Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Supporters of Weiss family respond to the chilul hashem in the NY Post

Update: Letter from Rav Dovid Feinstein son of Rav Reuven Feinstein

kikar hashabat

סיפור הגירושין הכואב שמסעיר את יהדות ארה"ב ומכתבה של הגברת גיטל דודלסון בעיתון הנפוץ ניו יורק פוסט שפורסם במלואו בכיכר השבת - ממשיכים לגרום לטלטלה ציבורית משמעותית.
חלק מהקוראים מצדדים בדבריה של האשה, כאשר חלק נוסף דווקא טוענים כי היא עשתה מעשה חמור בהוצאת הסיפור לתקשורת האמריקאית הכללית, תוך גרימת חילול השם גדול. 
הערב, מביא 'כיכר השבת' את גרסת בני משפחתו של הבעל - אברהם ווייס, כשהם רואים את הסיפור הקשה באופן שונה לחלוטין.
לדבריהם, בשנים האחרונות אברהם מאיר ווייס ואשתו גיטל עברו תקופה קשה וכואבת כשלצערם הצד השני בחר להוציא את הסיפור לתקשורת, וכחלק מהקמפיין אותו הם מנהלים - הם מוציאים את דיבתו של הבעל רעה וטוענים כאילו והוצא נגדו כתב סירוב וטענות שקריות נוספות. "על כן אנו נאלצים להשיב ולספר את האמת עם תיעוד תומך בעובדות, כפי שהן מוצגות על ידינו
[...]".

28 comments :

  1. Can anyone tell me what is Mechudash in this post? it seems to be a chazara of the Weiss documents previously posted here that Dodelson disproves here http://www.setgitalfree.com/refuting-the-weiss-statement.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daas Torah,

    I don't understand why you consider the story a Chilul Hashem. The story describes a typical situation of a husband refusing to give a Get. The predicament these woman are in with the current get system is one that you believe to be moral and ethical - a process that is in your words "Torah based" and not based on "Western values".

    If you believe your approach is moral and ethical - you should be proud of it and - adderaba - publicize this approach and try to convince the whole United States to follow these guidelines - i.e. a woman shouldn't be allowed to decide that she no longer wants to be married, all the money and property should belong to the husband (except for a $2,000 kesubah), the husband and wife are not equal partners, etc.

    Surely when the nations of the world hear about these moral and ethical rules they will exclaim as the torah says "behold this is a wise and understanding people"!!
    Isn't it a wake up call, when reading that the whole outside world is revolted by this value system and ethics that you claim is Torah based?

    We frum people have a choice, we can follow the approach of R' Schachter, R' Willig and other Poskim – and rely on minority opinions – and use a halachic prenuptial etc. – and thereby have a moral and ethical result – of the woman receiving her Get.

    Or we can rely on majority opinions – consensus opinions – and have a situation which is morally repulsive – where a woman is stuck without a Get and is being extorted for $350,000.

    As a halachic expert, you are well aware that in desperate situations in the course of history, Poskim have relied on minority opinions and opinions outside of the consensus.
    Stop claiming that you have no choice but to follow halacha. I agree we must follow halachah, but we have to stop looking for chumras – there are real poskim in America and Israel who say a halachic prenuptial agreement is okay – and it is extremely rare for a husband to refuse to give a Get when there was a halachic Prenuptial. I once heard that R’ Willig said that he is not aware of any such cases.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AZ I don't know what planet you are on - but you clearly know nothing about the chareidi world - what you are writing is utter nonsense.

      Delete
    2. AZ,

      We Jews also believe that gentiles should not practice avoda zora (i.e. Christianity per the Rambam and Noda B'Yehuda), abortion, or male homosexual relationships (which we believe ought to be a capital offense). Nevertheless, we don't and we can't force the gentiles to understand and appreciate our positions on the death penalty for homosexual and avoda zora worshippers. The same applies to our Torah based position on Gittin (divorce) matters. Yes, the goyim will never understand, like or appreciate the correctness of the Torah and Halacha's position on divorce or homosexuality even though it is far far more ethical and moral than the Western values on all these issues. By definition morality and ethics is determined by the Torah/Halacha and not by gentile/Western/modern sensibilities. We should not stop believing in any of our Torah positions because the gentiles don't appreciate it or think in their mind it doesn't fit their ideas of morality. Even if they are revolted that we believe that Sabbath violaters (i.e. someone who turns a light on, on Shabbos) should be put to death.

