heter. Therefore there is no threat. However, no matter how many times you change your anonymous screen name we know who you are. You committed identity theft, and thus are a criminal. That you are Jewish, prevents me from prosecuting you for your identity theft. However, people should know about your felonious deeds as I have pointed out previously on this post so that they know the sort of individual making the post.
      I have already enumerated your deeds and offered a small portion of my overall evidence in the comment section on this blog.

      Let's face it tzaddok this is the 2nd time you have threatened someone on this blog. you have previously wished violence on stan despite denying it.
      Another complete and utter lie of your's Stan... really this is getting tiresome. Now if you have nothing of value to contribute please move on.

      Delete
  20. "Simply Stan the Rabbanut is not the monster you want to make it out to be. If it were, you would already be in jail for your identity theft. However, a Rabbanut B"D saw no place to give a heter for me to press criminal charges against you."

    to the owner of this blog. you can choose not to post this but the fact that you allow tzadok to continue posting on this blog when he has been shown to repeatedly lie and then to reward him with a guest post says much about who you are as well. how do you associate with tzaddok a complete an utter liar. my allegations against the rabbanut are not new. many, many people know what i am saying is the truth about them forcing gittin and yet you allow this thug to make claims otherwise. please already, tzaddok is a complete fraud and charlatan that is the bottom line, he has made several claims on this blog which are utter lies. i am utterly disgusted. this is no longer about gittin but about your integrity FT. men who have had gittin forced on them, thrown in jail by the rabbanut are victims and you let tzaddok lie on your web site. disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  21. what about the childrenOctober 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM

    Rabbi Berger,
    "As for equality, that's a red herring. We're talking about one person's ability to make life miserable for another. The issue is not whether or not that ability is symmetric, only how to stop making her life miserable."
    If the issue is "one person's ability to make life miserable for another" why do you advocate unilateral no-fault divorce, which is extremely detrimental and miserable for children? Or are the children completely irrelevant? It is rare that children are better off with divorce. But children are generally better off in divorce only when the marriage itself was abusive and one spouse actually has cause for divorce. Allowing either spouse to unilaterally destroy a family without cause allows that spouse to make life miserable for the children. And no, a spouse can't be forced to physically stay in a marriage. But the knowledge that a unilateral divorce without cause (typically on terms that are extremely favorable to the spouse intitating the divorce and extremely unfavorable to the other spouse) is not readily available would encourage parents to work on their marriages instead of just walking out, and causing severe harm to the children.
    And it is almost certainly not a coincidence that the majority of divorces are intitiated by women and that women often are given physical custody of the children.

    ReplyDelete
  22. HEROES is the word of debate.

    Who are 'heroes'? When physical force is used is the term HERO deleted? Physical brute L'shem shamayim for Kvod Harav is that heroic? for the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel and Shabbos is that heroic? for election results is that heroic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was lshem mammon. And it caused mamzeirus.

      Delete
  23. Rabbi Tzadok,
    It is good that it seems that you are starting to recozgnize the reality in some of these case. I seems that you owe Rabbis Eidensohn a very big apology.
    From Rabbi Tzadok's blog:
    Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn on his blog posted a harrowing tale of assault and attempted abduction against Aharon Friedman in a supposed attempt to force him to give his wife a Get. Nevermind that such a Get would be worthless. Nevermind that there is a Lakewood couple already sitting in jail for trying this in another divorce case. So goes the tale, of course by an anonymous guest poster. The tale was then backed up by Daniel Eidensohn’s brother, Dovid Eidensohn who assured us all that this was so severe that even the FBI was getting involved. We were told that this was a conspiracy involving the Tamar Epstein’s family, Rabbi Herschel Schachter and quite possibly a few Philadelphia Rabbis.

    This story piqued my interest. It would have been horrible, if true. The problem is, IT’S ALL A LIE!!! Before I get too wound up on this, let me start the chain of events that unraveled this for me. The first red flag was the insistance that the FBI was investigating this. Believe or not the FBI does not jump to investigate every crime that happens across the US. Considering the FBI only employees 35,000 people to police the entire US(NYPD have 34,500 uniformed officers for just one city, as a comparison) they don’t have the resources to track down every assault and attempted abduction. Further it falls outside of their stated purview and jurisdiction. Someone had stated that since he was a Federal Government employee that would put it inside their jurisdiction. However, that is not the case. If he has a high enough G rating(on a scale of 1-20, the the President being 20) he may rate a Secret Service investigation, however, he has to fall into the category of national leader(i.e. a high G rating, over 10, and some assistants are only G-5′s, Monica Lewinksy for instance was a G-6).

    Second, it didn’t make any of the local Lower Merion(where the crime is supposed to have happened) news. The Mainline Media News(primary online news outlet for that area) has nothing about it. Likewise the Save Ardmore Coalition, which also reports on events that they view to be a threat to the Mainline way of life has nothing about it(though they do discuss a person being verbally accosted by a dumpster diver).

    However, having learned my lesson of solely trusting news outlets, I went to the source(no not the Friedman or Epstein families). I called the Lower Merion Police Department(610.649.1000) and spoke with Public Relations Officer Walsh, from whom I got an official statement, “We have no reports of any assualt, attempted assualt or attempted abduction on the specified day, nor in relation to a Mr. Aharon Friedman. The FBI is not currently conduction an investigation in that direction in Lower Merion.”

    So I have to ask, is this Daat Torah? I could appreciate, that a person may be mislead by the media(I have) and thus post a false report based on such an article(I have), but I hope that even in that case one would post a retraction. In this case, we have an anonymous guest post. Yes I have kept Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn up to date on my hunt for the truth, including the denial from the Police Department. I cannot, and will not speculate as to his motivations for continuing to keep this post up, and refusing to apologize for it’s error. So I all that is left to say is, “Rabbi Eidensohn shame on you.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First thanks for visiting my blog. Second Stan, please stop with the sock puppetry, it is also a form of lying. Finally and most importantly, if you are going to quote something I said, or part of a story, please be so kind as to report the entire thing, so that people may get the full picture. Such as this second post that followed the next day after a more detailed conversation with officer Walsh.

      If, at some point, suspects are actually either identified or arrested, rest assured I will post on that as well. However, I stand by my initial statement that much of what was found in the original post is nothing more than speculation dressed up as fact.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Rabbi Tzadok, Whether think again is a sock puppeteer or not, that doesn't take away from some of the points he has mentioned. In light of the recent sting from the FBI. The friedman incident seems like another one of Epstein/wolmark hit jobs. What is of greater concern is that one of those arrested in the sting was a signator on the "seruv" issued against Mr Friedman. To me and the average reader this does not seem to be mere speculation dressed up as fact. On the contrary this is deeply troubling and one should not discount due to the lack of concrete evidence in the friedman case that it did not occur. It took twenty years to get Epstein/Wolmark. It is quite obvious that Epstein and gang are pros and know how to get rid of evidence. Epstein openly admits on tape "no marks". One would have to be a fool not to see that it very likely this was one Wolmarks "referals" to Epstein and crew.
      While you and I may not agree with Rabbi Eidensohn on some issues. This one he was right on target.

