This letter from Rav Dovid Feinstein son of Rav Moshe Feinstein is a comment on the letter from Rabbi Ronald Greenwald - who was selected by both Weiss and Dodalson families to arbitrate the get. Rav Feinstein states - that despite the disagreement of whether there was a valid seruv against R Avraham Meir Weiss - the fact that they both went to Rabbi Greenwald to arbitrate the dispute removes him from that status according to everyone. The letter originally appeared on the blog of Rabbi Yudel Shain and a number of other places on the internet. I was assured by a member of the Feinstein family that the letter is genuine.
1 Facebook Rabbi Yehuda Shain
As much as people say that the article in the NY Post was a chilul Hashem. It looks to me that perhaps on account of it this letter was only written after the article appeared in the NY post. I hope that hopefully things will begin to be resolved and and the article will not have the opposite efeect and that they only dig their heels further into the ground.
ReplyDeleteI think it's his grandson.
ReplyDeleteBesides that, it's irrelevant. Once the civil divorce is finalized, there is no reason to not give a get. The claim that they want a court decision by arbitration to be rock solid is stupid since the court can reopen the case whenever a new suit is filed. Using that logic, some of the people here would then not require a get at all.
As for the arbitration, one of the demands is money for the get, so of course that would be refused. Perhaps Leib Tropper can give R' Reuven another $3 million and then R' Reuven will give some of that to his grandson.
Perhaps you may want to avoid losing any of the עולם הבא you still have. הרב ראובן פיינשטיין is a תלמיד חכם and ראש ישיבה. How dare you speak this way about him ?
DeleteShame on you!!!
FYI. This is reb Moshe's son. To put it in clear terms for you - the posek acharon of the united states. The one man who is feared by all of the "signers" as well as eretz yisroel. This is no joke. I am not about to take a side in this case but I believe the dodelsons are in retreat mode now. As far as you and trooper are concerned; obviously you didn't get in on the fun. I don't know why you are transfixed on trooper. I happen to know yeshiva of Staten island is not in as good shape as BMG. That doesn't make BMG thieves though many people may think they are. I think you are a plant that just says stuff he is fed. We who want the truth will stay on the sidelines hoping this is settled shortly.
Deletereally nasty comment and totally irrelevent. R Reuven returned the 3 million dollars. It is interesting and important to note that Gital and her supporters claiming they are arguing in the name of menschlikeit say such disgusting things.
Delete1) Tropper recently gave a shiur in his yeshivah.
Delete2) I'm also not so sure the money was returned.
3) We see how money operates.
4) I'm not on anyone's side.
All I'm saying is that not giving a get is wrong. If he's unhappy with the civil divorce rulings, then sue in court all day long. But to not give a get is evil.
Why are you slinging mud to establish your credentials as a superior ethical person?
DeleteI dont know who Yossie Abramson is, my guess is Aryeh Dodelson. Tropper gave a shiur in Yeshiva Staten Island??? That is an outright blatant disgusting lie. IT NEVER HAPPENED. Not now, not ever, not before his scandal, not since. Furthermore, R' Reuven is one of the few remaining Roshei Yeshiva that cannot be bought. Look at his Yeshiva, hasnt seen a renovation in decades, no new fancy buildings, no italian marble etc. He cares not for money in the slightest.
DeleteTrooper never gave a shiur in rabbi feinsteins yeshiva. That article was a complete fabrication. It even accidentally said that rabbi feinsteins yeshiva was rabbi Jacob Joseph school on Staten island. He also never worked there as was decried by Dr Schick (may he live and be well). I think that article was in this planted just for a case like this. Regardless, it was complete rubbish. PS I know because I checked.
DeleteI have no idea about money or being returned but I do know that the person making the accusation tried to disappear off the face of the earth before the trial. PS another fact I checked. The only money here is in the dodelson household
my question, rav, is why you allow such posts on the page.
DeleteSimply because they are the clearest evidence of the approach of Gital's supporters
DeleteDT-I could not agree with you more. This woman makes me sick.
Deleteapproach of her supporters? that doesn't even rise to the level of guilt by association. many of his supporters on this page aren't the 36 tzaddikim either (IMO).
Deletethese discussions have all the flavor of a shalom alechim play were the village peasants take sides. the discussions lack of course shalom's class.