      That being said, yes, we must follow halacha. And halacha is codified in Shulchan Aruch and the poskim. We don't go changing the poskim we follow because it doesn't mesh with gentile values.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rav Eidensohn,
    Please change the title of this post which as it currently stands displays your bias against Dodelson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred your are wrong - objectively the article in the NY Post was a major chilul hashem. Did you read the comments? That is the definition of chilul hahem.

      Delete
    2. That is your biased view of what a chilul hashem is. You only do yourself (and your usually un-biased website) a disservice by making bold and subjective claims of 'facts'

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

      Delete
  7. Does anybody know and can verify to me that what yossi stated above is genuine?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The above is true but missing the last part of the story. The Dodelsons backed out of the arbitration. Next, Gital went to the press.

    ReplyDelete
  9. See letter from Rav Dovid Feinstein son of Rav Reuven Feinstein

    http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/weiss-dodelson-divorce-r-avraham-meir.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Asher pihem diber shavNovember 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

    The big chillul HaShem is not the NY Post article. The big chillul HaShem is that perhaps the two most prominent Torah families can't find a beis din to resolve their disputes, which is either a problem with the trust even our biggest rabbis have in the Batei Din, the ability to communicate like a mentsch of one or both of the families, or all three.

    It is a huge chillul HaShem. Not the comments of am haaratzim. If it was the cohens and the goldsteins who work as plumbers, with disdain we would tell them "Go to beis din. work out your problems peacefully". Yet when it's the kotlers and the Feinstein's who study Torah all day, they can't ? The same goes for the dinei Torah in Ponovezh, the fight in Satmar, Bobov etc. talmidei Chachamim should be marbeh shalom baolam, should be an example for us laymen how to behave. Not just like the rest of us, or even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Disappointed in Har NofNovember 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM

    What did Yossi say?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See the link at the top of the page to the letter from Rav Dovid Feinstein

      Delete
  12. Disappointed in Har NofNovember 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    DT --- I, like many people, have been getting a crash course in this story for the last couple of days. I make no claims of being an expert in the details nor in the halachic ramifications. That said, it is apparent that you've been following this for much longer and apparently seem to have a grasp of (and essentially believe) the husband's side. I, like many people are having a hard time with your position that a get is a perfectly legitimate lever with which to extract one's interests. As I read your post from last year containing the translation of R' Sternbuch's opinion on a moredes, based on a detailed reading of both the Weiss and Dodelson's accounts I don't see how one would designate Dodelson as a moredes. And if she's not a moredes than Weiss is simply 'oiver onas d'varim'.

    Based on what I've read from her side she was clearly repulsed by her husband and his behavior. No doubt there are those who would like to pull out snippets from the NY Post piece to suggest otherwise but I would say those people are being disingenuous. As has been pointed out by others she asked Weiss to go to marriage counseling before she decided to leave and he refused. To suggest that her refusal to consider reconciliation after having left shows her intransigence completely ignores the mental abuse he put her through essentially the entire 10 months they were married. It would seem obvious that she is not some light-headed youngster who has no respect for the institution of marriage but is a human being who doesn't like to be treated like dirt.

    And then all this talk about Dodelson depriving Weiss of access to his child when the court recorded deposition clearly states that this was never the case and that he has always had access. Again, if you have documents that dispute this than feel free to point them out. If there is no issue regarding visitation to the child than, again, Weiss is simply being cruel in not providing the get. He clearly is upset at having lost control of this situation and understands that the only way he can reassert that control is by withholding the get.

    Of course you will respond that I don't know all the facts and that I'm allowing my Western sensibilities and ethics to cloud my Jewish judgement. But I'm happy to simply compare R' Sternbuch's response to this situation and let it speak for itself. It seems halacha dictates that he provide her with the get without precondition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disappointed it is a shame you are disappoint - please see the letter from Rav Dovid Feinstein that is linked at top of the post

      Delete
    2. Disappointed in HNNovember 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM

      DT -- I realize it must be difficult to answer these all day, I should have been more brief and specific in order not to confuse. I read R' Dovid Feinstein's letter, it doesn't answer question -- a very simple question, is it halachically legitimate to use a get as leverage in a divorce proceeding. I.e., "I will not give you this get unless and until I get what I want."