      Delete
    3. David,

      I will agree with you that now there does seem to be a bit more of a firm connection. However, at the time it happened no one knew that the FBI would be arresting Wolmark, Epstein and Co. We were told that it was part of an ongoing FBI investigation. However, the US Attorney when he presented the case in Trenton after the arrests said that it had recently been brought to his attention that a Congressional Aid had been assualted and that might be related. If the FBI were investigating a year ago, it wouldn't have just now, after the arrests, been brought to the attention of US Attorney.
      Second point, we were told then that it was clearly Tamar that hired the thugs. I'm sorry to say, but that is still pure speculation. Though now that Wolmark and Epstein have been arrested and the US Attorney thinks they might be related, I'm sure we will soon find out. These guys were charging $70k plus per hit. You don't move that kind of money and not leave a trail. That is what they have Forensic Accountants for.
      We'll just have to wait and see.

      Delete
    4. Rabbi Tzadok,
      The prosecutor didn't say when the case had been brought to his attention. Why do you still think it so far-fetched to think that this had been brought to the attention of Federal law enforcement when the attack took place? Your claim that you knew that the FBI wasn't looking into the case because you called them and asked is patently absurd on its face.

      ------------------
      During the defendants’ appearance in Trenton federal court, prosecutor Joe Gribko called them all “a strong danger to the community.”
      “I have been in touch with a husband who believes he’s been targeted and had a tracking device in his car. And another is a US congressional staffer who was assaulted by a minivan full of men,” he said.
      http://nypost.com/2013/10/10/rabbis-busted-in-alleged-husband-torture-plot/

      Delete
    5. Rabbi Tzadok,
      "Second point, we were told then that it was clearly Tamar that hired the thugs."
      Where did he guest post claim that it was "clearly Tamar that hired the thugs"?

      http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/08/aharon-friedman-assaulted-in-wifes.html

      Delete
    6. Rabbi Tzadok,
      I find many of your posts on other issues insightful and well written. However, your response is puzzling. It could very well be as I stated before that there was not enough concrete evidence. Without that, it is quite possible that the information from the FBI was not related to the US Attorney until after the sting operation. It does not mean at that point in time it was not actively investigated. In order for a US attorney to make his case he needs real evidence not circumstantial.
      Once the evidence is compiled.. I don't even want to think of what could possibly come out.
      As for stating that Tamar Hiring the thugs is mere speculation? Being that a serious amount of money was involved to hire these guys, more than ever the spotlight is now shining on Tamar. Her family definitely has the means to carry this out since they are very wealthy. Who else would spend such a huge amount of money to have friedman beaten up? Additionally, had this attack occurred in an inner city ghetto I might be inclined to believe it was a random attack but an attack in an upper class community with a very low crime rate on block where the houses are far apart from each other and not heavily populated. (This seems almost as good as a place for a crime of this nature to take place i.e. an abandoned industrial area as was the case in sting).
      What probably happened was that it was tisha bav so both friedman and the attackers were in a weakend state. They probably intended to knock him out before he had a chance to scream. When they failed and he started screaming they probably realized they botched the kidnapping attempt and ran off since it was broad daylight.
      Before hearing how Epstein/wolmark operated who could believe such stories? The truth is had Wolmark not been involved I probably would have been agreeing with your original take on this. But being that Wolmark is the signator and the controversy on how the seruv was issued along with all of the other controversies following this case, it does not look to good for Tamar and her family.

      The point I am trying to make you were clearly accusing Rabbi Eidensohn of perpetuating a falsehood. I have been following his blog for quite some time and I have so far not once found his or his brothers postings untrue. Both you and I may not agree with all of his shitos but a liar he is definitely not. I do think you owe him an apology.

      Delete
    7. As for stating that Tamar Hiring the thugs is mere speculation? Being that a serious amount of money was involved to hire these guys, more than ever the spotlight is now shining on Tamar. Her family definitely has the means to carry this out since they are very wealthy. Who else would spend such a huge amount of money to have friedman beaten up?
      Again that is, at this point pure speculation. It just as well could have been some bored Philadelphia Yeshiva students who decided to take measures into their own hands. Or it could have been the local crime. Either organized or not. He is a Congressman's Aid after all. Or it could have been a bunch of anti-semites from St. Joe's, it is at the end of the block after all.

      Additionally, had this attack occurred in an inner city ghetto I might be inclined to believe it was a random attack but an attack in an upper class community with a very low crime rate on block where the houses are far apart from each other and not heavily populated.
      What?!?!?!?! First you obviously have never lived there. Lower Merion is essentially a town that for Tax purposes has refused to be annexed by the City(Philadelphia). They live on Upland Terrace. They are by St. Joe's, you know the Catholic Seminary that had to install barbed wire fences to keep their students safe from local crime. Two blocks from City Line drive in what is really a bad neighborhood for crime. 30+ yrs ago when they moved there, it was the center of Jewish life in that part of Philadelphia. However, not so much anymore. Even back in the 90's when Rendell was the Mayor and crime was at an all time low in Philadelphia and it's suburbs, there were gang fights in the area and for a Jew the streets were not always safe to walk alone(or even in pairs).

      I do think you owe him an apology.
      He is an adult and we comunicate regularly, if he feels I do, he can tell me and we will settle it between us thank you.

      Delete
    8. The Epstein property is in a secluded area about a mile from City Line/ Route 1. It is most definitively not a high crime area.
      And how do you think anyone would have known that Friedman was going to be at the Epstein property at that particular time?
      The idea that the attack was a random crime is preposterous. The US Attorney's Office certainly doesn't think so.

      Delete
    9. A mile? Try two blocks, no more than 200 meters. It is hardly a secluded area.

      And how do you think anyone would have known that Friedman was going to be at the Epstein property at that particular time?
      This very question presuposes that he was the prechosen target. Without suspects, arrests or anything else that is impossible to know. It could have been the local skin heads cruising the Jewish neighborhood waiting to find a lone Jew to beat up. Wouldn't be a first. The Neo-Nazi's marched right through that neighborhood all decked out in their hitler gear and white sheets 13yrs back on Yom Kippur.

      The US Attorney's Office certainly doesn't think so.
      Actually the US Attorney said the husbands believed they were targeted. Of course he is going to look for a connection, but that doesn't mean that there is one, nor does it mean that he necessarily believes that there is one. Further, while all of this is well and good now, a year ago it was simple speculation.