DeleteThere is something that I don’t understand over here. The way that I understand siruv is that it is a punishment if the husband blatantly ignores Beis Din. The issue is that if he gets a psak from a posek and follows it, it should be considered a shogeg even if the posek made a mistake. This is clearly the halacha in O.C. 318 sif aleph in the be’er heiteiv. If so even if there are other poskim who hold that he can’t do what he did but siruv should not be an option.
Delete@Yossie Abramson there are many serious errors in what you write.
Delete1) A civil divorce is meaningless as far as the Torah is concerned. It does not entitle anyone to a get. Only a Bais Din can decide that, and...
2)The siruv from Monsey has nothing to do with a get. It only decries him for going to civil court, for which he had recived a heter arka'os (besides all the other problems with the siruv).
3)I learn in Yeshiva of Staten Island, who is this Mr. Tropper?
4) When was there ever a heter to lie or slander in public to help someone without being involved and getting a psak bais din to do so. (no one who signed the kol koreh spoke to Weiss before signing) Bais din never authorized anything except to stop going to court, which she was guilty of as well.
Dear Daat Torah
ReplyDeletePlease see this disturbing article written by Yair Hoffman http://5tjt.com/a-second-look-at-rabbi-wolmark/ in regards to Wolmark and see my response below.
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ARTICLE IN THE FIVE TOWNS I AM DEEPLY TROUBLED BY YOUR ARTICLE AS IT REPEATS THE SAME FLAWED PATTERNS AS OTHERS BEFORE YOU. HERE IS MY RESPONSE:
Rabbi Hoffman you dont know what you are talking about. This man did it for the money! 1)check online when one of the newscasters of channel 12 was interviewing a neighbor of Wolmark and this neighbor stated that one of Wolmarks secretaries was going thru a bitter divorce, yet he didnt help her! perhaps she didnt have the big bucks to give to him!
2) we are not the Taliban where in this country we can enforce the laws as we see fit! 3)The undercover sting operation was no more than 4 months. This means that this supposed undercover agent Aguna was only an Aguna for 4 months. So how did Wolmark supposedly render her an Aguna for waiting 4 months for a GET? His investigative work was flawed. 4) You apparently didnt read how he was caught. The undercover agent aguna was summoned to attend a "special bais din " convened to allow the kidnapping of her husband. This special Bais din comprised of Wolmark, Epstein and Goldstein! The very scoundrels who accepted the money to do the job. This is what you call a balanced bais Din? These are not rabbis but criminal thugs looking for a buck to make! Rabbi Hoffman, it is your twisted mind that conforms to other rabbis I know that raise monies to help accused pedophiles escape imprisonment. Please save your energies to support much worthier causes such as assisting the poor and marrying off the orphans!
yitzchok klug:
DeleteWhich Hoffman article are you talking about? When was it published? Can you please link to it? Thank you.
http://5tjt.com/a-second-look-at-rabbi-wolmark/
DeleteEven if it wasn't for money, though, it was still very problematic. (And granted, they did accept money. But I just think we should make it clear this was a problem and transgressed Jewish law even without money being involved. Rabbi Hoffman's (very dishonestly) article makes it sound like Jewish law upholds what they did! That is outrageous.
DeleteAt this point, the following is my strong suggestion to Reb Avrohom Meir Weiss:
ReplyDeleteDear Reb Avrohom Meir,
You can now put together a Beis Din of three Dayanim you can choose. You shall petition them to issue you a Heter Meah Rabbonim. Once this Beis Din authorizes it, a team will be put together in three countries (i.e. the U.S., Canada and Israel), as required for a HMR, to find 100 rabbis to sign the HMR. It shouldn't take going to more than 6 or 7 Kollels to find at least 100 people with smicha to sign the HMR.
Once you have the HMR in hand, you will deposit the GET with this Beis Din. This Beis Din will make it available to your (first) wife Gittal Dodelson once she meets your rights insofar as visitation and the other halachic requirements you are entitled to from her are met. Once this is met, this Beis Din will hand her the GET.
Irregardless how long it takes Ms. Dodleson to accept the GET you issued, you will in the interim find yourself a new wife, be mekayim the mitzvah of Pru U'rvu, and kenayana hora build yourself a nice big new family.
Mazal Tov!
It would have been good suggestion except that Reb Moshe was opposed to it
DeleteDoes AMW even need a Heter Meah? Wasn't Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom for 1000 years, and the 1000 years has passed ? Wasn't the Vilna Gaon against the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom ? Please tell us the Halacha.