      I did happen to read your brother's lengthy letter regarding the fact that ma'us u'lai is not a strong enough reason to "force" a get. Again, I refer to R' Sternbuch's teshuva that clearly indicated that the husband "should" give a get in that scenario. But, again, I've been lengthy...

      Delete
    3. I haven't found any teshuva which says that it is not legitimate. Furthermore often the husband is simply trying to gain that which is his according to the halacha - do you consider that illegitimate also?

      Again the issue is whether it is halachically or morally wrong to use the get as leverage for what you think you deserve. The answer seems to be no. BTW this applies also to a wife refusing to accept a get which Rav Eliashiv doesn't seem to think is immoral

      Delete
    4. there should be demands which are unacceptable - but I haven't seen any discussion of what constitutes an unacceptable demand.

      Delete
    5. Disappointed in HNNovember 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

      My personal feeling, which seems to have some support from halacha, is that any husband who sits down with his to'ein and says ok, let's talk division of assets and custody and when I'm satisfied I'll give her a get, is a pretty bad guy.

      For better or worse, we are living in a day and age when plenty of people, chareidi, MO and certainly non-frum, allow their western sensibilities about mutual respect color their perspective on Jewish divorce. That said, as someone else already suggested in another comment on a different thread, just because we do not have p'sak halacha that says it is wrong to use the get as leverage, does that make it right?

      To your point about a wife's refusal to accept -- it would stand to reason that if it is bad for the husband to withhold a get until he receives what he wants than it is equally bad for the wife to refuse the get on the same grounds.

      Bringing this all home, the known facts of this case appear to indicate that Avraham Meir Weiss has intentionally inflicted emotional pain on Gital Dodelson, both during the marriage and after. Notwithstanding the recent attempt in May 2013 to go to binding arbitration, it would appear the Weiss camp spent the previous two years procrastinating and obfuscating for no good reason other than to inflict pain and wear the Dodelson's down.

      While AMW may be halachically within his rights, he would appear to be unwell as a human being. For those who feel that he behaved exactly as a husband should I pity you and your families.

      Delete
  13. Disappointed in HNNovember 7, 2013 at 3:54 PM

    BTW -- I'm not sure it is "often" the case that the husband is simply trying to gain that which is his according to halacha though I'm sure it is some of the time. In those cases, should the husband be that fine and upstanding, I'm sure he would state clearly that the get will be forthcoming and that we simply need to work out the details k'halacha.

    My sense is "often" times divorces are messy and acrimonious. In those cases people, both husband and wife, can and do get vindictive. And when the husband says I will only consider giving the get until I'm satisfied with the settlement, that is called blackmail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Disappointed in HN: Yasher Koach for so eloquently articulating a sentiment that is probably felt by so many of us. We who still expect Bnei Torah to be a paradigm of halachic practice and middos tovos.
      If I may I would like to add just one point. It could very well be that in this case both sides have acted unbecoming and both are at fault. However the travesty is using the Torah to hurt another. To me it is analogous to witnessing a fight where one hits another with a bat and the other guy hits him back with a gemara. They may both wrong but using the Torah to hurt someone just grates on my sensitivities. I think thats why all the teshuvos in the world can't convince me that withholding a get is okay.

      Delete
  14. Dodelson has to understand that you cant practice "SELECTIVE JUDAISM" . The Torah does not afford her the same rights as the feminist movement wants. If She cries AGUNA, that means that she proscribes to the Orthodox Jewish religion. The Jewish religion affords equal rights at the very least TO BOTH PARTIES! The feminist women has taught them to pick up and leave when they want, to rape their husbands in the civil court and then demand a GET UNDER THEIR TERMS and IF NOT THEY WILL GET THE ORA BULLY MACHINE after them. I am sorry , but you either follow the traditional torah way or change your religion!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Recipients and PublicityNovember 14, 2013 at 6:18 PM

    Stop the madness and stop fighting with each other ALL of you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Second Bais HaMikdosh was destroyed because of Sinas Chinam ("causeless hatred), and the third Bais HaMikdosh will only be rebuilt by Ahavas Chinom ("selfless love")! You are ALL making yourselves into a laughingstock in full view of the world !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To the Weisses and Dodelsons STOP IT and tell your warring kids who are fighting each other to grow up and stop acting like BABIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete

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