      Delete
    10. If you look on google maps, the distance is a mile.
      Skinhead attack? That is pretty desparately grasping for straws. Why stop there? Maybe it was al-Queda or Japanese Red Army? Or maybe it was a reincarnation of Che Guevara?
      The US Attorney's office would not have mentioned the case unless they thought it was connected. That is not to say there is absolute proof of who organized the attack, but the likelihood of what happened is pretty strong.

      Delete
    11. If you look on google maps, the distance is a mile.
      Only if you don't know how to read a map.
      Walking directions from Google Maps:
      Walking directions to City Ave 3D

      Upland Terrace
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      1. Head southeast on Maple Ave toward Edgehill Rd
      0.2 mi
      2. Turn left onto City Ave
      Destination will be on the left
      39 ft
      City Ave

      That is just over two tenths of a mile. Like I said about 200meters.

      Skinhead attack? That is pretty desparately grasping for straws. Why stop there? Maybe it was al-Queda or Japanese Red Army? Or maybe it was a reincarnation of Che Guevara?
      Have you ever lived in the community? I have. Pennsylvania in general has the highest percentage of any state for white supremacists. There's a Skinhead bar about a half mile from their house... Could keep going with this, but again it is speculation.

      The US Attorney's office would not have mentioned the case unless they thought it was connected. That is not to say there is absolute proof of who organized the attack, but the likelihood of what happened is pretty strong.
      Sure he would have. He arguing at a bond hearing before a judge. It is his job to bring up every possibility, no matter how remote, that they are looking that might be related.

      The point that you are still clearly missing, is that everything that I wrote concerning that post being a bunch of speculation dressed up as fact, was before there was any arrest and when the Police spokesman was on record as saying that the blog post was pretty hysterical. No I don't feel bad for saying it was hysterical when the police who were investigating the case were saying that the blog post was hysterical.

      Delete
    12. The attack did not take place at Upland Terrace. Whatever source you are relying upon is very wrong.

      Delete
    13. The attack did not take place at Upland Terrace. Whatever source you are relying upon is very wrong.
      Well yes the police report says the attack happened on Linden Lane, HOWEVER the Blog post says that the attack happened at Cheryl Epstein's house, she lives on Upland Terrace.

      So did the attack happen at Cheryl Epstein's house or not?

      Delete
    14. http://www.chaseplanet.us/yiml/updates/5768/mishpatim.pdf

      Lists the Epstein residence at Linden Lane. This is gettng more and more absurd.

      Delete
    15. @Think again - Yes, discussions with Tzadok can often get quite absurd for blog posters seeking the truth instead of Tzadok's obfuscations.

      Tzadok's continual trolling, obfuscation, and disinformation campaigns only seem to benefit the Rah-banut, "Orthodox" feminists, ORA, Shas, and women whose GITTIN are PASUL by normative halachic standards.

      So the question remains: Who is Tzadok really working for?

      Delete
  24. Now that we seem to know the dimensions of the problems on all sides, what is the path to a solution that the Orthodox world can accept? In America or in chutz la'aretz in general, is anarchy all we can hope for?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rabbi Tzadok,

    During the defendants’ appearance in Trenton federal court, prosecutor Joe Gribko called them all “a strong danger to the community.”
    “I have been in touch with a husband who believes he’s been targeted and had a tracking device in his car. And another is a US congressional staffer who was assaulted by a minivan full of men,” he said.
    http://nypost.com/2013/10/10/rabbis-busted-in-alleged-husband-torture-plot/

    Are you serious in continuing to claim that the attack against Friedman probably never happened? Do you think the assistant US Attorney is making this up? Is the US Attorney's Office really Stan in disguise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you serious in continuing to claim that the attack against Friedman probably never happened?
      Where did I say that? I said that we were being offered speculation as though it were fact. Nothing has changed about that. There is an alleged attack for which there is still no suspects, and have been no arrests. Please note that Officer Walsh called the blog post hysterical.

      You asked:
      Where did he guest post claim that it was "clearly Tamar that hired the thugs"?

      Apparently you didn't read the guest post carefully enough, so let me try to help you:
      This vicious assault appears to be a continuation of the Epsteins’ ongoing efforts to prevent the child from having a relationship with her loving and dedicated father

      Clearly stating that Tamar Epstein orchestrated said event. That is, as yet, unsubstantiated. It is speculation that was being passed off as fact. Fortunately we will now soon find out if she did or didn't. Like I said, $70k is not an amount of money that you can move around without leaving a trail.



      Delete
    2. The post does not claim definitinely who orchastrated the attack. The post said APPEARS, not CLEARLY.

      Delete
    3. It should be noted that in addition to the Wolmark connection - The seruv against Friedman was issued by Ralbags Bias Din and had Belsky also as a signer - both of whom were named in the lawsuit brought by Rubin in the late 90's alleging that they were responsible for his abduction and beating.
      It should also be noted that one of the arrested was Sholam Shuchat - who according to his LinkedIn page is a judge in Ralbags Bias Din.
      As Tzadok said nothing has been proven yet - but it does look kinda suspicious as to which Bias Din the Epstens went to after they didn't get their way in the Baltimore Bais Din.

      Delete
    4. More explanation of the actions of Rabbis Belsky and Ralbag in the case of Rabbi Rubin and Chaya Mund-Rubin-Chinn.

      J21yur 758 [May 8, '98]
      L'kovod M.oreinu V'rabeinu ...Harav Hagaon Reb YosefSholom Eliashiv Shlita,
      Regarding the Gel received by Chaya Rubin nee Mund of Montreal from her husband Avraharn Rubin of Brooklyn by
      force. I was a participant on this beth din jointly with Rabbi Israel Belsky, Aryeh Ralbag,... Subsequently I resigned
      from the beth din... being convinced that there is no Halachic basis to exercise force, and the Gel which was arranged by
      force is a coerced Gel and Mrs. Chaya Rubin is forbidden to remarry ... To my great astonishment, I received by mail a
      Psakwritten by Ralbag, and was requested to sign it permitting coercion [of the husband). I earnestly studied Ralbag's
      Psak and found it worthless ... IIIsummary, the decision ofRalbag has no basis and may not be relied upon... The woman
      may not remarry.
      Regarding the response sent by Rabbi Belsky in defense of the decision to compel [a Gel], 1was shocked to read this
      response which contains altered facts, false testimony, and expressions of his personal imagination. The truth must be
      reported that Rabbi Belsky forged all the facts and testimony ... Rabbi Belsky's imagination lead him to fabricate a
      decision on matters that never occurred ... need I go on?
      I have fixed my signature in Honor of the Torah with respect and admiration.
      E/iynllu Pesnell Rominek
      [Former Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Chaim Berlin]

      http://lukeford.net/Images/photos/belsky.pdf

      Delete
    5. Rabbi Tzadok,
      I am shocked at your response. For starters, Are you suggesting that students from R' Shmuel Kaminetsky would do such a thing? How could you throw out such a crazy idea like that without any proof? For arguments sake Let us say your theory is correct and it was talmidim of Reb Shmuel. It still would be impossible for this to take place with out Tamar or her family informing them of Mr Friedman's whereabouts . Remember Mr Friedman lives a couple of hours away and does not even live in that state. The only people in Philadelphia who would know of his comings and goings would be the Epsteins.