DeleteRDE (DT):
DeleteAre you saying that Reb Moshe wouldn't approve obtaining a Heter Meah Rabbonim the way Ben Torah suggests above but perhaps would approve of obtaining a HMR through a more conventional approach?
Igros Moshe (E.H. 4:3): My view regarding heter me'ah rabbonim is well known – that even in the case of moredes it is required that the husband deposit a valid get that the wife is able to obtain at any time she wants and then is free to remarry. This requirement to deposit a get for the wife is required even if the husband has financial claims against the wife. That is because, chas v'shalom that Rabbeinu Gershom would create something which causes an impediment for an aguna – no matter who she is. And this is true even in the case where she definitely took a sum of money from her husband – the heter of Rabbeinu Gershom was not decreed to allow the husband to remarry [without giving a get.] No beis din of the Geonim allowed such a thing. They did not create a means for the husband remarrying by causing the wife to be refused a get unless she gave him what he demanded. They did not make a decree to allow the husband to collect money. And in general they did not make a decree which gave the husband the right to demand whatever he wanted with the threat that if she didn't comply she would remain an aguna. Since the Geonim did not create such a decree, any heter given by beis din in such circumstances is not valid – even if it were signed by more than 1000 rabbis. Therefore the husband still is prohibited by the decree of Rabbeinu Gershon to marry another woman – if he hasn't previously divorced his first wife. What I had signed was only that I permit the husband to remarry according to the halacha i.e., he must deposit a valid get that she can take whenever she wants. This I state again in this case – in particular to the relatives of the husband – that it is not relevant to have any heter to remarry which depositing a valid get that she can readily obtain without any impediment. On this I sign for the sake of truth that there should not be distortions in the laws of the Torah.
DeleteRDE, please let me get this straight: based on RMF's teshuva you quoted, it IS ok for the husband to hold his wife hostage -- using the very same terms as you quote -- as long as he holds himself hostage too??
DeleteIOW, as long as he's not free to remarry, he can ensure she won't be either? Is that what you're saying is the Halacha?
I am not saying that the poskim are saying that. However if he is doing it solely because of spite than there are poskim who say to tell him that he should give a get.
DeleteWhat? I think you know exactly where my question was going, and you didn't answer it. The teshuva you quoted indicated that if the husband wants to move on, a get must be made available to his wife. Period. That it's perverted to misuse the takkana in any other way.
DeleteHow do you square this with what you tried to slip in via your answer: that since he has ta'anos, and isn't doing it merely out of spite, he isn't subject to the clear point arising out of the teshuva??
Daniel S please reread the teshuva. The heter of 100 rabbis is a takana a man made law. Rav Moshe says the takana was not made for other purposes. However the Torah law regarding a get is something else. It is point we discuss recently and I really don't want to repeat myself.
Delete@DaasTorah - The Igros Moshe you quoted above is contradictory and may have been doctored by unknown persons:
Delete"And in general they did not make a decree which gave the husband the right to demand whatever he wanted" - The implication is clearly that the husband does have a right to demand certain things, which I presume would include rights granted to him by the Torah, such as parenting time with his child and freedom from being mosered and jailed in the feminist police state.
"depositing a valid get that she can readily obtain without any impediment." - So according to this tshuvah, if a wife is a moredes (such as Dodelson) abducting the child, litigating as a Plaintiff a full divorce lawsuit in NJ family court, then the moredes can just pick up the GET without withdrawing from court? This clearly violates Choshen Mishpat 26, I don't believe Rav Feinstein meant it this way at all.
DaasTorah, are you allowing the feminists to hoodwink you?
This case has nothing to do with Halacha, it never has and it never will. ORA and their mindless followers don’t care if he is a me’agen or not or if she is a moredes. Jeremy Stern believes in the “no-fault Get”. As he himself has stated multiple times that there is never a reason to withhold a Get when a women demands one (unless she stole a million dollars from her husband– these are his words not mine).
ReplyDeleteLook at the Friedman case – even before Ralbag/Wolmark issued their bogus serev – while the Balitmore Bais Din stated publically that they were waiting for Epstein to come back to their court, R’ Kaminetsky had already written letters that Friedman was “mechuyav” to give a Get and ORA was holding demonstrations against Friedman.