      I happen to be familiar with that area and they live on a well to do block and it is a very quiet area. (perfect place for a staged attack like a warehouse). Thank you for the history lesson but we are talking about the year 2112-13. The fact is that block is generally a low crime area. Maybe a mile or two away things might be a little bit different but you could say the same about Boro Park and sunset park etc.

      As for owing R' Eidensohn an apology you will have to take it up with the Shulchan Aruch. In a public forum as the internet the whole world is witnessing your conversation with him. B'rabim you accused him of perpetuating a falsehood for the whole world to see. You almost got me to believe your opinion on the matter. Whether it was before the arrest took place or after R' Eidensohn has a chezkas kashrus of being honest and he is not the type of a person who would post reckless information. I do believe he does due diligence in his reporting and looks into the matter before putting it out.
      For the past 3 years he has been posting about serious problems with this case and in general the problems with get meusa. As you can see his stories were pretty accurate. Before the arrest of Wolmark you claimed there was a just seruv on Friedman and that there was a right Halachcaly to treat him as one who is in nidui. Rabbi Eidensohn questioned the validity of the seruv long ago and was right on target which you riducled everyone who was saying the same. For as we see now the seruv is worthless.

      Also, please do not excuse yourself of what you thought at the time based of your wife's conversation with officer Walsh.. It doesn't take a genius to figure out if there was high profile FBI investigation into the matter that he would be confirming that with some silly unknown blogger 6000 miles away. (no offense). Unless you knew for a fact at the time Rabbi Eidensohns sources were unreliable, you had no right to claim brabim he was spreading falsehood. His sources were obviously onto something because the signator of Friedmans seruv was in fact arrested by the FBI. In truth we may never get down to the bottom of what happened but based on the series of events with the Friedman case and the nastiness of false seruv, ora, rabbi shachter etc. It seems more than likely that The epsteins were involved with this.

      I digress, back to what what I am trying to get at ,is that I do believe the responsibility falls on you to be more careful with your posts especially since you carry the title of a rav. There is enough chillul Hashem out there already please don't add to it. Remember the whole world can see what you write. If in your posts you come across as ranting and reckless it is a big problem, because you are supposed to be of the better. Wishing you the best and Shalom al yisrael.

      Delete
  26. It us beyond my comprehension that tzaddok is allowed to threaten someone on your blog, make false allegations of criminality, claim identity theft and you permit them to continue blogging. Despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Tzadok - "Equality is not a Torah value". You have raised an important issue here.

    Yes, there is gross inequality in Torah law, for example:
    - the mother determines the Jewishness of the child, not the father
    - the husband must provide a kesubah document with promises to support the wife, but not vice versa
    - the father must pay child support to the mother if she has custody, but not vice versa
    - the husband must pay a kesubah to the wife upon divorce, but not vice versa
    - the husband can be beaten for refusing to give a GET, but the wife cannot be beaten for refusing to accept a GET
    - in the YU / ORA feminist prenup, the husband must pay the wife $150 per day for support, but never vice versa

    Why aren't the "Orthodox" feminists, MO egalitarian activists, and ORA activists protesting against this sexism in Torah law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why aren't the "Orthodox" feminists, MO egalitarian activists, and ORA activists protesting against this sexism in Torah law?
      Good question. Why don't you write Fink and ask him. If he responds with something more mature than he did above let us know.

      Delete
  28. Tzadok,

    One question I have for you.
    What is the differnece between a women who can't remarry because he husband was in the twin towers on 9/11, and a women whose husband refuses to give her a get unless he gets custody, the house, and a boat load of money?
    Why would you classify the former as an aguna and the latter not?
    The word "aguna" means chained. Is the women whose husband is blackmailing her to give up everything not "chained". These stories are not rare, but unforutnually there is epidemic in the jewish world where husband are using the halchah to blackmail their wives?
    I am not by any means suggesting that every women these Rabbis helped out were in that situation.
    However, to someone women who were "chained" by their husbands blackmail, they were heros.
    I personally have a cousin who was being blackmailed by her husband to give over $1 million dollars for a divorce because her family was wealthy.
    Are these Rabbis not a hero for her??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get extortion can be a problem, and it does happen. However, many good Batei Dinim will deal with it in their own crafty way. However let's clear up some halakhic misunderstandings that you seem to have:
      and a women whose husband refuses to give her a get unless he gets custody
      Should the wife halakhically have custody of the children? If yes than it is upon the Beit Din to see that that happens. The Beit Din can tell the wife, "Agree to give up custody so that he will give you a get." Then once he has given the Get, the Beit Din can say, "Ok sir, now we rule that your wife gets custody." Get is given, it is a done deal, we are on to different issues now. That is how a good Beit Din will deal with that one.

      the house
      Again does she have a halakhic right to the house? Unless she brought it into the marriage with her, she does not. It is his according to halakha. If she wants a divorce she needs to accept that. If she did bring it into the marriage, again their are ways that a knowledgable Beit Din can deal with such issues.

      a boat load of money
      Are you talking marital assests? Again unless she brought them with her into the marriage, she has no right to them. If she did, then the Beit Din can deal with that as well. IF he wants additional money, say her parents to pay $100,000 for him to give their daughter a Get. Well there are ways for a Beit DIn to deal with that as well. I am not going to enumerate them in public because it would undermine the ability of a proper halakhic Beit Din to deal with these issues.

      So why is the latter not an Aguna, simply because:
      1) If she left the marriage for a מאיס עלי that does not meet very narrowly defined parameters in the Shulchan Arukh under which we actually force a divorce, she is halakhically a moredet. An Agunah is not the master of her situation, her situation either from having a dead beat husband or a missing one was entirely forced upon her. A true Agunah wanted to be married to said man.

      2) There are halakhic means to properly deal with said situation. It may mean, and will probably mean, that the woman will not get everything she wants. Tough cookies, she decided to leave the marriage. However she does have halakhic recourse.

      I personally have a cousin who was being blackmailed by her husband to give over $1 million dollars for a divorce because her family was wealthy.
      It is a shame that your cousin didn't go to a competent Beit Din for her case. She would have gotten her get without having to permanently fork over a mil.