What a complete joke – Kamenetsky and Kotler are no different than Epstein/Wolmark. They issue “psak” based on favoritism and nepotism. Is it any wonder so many kids are going off the derech when our “leaders” are completely corrupt?
It appears that Dodelson is not really interested in receiving an actual get - but in establishing the principle (as advocated by several commentators on this blog) that she, or any other woman, is entitled to a get regardless of why they want out of a marriage, or what behavior they engage in as part of breaking up a marriage (not matter how destructive to their husband or children).
ReplyDeleteRav Dovid seems to indicate that there is a actual Seiruv against him. He is just claiming that since they are negotiating it is off. Obviously the Dodelson's never signed on that his decision would be accepted because if they did we would have a get. Can anyone explain how if one side signs that they will accept a decision that the seiruv should be removed? How does that make sense halachically?
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering what changed from Rabbi Eidensons insistence that the letters from Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetzky et al have no value because they weren't properly written tshuvos & this alleged statement from Rav Dovid Feinstein? Where is there a halachic source that if both sides agree on a third party to hear the two sides in order to broker the deal (a fact that the Dodelson's dispute is the case here) it no longer matters if one of the parties are Sarvanim?
ReplyDeleteIs Rav Feinstein's letter also meant to be taken as a statement that up until the point where RG was brought into the picture, Weiss was a mesarev & a m'agen?
Let me take this slowly. there was a dispute about the validity of the seruv. Rav Dovid is merely saying that given the arbitration there is no longer the possibility there a valid seruv.
DeleteRav Dovid did not hold that Weiss was mesarev until Rabbi Greenwald was brought into the picture.
Except as per Rabbi Greenwald's own words, there never was any arbitration -
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=519281931501721&set=a.480394572057124.1073741827.480356772060904&type=1&theater
My understanding of Reb Dovid is he is clarifying that seruv is not reasonable EVEN from the Doddleson position as it seems based on the initial letter from Rabbi GreenWald that they had agreed to arbitration. Now that we know from the clarification of Rabbi GreenWal's second letter that the Doddlesos had NOT agreed to arbitration, it still doesn't matter to the seruv because according to halacha The husband, Rabbi Weiss cannot be a Mesarev Ledin when had always agreed to zabla AND there is another best din being mevatel the first best din's unfounded seruv against him.
DeleteIf you check www.setgitalfree.com you will find evidence that Dodelson did NOT agree to binding arbitration with Greenwald. These are all lies.
ReplyDeleteJames James, how can you let facts get in the way of something that is now a pure vendetta? Here's the evidence you refer to: http://www.setgitalfree.com/refuting-the-weiss-statements.html
Deleteso you are claiming that the Feinstein's are liars?! Where does it say that there was no agreement to arbitration?
DeleteWell we seem to have a clear contradiction between the understanding of the Feinstein's and Rabbi Greenwald versus that of the Dodelson's.
DeleteI agre with DT,100%
DeleteIt's clear from the email that RG was never someone who's decision was going to be binding. Here's a riddle: if RG would have said that court agreement should be changed to the Dodelson's favor, & that Weiss would need to pay compensation, would Weiss have gone along with it & given a get? Or would he have done the same as he did when he was unhappy with the court ordered agreement.
DeleteAs an aside, does Rabbi Feinstein mean that if one is a legitimate mesarev, & the other side gets a hetter arkous based on that, that when both parties go to court ordered mediation, the sarvan no longer is a sarvan? Hard to believe...
Foncused,
Deleteplease stop trolling with your incredibly stupid riddles that are irrelevent and are based on a bias that was perpetutated by the post and your own personal feelings.
As for your incredible disrespect for the r ' feinstein . Learn some derech eretz.
Even before r ' davids psak , as pointed out from r eidenson based on the documents from amw the seruv from mechon had no halachic basis to stand on. Thereby he was never mesarev to start with.
RDE,
DeleteRead the email in which Greenwald states that Dodelson did not agree to binding arbitration. That is evidence. You provide no evidence to the contrary. Greenwald meant well and tried to arbitrate. He injected himself nto this situation. That itself is noble and Dodelson has no objection to people from the Weiss side trying to find a solution. She will not, however, submit to binding arbitration to undo all that Weiss was unable to achieve by going to court.
She is not required to submit to Greenwald. She is entitled, under torah law, to keep what she won in secular court after being dragged there by Weiss.