      Are these Rabbis not a hero for her??
      No they are extortionists who profit off of pain. If these men were half way competent and a lot less greedy, they would be familiar with what is written in the Shulchan Arukh about how a Beit Din should deal with such extortion to ensure justice and that the greedy party doesn't profit.

      Delete
  29. "there is epidemic in the jewish world where husband are using the halchah to blackmail their wives" -

    With these kinds of comments you are simply regurgitating anti-male feminist attitudes without expressing honest concepts of halacha.

    My understanding is that any Jewish spouse, whether man or woman, who is not required to divorce their spouse by halacha, may either remain in their marriage, or else demand any concession they desire from the other spouse in return for agreeing to a divorce.

    Always defining the husband as the recalcitrant party, and defining the wife as the victim, is simply a form of feminist propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Tzadok - "Then once he has given the Get, the Beit Din can say, "Ok sir, now we rule that your wife gets custody." Get is given, it is a done deal, we are on to different issues now. That is how a good Beit Din will deal with that one."

    Tzadok, some of your comments amaze me with their lack of understanding of GITTIN principles. No kosher Bais Din would deceive the husband as you're suggesting. You are MACHTEI the RABBIM with your support of deception of husbands. If this is what the Rabbanut does, then Anti-Rabbanut is quite correct in his criticisms.

    A halachic Bais Din performs the GET after all other matters are resolved. The REMA in Evan HaEzer clearly states that a GET should be done last so that the husband cannot say "al menas kein lo gerashti" and thereby cause a major SAFEK on the GET. It also mentions this in other sources like Igros Moshe, as R. Dovid Eidensohn has explained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No kosher Bais Din would deceive the husband as you're suggesting.
      Actually a Kosher Beit Din would because that is precisely how the Shulchan Arukh tells a Beit Din to deal with an extortionist.

      If this is what the Rabbanut does, then Anti-Rabbanut is quite correct in his criticisms.
      No it is not. What Rabbanut does is like what is written in the Shulchan Arukh, and Rav Eliashiv wrote in Piskei Din. After 24mos of her being a Moredet the husband can either give her a get or start paying Mezzonot. After a year of paying Mezzonot they double it, and they continue to increase the amount until the husband gives the Get. Rabbi Tauber laid this out in the shiur mentioned above in the comments.

      A halachic Bais Din performs the GET after all other matters are resolved. The REMA in Evan HaEzer clearly states that a GET should be done last so that the husband cannot say "al menas kein lo gerashti" and thereby cause a major SAFEK on the GET.
      That's nice. However, that isn't how the Eida handles extortionist husbands. I have seen them use the very methods I mentioned above. Take it up with them my friend.

      You can't just know a single Siman or Seif of the Shulchan Arukh if you want to be a proper Dayyan, you need to know the thing as a whole. Which is why if you are dealing with an extortionist husband you should take the issue to a true Gadol. Someone like Rav Shternbuch who does have a grasp on the entire Shulchan Arukh and who can deal with the issue properly.

      It is also why I didn't clearly elucidate the procedures of how a B"D does these things. Unless they are Rabbanut they are pretty much powerless to enforce their will and must rely upon craftiness.

      Tell me what a B"D is and isn't allowed to do after you have learned all of Choshen Mishpat, Even HaEzer and the relevant portions of Yoreh Deah.

      Delete
  31. Michael tzaddok written evidence that that is how the aida deals with the matter of a recalcitrant husband and tik number.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Very nice. Here we go again about the mezonos. Previously he claimed it was after 12 months that a moredes gets mezonos but was unable to provide a reliable ashkenazi source. Everyone paskens that in mous olai you cant force a get and using money is considered ones. Why this nonsense is posted is beyond me. Even the BDA notorious in violations need a prenuptial to force this nonsence. Reb moshe holds if penalty is forcing a get then no good. Soare us already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not forcing a Get via money. You are forcing a husband to take care of his wife. Rav Eliashiv clearly wrote it in one of the Piskei Din that I linked before, and Rav Tauber explains it in the above linked audio shiur.

      Delete
  33. @Tzadok - "Actually a Kosher Beit Din would because that is precisely how the Shulchan Arukh tells a Beit Din to deal with an extortionist":

    Tzadok, please cite chapter and verse where the Shulchan Aruch states what you claimed here. Exactly where does the Shulchan Aruch mention "extortionists" in regards to GITTIN? You seem to have invented the "extortion" concept (in which case it wouldn't be your first invention).

    The primary situations dealt with in HALACHA seem to be either:
    1. a man is not CHAYAV L'GARESH and may remain married to his wife as long as complies with his obligations to her, but he may if he chooses stipulate conditions under which he would voluntarily divorce his wife.
    2. a man is CHAYAV L'GARESH (a small minority of cases today), in which case he still has some HALACHIC RIGHTS, but he cannot stipulate all the conditions under which he will be divorced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2. a man is CHAYAV L'GARESH (a small minority of cases today), in which case he still has some HALACHIC RIGHTS, but he cannot stipulate all the conditions under which he will be divorced.
      Rav Eliashiv ruled in the Piskei Din that a man is Chayav L'Garesh in a case of מאיס עלי that is practically every case today.

      If you want to talk about Get extortion and what a Beit Din can and can't do specifically I would suggest that you contact Rabbi Treibitz. You are a fan of Hashkafacircle, and I believe that you can contact him through there. I am sure if you ask politely he will be happy to privately fill you in.

      Otherwise I've said all that I plan to publicly on that subject.

      Delete
  34. Rabbi Tzadok,
    What you don't seem to understand is that Rabbi Eidensohn has obviously taken great care to make sure that his posts or the guest posts that he publishes on this blog are accurate - even if that ruffles people's feathers or goes against conventional wisdom.
    It is not clear whether you are deliberately lying about the Epstein-Friedman case or whether you are credulously repeating as fact the lies and misinformation you are hearing from others about the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you don't seem to understand is that Rabbi Eidensohn has obviously taken great care to make sure that his posts or the guest posts that he publishes on this blog are accurate

      Um no. He has since disclaimed guest posts. Check it out yourself. He does not vouch for their accuracy.

      It is not clear whether you are deliberately lying about the Epstein-Friedman case or whether you are credulously repeating as fact the lies and misinformation you are hearing from others about the case.
      So the Police spokesman who called the initial post hysterical was lying? Is that your final conclusion? This is coming down to absolute absurdity.

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Tzadok,
      After going through the many posts and stories , Your claim of Rabbi Eidensohn disclaiming his guest posts on the friedman case is absurd. Based upon his comments on the situation does he in anyway shape or form disclaim Friedman? in fact he has done just the opposite.