James you bring up the fact - which has been obvious from the beginning - that the Feinstein's don't see the situation the way the Dodelson's do. What Rabbi Greenwald meant in his letters and how the two Rav Dovid Feinstein's understood it will hopefully be clarified in the near future.
DeleteBased on my understanding of the situation - I side with the Feinstein and I feel she is wrong and has been from the start when she left him and took their child away.
Can you explain why you feel that way? I don't know what happened inside that marriage, but if he was indeed the controlling, abusive person she claims, then running away with the child doesn't seem so outrageous. Do you have information that shows she was exaggerating or lying?
DeleteI don't see in the primary post an agreement by Weiss to go to arbitration.
DeleteIn fact, all that you have on the table is a proposal by Weis which Dodelson is yet to agree to.
Rabbi Feinstien is therefore incorrect when he states that AM is not a me'sarev and not a me'agen - he certainly is. You cannot simply make preconditions to a binding arbitration and then claim that by signing you have entered an agreement to arbitration.
Weis should get on with the show and just give the get or agree to arbitration without any pre-conditions
Rabbi Eidensohn,
DeleteThat was the most honest post you have ever written! But, IMHO, the letter from the GAon Rav Dovid Feinstein shlit"a makes no mention of the $350,000 and hence it means that Rav Dovid shlit"a was (deliberately) misinformed because Weiss is a me'again dragging out this process for that goal, to get that sum of money! This makes Rav Dovid shlit"a's letter hard to comprehend and not very enlightening.
And yes, imagining that RG would be the arbitrator when he is in bed with Artscroll is hard to imagine, but that is only speculation.
How do you understand going to arkaos? Based on a one paragraph twenty year old hand written "heter" (which doesnt apply) by a Rav who passed away 15 years ago?
DeleteA suitable BD (Machon Lehoraa) looked into all of this and issued a seruv. That seruv still stands.
James repetition doesn't makes your argument a more valid. The Weiss-Feinstein disagree and say the seruv is invalid.
DeleteOn the other hand what would you do if your wife deserted you - chas v'shalom - and took the kids with her? Would you call her up and say that wasn't nice or perhaps you would sit on the floor and cry hoping that she would feel sorry for you and change her mind? Maybe you would be a bit more assertive would run to a beis din that issued an order to return the kids - that she laughed at? Or perhaps you would go to your rav and when he said to go to civil court you would listen to him?
Joseph the content of your comments as well as their tone are vile. Your speculations are just that speculations - but they don't contain any indiciation that you really care about anything other than smearing the Weiss-Feinstein family
DeleteRDE,
DeleteThis isnt a "he said - she said" situation. You know my thoughts on the Epstein/Freedman case - this isnt even close to the problems of that case.
Here we have the Dodelson's presenting evidence for every one of their claims. Weiss says she abducted the child and didnt let him see his son. Dodelson says otherwise. Except that Dodelsons ALSO provides evidence in the form of emails between the parties to prove that she permitted him to be with his son as often as he wanted. We have emails between the parties showing them to be cordial AFTER she left the house.
We have Weiss saying that both parties agreed to Greenwald. The Dodelson's disagree. Except that the Dodelsons ALSO provide evidence in the form of a Greenwald email proving that they did not agree to him as a binding arbitrator.
Where is the evidence that she ignored a BD order? The only evidence I see from Weiss is the laughable "heter" from the Debreciner of 20 years ago on a hand written note to someone else.
I personally have no faith in the BD system. Thats just me. If you agree - great. But then lets get over the "Tamar went to Arkaos" nonsense or "SO and so is a moredes", "Rav Gestetner ruled" etc.
I dont hold that it is assur to go to US courts. You do. I just want an admission that BD is not a viable option and therefore secular court as a first option is muttar because what Weiss did was totally without any halachic justification.
James I am glad you think that the documentary evidence that Gital has posted proves her position and disproves that of the Weiss's
DeleteCreating a paper trail with the guidance of a pr expert is not a big deal. The question is what actually happened and that requires a competent impartial judge listening to both sides.
You cite cordial emails to prove that Gital's kidnapping of their child was fine with AM Weiss? Perhaps it simply shows that Weiss is a mensch and didn't think that yelling and screaming through emails served any useful purpose?
The same goes for the rest of your "proofs".