      As for your wifes conversation with Office Walsh. What can I say? You obviously missed what I wrote previously. A high profile case like this there is no way a officer would risk compromising an FBI case to some blogger. What I am finding to be strange is after Rabbi Wolmark was arrested (signator on the bogus seruv) by the FBI you still continue with your reckless comments and accusations on the matter. Rabbi Eidensoh was reporting this was being investigated by the fbi and he was right. Do You think the FBI just pulled Wolmarks name out of a hat?

      I have spoken with a good friend of mine who has a strong background in law and has confirmed with me that your take on the US Attorney is clearly wrong, his response was "any person who could make a comment like that clearly has no idea how these things work especially in a High profile case like this. The US attorney will be up against a very powerful legal team and will need to be extremely careful in how he proceeds from the bail hearing until the verdict etc."
      Unless you are a lawyer which you are not, please do not tell everyone what the US attorney should have done or said and base that as proof that R' eidensohn was spreading a falsehood.

      Being that you are a Rabbi who lives thousands of miles away and is basing his information on nothing that has proven to be accurate to date i.e. the validity of the seruv etc. it would probably be wise for you to refrain from commenting on the matter and taking a step back and admitting your mistakes. I still have respect for some of your other work but continuing on this path will make everything that you stand for look foolish. I really hope you can restore my faith in you as a rabbi. LIke I wrote in a previous post you have an obligation as someone with the tile rav to be setting an example. Making wild accusations i.e. talmidim of reb shmuel committing a crime is not befitting of someone with your title and is a tremendous chillul HAshem.

      Delete
    3. As for your wifes conversation with Office Walsh. What can I say? You obviously missed what I wrote previously. A high profile case like this there is no way a officer would risk compromising an FBI case to some blogger.
      First it was not at the time a high profile case. It didn't even make the local papers. Second he is compelled by law to answer certain questions, and cannot outright lie. Third I am a bit more than a blogger, I am an executive in a firm that has extensive contacts in the Mil/LEO world.

      Rabbi Eidensoh was reporting this was being investigated by the fbi and he was right. Do You think the FBI just pulled Wolmarks name out of a hat?
      Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.

      I have spoken with a good friend of mine who has a strong background in law and has confirmed with me that your take on the US Attorney is clearly wrong
      That's nice. I've spoken with a friend of mine who is an FBI agent who has quite a different take on the Friedman affair, and understands the US Attorney exactly the way I described him. So unless you are a Federal LEO, which you are not, plead do not tell everyone how a case like this works.

      Making wild accusations i.e. talmidim of reb shmuel committing a crime
      That's not what I said. I didn't say that the students of the Philly Yeshiva did or didn't do anything. You obviously have a major problem with understanding the very real distinction between speculation and reality. My point was, that until there is a conviction in the Friedman case, we do not and cannot know who is responsible. Saying that the Epstein family set up a hit on Aaron Friedman, even now is pure speculation, saying it a year ago when no one knew about the FBI investigation into Wolmark... was just... well like Officer Walsh called it, hysterical.

      Delete
    4. Tzadok , Wow.! Attacking an aide to one of the highest ranking congressman isn't a high profile case? Buddy this guy is no shmo. He is a federal employee that works for one of the most powerful congressmen! As for your claim that it did not make local papers that proves nothing. As David said which I agree with a case as complicated as the epstein/wolmark gang was one that took twenty years to compile. Leaking information that would damage the case would be something that would put a lot of years work in jeopardy. No Local officer would have the knowledge and if they did would not have permission to reveal even real one iota of a case of this magnitude. Or according to you the whole epstein gang was just another "occasional nut" that got lucky aside for the two decades of investigating. Please your comments are getting more and more bizarre

      As for your supposed conversation, oh wait your wife's conversation with officer walsh? It's irrelevant, because you have no credibility for you were caught lying as to who supposedly spoke to him. If that supposed conversation did happen, his language was very vague neither confirming or denying the attack. But i trully doubt that a "conversation" took place. I am sure based upon your story in your blog that Officer walsh will keep your wife up to date because why exactly. Oh that's right I forgot all law enforcement officers must answer to rabbi tzadok and his wife in Jerusalem.
      .
      As for you now, not only being a kabbalist/ rabbi / shochet/ sofer/mohel etc.you are also an executive. Really? Which company. Oh please do share with us.

      Its time that you start naming sources already. Rabbi eidensohn proved himself already . On the other hand the only thing that you have established is that you are an arrogant bully who has lied, misled and attacked anyone who doesn't see the world your way. Your style is to focus on irrelevant minute details and twist them around, when you get called out on it you start attacking the person's character and when that fails you start accusing the writer of being a sock puppet. After being on this blog for years its amazing how predictable your style has become and before you say it ,no, I am not Stan! LOL!

      For someone who has so many positions and claims to be learning especially Kabbalah I find it fascinating that you are posting at all hours of the day and night on the internet. Might I suggest you have an addiction problem.... Where is your heter to be on the internet for so many hours? I highly doubt the Kabbalists you claim to be studying with would approve of the amount of time or some of the ridiculous statements you have been making.

      David is right about one thing you are making a huge chilul Hashem and someone who has the title of Rabbi would not even as an example, use bochurim in a yeshivah in a negative light in a public forum. Like David and others have said the circumstances around tamar epstein stink ORA (anti torah) R' Shachter calling for baseball bats and to top it off a bogus seruv with one of the signators arrested by the FBI and another judge from that beis din also..

      Any normal person could see that the attack on Mr Friedman is no mere speculation but something that was very likely committed via her or associates of her. The people surrounding tamar's family seem to be pro violence. Anyone who claims otherwise is obviously the same type who claim epstein and wolmark are innocent and believe the people Mendel epstein beat up weren't beaten up because it wasn't in the local newspaper and are mere speculation even though he admitted on tape that he did so...

      Tzadok, the readers of this blog are on to you and your tricks. Even the people who have somewhat respect for you are beginning to see what you really are!
      If it turns out that I am wrong about the Epstein case I would be more than happy to apologize to you b'rabim and admit I was wrong, but for some reason don't really think that is going to happen.

      Delete
    5. I don't need a reported conversation. I have, and have posted, the email from Officer Walsh where he clearly states that the blog post was hysterical.

      As for the rest we will have to wait and see.

      Delete
    6. Although Rabbi Eidensohn could not have had personal knowledge of the attack, it would seem to me he would not have put the guest post on the blog if he thought it was made up - which is why you attacked him for putting up the post.

      Delete
    7. No. My disagreement with him was about not having checked the facts, when all it took was a phone call.

      Delete
    8. How do you know he did not check the facts? Maybe he has a very reliable source for which he could not reveal.The reality is R' eidensohn has a chezkas kashrus of being honest and to date I have never seen him to publish anything that was not true. This blog is not one of the self haters but one that deals with Jewish issues to help the klal.

      With all due respect, where do you get off of still accusing him in public of spreading falsehood.? Unfortunately, others have brought up that you have not been completely open with details of some of your postings. This shines a negative light on your character, not his.