The Weiss documents claim that Dodelson's father physically threatened weiss when weiss came to pick up the child pursuant to their agreement and that this was captured on tape and the transcript admitted in court. Are you questioning whether this is true? Or is the problem that the Weiss family is too decent to release the transcript and until and unless they do, you will consider them liars, while everything Dodelson or her PR team allege is to be accepted without question?
DeleteRDE,
DeleteC'mon. I didnt say the "kidnapping" was OK. Thats a cheap trick. I said that the marriage was disintegrating. The emails show that there was a relationship between the parties while they were trying to figure out how to proceed. Weiss wanted to try and make things work. dodelson did not. At that point, I might have been sympathetic to Weiss. I say "might" because no one really knows the facts. Maybe he was verbally abusive. Maybe had a false picture of what marraige should be. I dont know. Either way, the emails show that as the marraige was falling apart she continued to allow Weiss to see the child. That is not kidnapping. Everything changed when he went to court. He lost. Why didnt summon her to BD? If he had no time to wait for a hazmana, the "proper" procedure is to file a suit and send her a hazmana at the same time asking to remove the case to BD. He went along with the arkaos the whole time until he lost. Now he wants to go to an arbitrator?
James I find your comments typically level headed - even when I disagree with them. In this case I don't understand you at all.
DeleteAccording to you there is the congenial relationship that she took the child without his consent but since she was allowing him to see the kid - no major problem.
The Weiss's disagree with your understanding of the facts
Avrohom Meir’s child was withheld from him in contravention of an explicit prior arrangement. This episode was recorded, and there is even a letter from R’ Malkiel Kotler – a first cousin to theDodelsons – admitting that this occurred.After consulting with Morei Horaah
and being issued a written
, Avrohom Meir went to court to enforce his rights vis-à-vis his child, and sought joint legal custody. He had no choice but todo so; in the State of New Jersey this is the only way for a parent to protect his legal rights vis-à-vishis child. Reputable Batei Din fully recognize this as being true.The Dodelsons filed numerous counterclaims. Ultimately, they also filed a completely new suit for divorce. This new suit supplanted all previous filings, and rendered Gital Dodelson the plaintiff andthe only one who could possibly withdraw the complaint; Avrohom Meir was (and still is) only a defendant. Has anyone ever heard of a defendant being able to withdraw a complaint?
Which Morei Horaah? Did they grant him a heter arkaot? If so, he could have presented that to MAchon LEhoraa. He didnt. He presented a 20 year old note.
DeleteThe practice among Batei din is to allow arkaos in cases in which there will be an irreperable harm or loss to the filing party if they wait or if there is no jurisdiction. Even so, you have to try and take the case to BD at the same time. He could have agreed to a custody agreement engotiated by a BD. He was in court for months before losing and never sent a hazmana. So, yes, it is correct to state that he is "entitled" to go to arkaos but he must also try to go to BD. Couples are allowed to agree to a custody agreement on their own. LAstly, Dodelson filed for divorce after she got a seruv from a recognized BD. That she is definitely allowed to do. The cases are consolidated with Dodelson having claims and Weiss having counterclaims. His current standing as defendent does not mean that he can not withdraw his counterclaims.
Who issued the heter arkaos?
James,
DeleteAre you saying that it is perfectly ok for her to unilaterally relocate the child to her parents' house without his permission? That is exactly what she boasts that she did in the ny post.
RDE, you state that "It is interesting and important to note that Gital and her supporters claiming they are arguing in the name of menschlikeit say such disgusting things." I think this is disingenuous. BOTH sides have been nasty and rude. Here's just one example:
ReplyDeleteDodelson 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!
(http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/11/supports-of-weiss-family-respond-to.html?showComment=1383842817958#c2351403815650780657)
I am not a supporter of either side. I am just hoping for truth and compassion. To suggest that only one side is guilty of this kind of behavior demonstrates neither.
Selective Judaism??
DeleteShe went to a chareidi BD. Weiss refused. Weiss went to secular court shelo kedin. She won. She did everything the Torah demands of her. The Torah gives Weiss the power to divorce his wife. That doesnt mean he has the right to torture her or hold it as ransom. Does the Torah give him the power to do so? Yes. Does that make it right? No.
And you think it is right for Dodelson to unilaterally take the child? And you think it s right for Dodelson to violate the custody agreement and refuse to let the child see his father? What was Weiss supposed to do when Dodlson wouldn't let their child see him? Physically grab the child back?
Delete@Raffi - I leave it up to the reader to decide and that is why I try to censor as little as possible and to have comments from opposing camps
DeleteI do appreciate that you do that. But I take issue with your suggestion above that it is Dodelson's supporters who use inflammatory rhetoric ("disgusting things") when it is clearly both sides.
Delete"It is interesting and important to note that Gital and her supporters claiming they are arguing in the name of menschlikeit say such disgusting things."
Violate what custody agreement? The very civil emails between the Weisses and dodelsons attest to the fact that Weiss was seeing the boy as often as he liked. Everything changed when Weiss went to court. I dont knwo how you could say she violated the custody agreement if there was no custody agreement prior to the court case. Are you saying she is in violation of the court determined custody agreement?
DeleteI still don't get how a man who is civilly divorced can find supporters of his decision to not give a get.
ReplyDeleteThat is the bottom line. ANYONE, regardless of pedigree who, once civilly divorced, does not give a get is wrong. Claiming you're unhappy of the decision of the court is stupid. Give the get and go back to court and fight it out.
There is no justification to not giving a get.
Yossie you are right that for you that is the bottom line. However that is not the bottom line in halacha. So we have a stira between your outlook and that of the Torah. So what?
DeleteNot giving a get when the divorce is final and the marriage is final is wrong. There is no justification. Withholding a get in such a case is extortion. It's not as if they're going to get back together again. Doesn't the CDRG even state that a woman has the right to demand a get?
DeleteAlso, claiming this as a psak is wrong for one very important reason, a family member should not be issuing halachic decisions when they are nogeiah bedavar.
And just for the record, before last week I don't think I've heard of any of these people. I do not know the story and if they want to fight it out in court, go gezunt aheit, just give her the get and then sue her for whatever you feel you can. But to use the get as leverage is wrong.
repeating your opinion doesn't make it meaningful.Please bring sources other than your own personal opinion. There are plenty of blogs where you can exchange personal opinions - this one requires sources. There was a decree in the time of the gaonim for a wife to get a get - because otherwise they converted to Islam. That decree was no applicable in the time of the rishonim - as the Ramban and others explicitly state. Times had changed and the problem were woman who got interested in other men. Therefore making a get easy was removed and it has stayed that way for the last 1000 years.
DeleteRegarding Rav Dovid's psak. He is simply making a statement of legal fact. You can't have a seruv if both sides are working together.The Dodelson's deny that they were working together.
So please stop repeating your unsubstanitated opinions. Go study some gemoras or teshuvas to find support for your views.
The Dodelson's provided evidence. Did R' Dovid call up the Dodelson and ask if she agreed to arbitrate?
DeleteBottom line is that there are times when you don't need sources. What you are trying to prove is that there is negotiations to arbitrate extortion.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a divorce/custody case where your sources about demanding a get come into play. This is an extortion case. What Weiss claims Greenwald is arbitrating is not the divorce or custody, but extorting money to get a get. That is wrong.
Bottom line you are not interested in understanding halacha but relying on your "gut feeling" I am not interested in your opinions that are not based on halacha. What you keep calling extortion the halacha indicates is his right. You don't like what the Torah has to say - that is your problem. Please stop repeating yourself.
DeleteRDE:
DeleteI reread the teshuva. The money quote: "And in general they did not make a decree which gave the husband the right to demand whatever he wanted with the threat that if she didn't comply she would remain an aguna."
RMF is clear that the Geonim could not have set such a scenario up....but you would like to say the Torah does??
RMF says that even a moredes is to be provided a get prior to HMR. Because, as the sevara is clear, RG was looking to protect the woman. Gone was the ability to divorce a wife against her will.
Yet you posit that as long as the husband isn't seeking to remarry, he can refuse her a get until she meets his demands. As long as he is m'agen himself, it's OK? That is your take on this sugya??
When the wife initiates a divorce, it disenfranchises the husband without any recourse. Just like you can take the horse to the well, but you cannot force it do drink, he cannot force her to dwell with him, and that is what you call a moredes. If she decides to abrogate the marriage, the least she can do is to compensate. She did admit the he is a good person, then her cause is not justified. The truth why she wants out only she knows, and he does suffer irepairable damage in addition with all the rishus that goes along with it. When you leverage with PR doing character assasination and defamation, with time it also gives birth to Mendel Epsteins sry' to have it her way. You have heard what schitut that caused, rodfei shalmonim, menoafim, matir eishes ish leshuk, mevi mamzerim leolam. D'ay d'ay d'ay, it is time for a turnback rollover.