      I am extremely disappointed in you. While some of your previous posts on other stories were very good pieces. I no longer can respect someone who would accuse someone (who has a chezkas kashrus for being honest and breaking stories before others ) of spreading a falsehood. While you keep claiming you spoke to someone maybe he spoke to someone else who knows more about the situation? Why in this case are you so insistent of questiong r' eidensohn's character while in other stories where he does not disagree with your take on the issue do you not claim the same thing?

      As an unbiased observer, you are coming across as someone who has an ulterior motive in your dealings with this case. I agree we should wait until all the evidence in the Epstein wolmark situation comes out before we jump to a final conclusion but to attack r' eidenson without any proof is not yosher.

      Unfortunately, I have to agree with BZ that with the epstein friedman case it does not look too good for tamar and her family. The people surrounding her camp i.e. ORA, Rabbi Shachter calling for violence and a signator of a seruv arrested by the FBI for arranging husbands to be beaten up makes it seem more likely that Mr. Friedman was indeed the victim of such an attack. Unfortunately, my stance on this case has changed and I am more skeptical about Tamar's side than ORA and yourself portray.

      The reality is, this blog has been a great source of information had I not been here I probably would have bought into the ORA propaganda machine. The only thing I regret is thinking those seruvim had some validity!

      Delete
    9. David, Thanks for your enlightening comments. Why do you think so many decent Jews buy into ORA's bogus propaganda machine?

      Is it possible that major segments of Modern Orthodoxy have quietly accepted the notion that Torah law is unjust to women, so they diffuse their guilt by always supporting women in divorce disputes?

      What do you think can be done to counter the ORA propaganda machine in Modern Orthodox circles?

      Delete
    10. It's very simple, Ora is an organization that does not present the full story. Leaves out important details and viciously attacks anyone who doesn't agree with their stance. They put a spin on a poor helpless woman etc when at many times that is not the case. The organization is a chazer foos. They prey on well meaning people and use them to fuel their propaganda. Whether to participate in a protest or dontate money etc. Their tactics only prolong and create unnecessary tension between the couple.

      A good suggestion to counter ORA is that any woman who uses their services to defame and embarrass her husband or his family should not be allowed by any beis din to be given a get until a severe fine is placed on her. In addition any claims that she has are immediately dismissed by the beis din. Enough of the chillul hashem!

      These public spectacles only casue more sinas chinam, chillul hashem and unnecessary trauma to all involved. The public circus is ineffective and according to many poskim fall under a get meusa. If she can't pay the fine, then an automatic heter meah is issued to her husband and a get should be deposited until she could pay back for all the damage she has caused. This once and for all would put an end to the misuse of the word Agunah and would make a woman think twice before abusing the system. In addition before any beis din hears a case mandatory counseling and psychological evaluations should be performed before they proceed further. Secular society has deemed marriage like a disposable cup. We need to do everything possible to avoid unnecessary divorces and when divorce is unfortunately unavoidable it must be done in a respectful manner where both a man and womans halachic rights are truly respected.

      As for the modern orthodox, I don't know what to say? What I can tell you liberalism and torah do not go together. They are the polar opposite.

      Delete
  35. Tzaddok please we have been here before. Last time it was the yaskil avdi or or whatever it ia called. You no doubt have a bridge to sell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You remember it well Stan, it was the Yaskil Avdi which you put down with a number of racist comments about Sephardim. Now it is Rav Eliashiv which I am sure you will also find some absurd way of saying is not a valid source. Funnily enough, aside from some added sources and beefing out, that particular Yaskil Avdi is the Psak from Piskei Din that Rav Eliashiv signed off on...

      But please tell me how Rav Eliashiv is not an authoritative source for Ashkenazi Halakha.

      Delete
    2. @ St[an] "Last time it was the yaskil avdi or or whatever it ia called."

      So just because you have not heard of a particular Posek, you readily dismiss it?

      Delete
    3. Here is a brief biography of HaRav Ovadia Hedaya Zt'l

      http://www.zomet.org.il/Eng/?CategoryID=160&ArticleID=7541

      The last paragraph, with his comments on being non-partisan, might be of value to some troubled sectors of today.

      Delete
  36. eddie. thank you very much but utterly irrelevant. All the major poskim disagree with what tzaddok is inventing.

    I have no idea why my remarks are being censored. I do not need to waste my time on a site that allows such chalomos and distortions to be posted with comments not being published. Just now i will be told that Marc Angel = rav elyashiv.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Tzaddok not rhe not rhe fictitious one that resides in your dreams and makes the nonsence psakim he nevwr made. Just because you purport something doesnt make it rhe truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have linked three of his Psikei Halakha found in Piskei Din. You have yet to offer a rejoinder. Further the Psak that you have been relying upon from the Kovetz Teshuvot was shown to be fraudulent and not originate with Rav Eliashiv. To the point that the blog owner posted Rav Eliashiv's own denouncement of the Kovetz.

      So please tell me clearly, do you rely upon Rav Eliashiv and his written psakim?

      Delete
  38. Tzaddok I dont rely on what you allege others have written for obvious reasons...
    I briefly a whike ago looked at a teshuva talkibg about someone not affording to support his wife and then marrying on top of this. And you wildly and irresponsibly extrapolated to all cases. Need I say more...
    If I do your mate will censor me.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Tzaddok I dont rely on what you allege others have written for obvious reasons...
    I briefly a whike ago looked at a teshuva talkibg about someone not affording to support his wife and then marrying on top of this. And you wildly and irresponsibly extrapolated to all cases. Need I say more...
    If I do your mate will censor me.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Just as all possible suspects in the attack against Aharon Friedman should not be presumed to be guilty until they have been proven to be guilty, Friedman should not be judged guilty of any type of wrongdoing regarding a get, based on the flimsy case against him.
    He agreed with Tamar Epstein to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din. The parties did bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din. That Beis Din actually held several hearings into the matter with the participation of both parties. That Beis Din did not rule that a get should be given and did not state that Friedman was guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
    Epstein brought the case to the Washington Beis Din, which ruled that she could not summon Friedman, as the Washington Beis Din had no right to assert jurisdiction over the case.
    The case against Friedman is based on a purported “seruv” issued by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, even though that beis din didn’t even bother to send him even a single hazmana. The Washington Vaad seized upon that purported “seruv” to issue a letter condemning Friedman, noting that its letter was based on the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. However, the Beis Din Shar Hamishpat has declared that this “seruv” has absolutely no validity. This declaration includes an extremely thorough halachic analysis of the case backed by dozens of sources. As the Beis Din Shar Hamishpat noted, those condemning Friedman have not bothered to bring any halachic backing for their position. The Beis Din Shar Hamishpat concluded that not only is Friedman not required to give a get, but that it is prohibited for him to do so because the demonstrations against him constitute coercion that would invalidate any get. [www.friedmanepstein.com] It now appears that this coercion also includes violence and the ever-hanging threat of future violence. Federal prosecutors apparently believe that Friedman was attacked by the gang recently arrested by the FBI: During the defendants’ appearance in Trenton federal court, prosecutor Joe Gribko called them all “a strong danger to the community. I have been in touch with a husband who believes he’s been targeted and had a tracking device in his car. And another is a US congressional staffer who was assaulted by a minivan full of men,” he said. http://nypost.com/2013/10/10/rabbis-busted-in-alleged-husband-torture-plot/
    [continued]

    ReplyDelete
  41. One of those who signed the purported seruv, Rabbi Martin Mordechai Wolmark, was arrested in the FBI sting. The FBI complaint in that case, if true, shows that Rabbi Wolmark is willing to take sides (to the point of actually ordering the beating and kidnapping of a man to give a get with regards to a marriage that never occurred) in a matter without ascertaining the facts. Another of those arrested, Rabbi Sholom Shuchat, is a dayan with the Union of Orthodox Rabbis.
    Two others that signed the purported “seruv” against Friedman, the head of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, Rabbi Aryah Ralbag, and Rabbi Yisroel Belsky [lately in the news in this blog because of his continued support of a child molestor], have been accused by Rabbi Avraham Rubin of arranging his beating and kidnapping in order to give a get. [Like Epstein, Rabbi Rubin’s wife had abducted their children, which seems to be common in these cases.] Rabbis Ralbag and Beslky were part of a beis din in the Rubin case with Rabbi Romnick a former Rosh Yeshiva at Chaim Berlin. Rabbi Romnick refused to sign a psak by Rabbis Ralbag and Beslky against Rabbi Rubin. He wrote a scathing letter to Rabbi Elyashiv, explaining “I received by mail a Psak written by Ralbag, and was requested to sign it permitting coercion [of the husband). I earnestly studied Ralbag's Psak and found it worthless ... In summary, the decision of Ralbag has no basis and may not be relied upon... The woman may not remarry. Regarding the response sent by Rabbi Belsky in defense of the decision to compel [a get], 1was shocked to read this response which contains altered facts, false testimony, and expressions of his personal imagination. The truth must be reported that Rabbi Belsky forged all the facts and testimony ... Rabbi Belsky's imagination lead him to fabricate a decision on matters that never occurred ... need I go on?" http://lukeford.net/Images/photos/belsky.pdf

    The case against Friedman is very flimsy indeed. To the contrary, those protesting against Friedman are actually demanding that he perform a religious action that he is prohibited under Jewish Law from doing.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bob you have written a very highly thout out, logical summary which accurately poetrayed the facts. One very important point was missed- that Epstein unilaterally withdrew fron the Baltimore Bais Din. But none of this matters to anti halachists and those belonging to the hysterical feminists like Hershel Schachter who unfortunately represent the purported intellectual wing of Modern Orthodoxy. I put the Rabbanut in the same camp. Facts are irrelevant-dont get bogged down by them when there is a fake agunah who abducted her daughter to be unchained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Epstein unilaterally walked away from the Baltimore Beis Din, and Epstein also directly violated several orders from the Baltimore Beis Din.

      Delete
  43. Egla tilsa asher lo yada bein yemino lismolo, velo matza yadav veraglov bebeit hamidrashNovember 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM

    @ אשר פיהם דבר שוא ושקר( November 1, 2013 at 1:22 AM )

    Dina demalchusse dina, and that is not my psak at all, ayin Rashb'a bearichus. It is against the law and international law as well as halacha of the Torah hakdosha to use cattle prods on humans, veal tisgareh beumos. It is the dina demalchusse dina that decided to punish him for lying under oath and contempt of court, I had absolutely no say in it as you are trying desperately to so insunuate.. There was no shamati involved, only hadoes baal din kemeah eidim damya. A dayan should be aware of the halacha haroes shaa, and tikun olam etc., it worked wonders since, kolea el hasaara. Judges do have immense powers within the law and it has to do with this case at hand as the nechtigen tag, und farhryerigen shnei, as if saying it is dark at night, abi geredt vetochen mayim, much ado about nothing'. It is torat emet, bli shum sheker veshav, and no motzi shem ra chas veshalom, yamim yagidu. It is bemakom sheyesh chilul hashem ein cholkin kavod larav or erev rav. You are in denial, R' Elyashiv wrote to his- name -beferush 'epstein' that his prod gittin are psulim and a megela panim batorah shelo kehalacha, marbeh mamzerim beyisrael rachmana litzlan. I posted mareh mekomot to that, veidach zil ugmor. Tzadikim kaelu afilu bisdom lo hayu. ES lassos laH' heferu torasecha, umitzve lefarsem reshaim. Vani kotev et ze bedemaot sholish. I am sorry to say that from everything you wrote you do seem to have a comprehension problem, and you now are going around in circles like der ma'ader yid. This whole debate is mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter. I firmly believe that I have covered this topic thoroughly and have nothing more to add, outside of kabel et hamet mi sheomro. And we can still remain friends, amen selah!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Is there any difference between Rabbi Fink's position and that of "Open Orthodoxy" Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld.
    And for that matter, on this issue at least, is there any difference between Rabbi Fink, Rabbi Herzfeld and Rabbi Hershel Schachter?

    Rabbi Herzfeld: "I have been a rabbi long enough to know that when a contested divorce is taking place there are at minimum two different sides to the story. But when either party withholds a get and uses that as leverage, then until that matter is settled there is only one side. Period."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rabbi-shmuel-herzfeld/this-year-at-the-passover_b_1368696.html

    ReplyDelete
  45. "BobNovember 3, 2013 at 4:41 AM
    Yes, Epstein unilaterally walked away from the Baltimore Beis Din, and Epstein also directly violated several orders from the Baltimore Beis Din."

    But tzaddok claimed that friedman was on the same level of rishus as a woman who goes to arko'oys without ever first going to bais din and that rav gestetner was corrupt. doubt this post will make it since tzadok is protected.

    ReplyDelete
  46. as searching for help on the internet to get my ex lover whom will got divorced back, i came across this wonderful man called DR.ODOGBO of ODOGBO TEMPLE who did a nice job by helping me to get my divorced husband back within 48hours.. I never believe that such things like this can be possible but now i am a living testimony to it because ODOGBO TEMPLE actually brought my lover back, If you are having any relationship problems why not contact DR.ODOGBO TEMPLE via email on: (DRODOGBO34@GMAIL.COM ) OR WhatsApp him on +1443 281 3404 Then i promise you that after 48hours you will have reasons to celebrate like me.

    ReplyDelete

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