DeletePutting aside the facts of this case, because I readily admit that I don't know the truth here, I just want to understand this last comment.
DeleteWhat Yossie Abraham referred to as "extortion" you say the halacha indicates is his right. Please provide Halachic sources that say that it is his right/permissible for a man to extort large amounts of money in order to provide a get.
I have seen or heard nothing about this case until last week. However, it is abundantly clear that this girl was pushed to cry out to the public. Weiss, clearly the one who instigated the court hearing, is the one that ended up with the raw end of the deal. She shouldnt have to pay for his issur of erchaois . He is a slimeball and the whole world, save a few people know it. There should be no Feinsteins or weisses involved with halachic clarification s or anything here. It is a blatant chilkul Hashem. It further supports her claim of being unable to get equal treatment. This whole situation erodes emunas chachomim. In an age of daily scandals do we need these embarassments. She should not have to capitulate to anything after hr took her to court and lost. Nothing anyone writes can change that. I even doubt if you can be partial in this case as you are so partial to your rebbes family (as you should be.)
DeleteThe world knows that has asking for money not just visitation. I have a friend in a similar situation, and I think he's a lowlife. Kal v'chomer to this guy.
EML it is amazing that someone who did not know anything about this case until last week except when he read a carefully engineered article in the NY Post and suddenly you "know" everything. Except you clearly don't understand what happened has happened nor the halachic issues.
DeleteI was at a shiur which hadn't started yet, when a guy, in the process of a divorce himelf, mentioned the story. My Rov, a Chaim Berliner, also was not aware of the situation. He was first hurt by the chillul Hashem, but said understandably that he feels for this girl who is crying out through so much pain. Calculated or not, she had her back against the wall. After the shiur I googled the story and found it on daattorah...I later found out thatit was in the Post.
DeleteI just cant wrap my head around how someone as intelligent as yourself-by the way, thank you for the Yad Moshe- I love it!) can believe that it is menchlech for someone who went to court willingly (noone claimed otherwise, thusfar) and didn't get what he wanted, is entitled to extort a get until he gets what he wants. Can he do it? Yes. But I have no doubt that the flames Gei Henom will be waiting, licking its chops in anticipation of his arrival.
Yossie,
ReplyDeleteYour comments make it obvious that you have no respect for Rabbis or Torah. Why don't you just tell us what you feel is right and wrong, and we'll write a book and call it Yossis new Torah. Why try to change the Torah we already have ? Secular courts are as good as Torah laws to you. If they already ruled, there is no place for Beis Din, according to you. The worst sin in your Torah is not giving a poor damsel what she wants. In our Torah one of the worst sin is embarrassing the Rabbis publicly. Your opinions are not based on Torah, end of story!
The Posek HaDor Maran HaGaon HaRav Dovid Feinstein shlit"a has spoken.
ReplyDeleteRabbosai, take note. This matter has now climaxed with the Posek HaDor himself issuing a ruling.
Not sure what to think. I know and love people on both sides of this. I also know this is not the first time a fight over a get has torn great people apart. I obviously lean towards gital's side, and have since the beginning of this terrible mess. It seems to me to be too many rabbonim leaning towards her side to be discounted. I thought the blogs defending Avrohom Meir were wrong. But over the last few days, I have simply been shocked. The post article, to me, was simply the wrong thing to do. No matter what. And it was so full of things that were misleading! The way it portrayed gital as being up against the "untouchable Feinstein family" when I saw no advantage being given to her ex husband because of that. And making it sound like only he is a member of a powerful rabbinic family seemed a little strange. And the fact that most of the article is spent on attacking dating the way it is done in the frum world! But even then I figured it was done out of pain. And the fact that it blasted orthodox dating and made the get sound like some kind of backwards ancient law I chalked up to the post rewording the article. Maybe it was an interview that was twisted. And then I saw that the dodelsons are running a campaign through a PR person! The facebook page and the article, the whole thing, is calculated to look exactly the way it does! It made me start to question my position, though I admit I was not sure the whole time, just leaning heavily. But now with R Dovid! My whole life I was told that there is one person who all the poskim in America listen to. And that's R Dovid. I know he can be looked at as nogea bedavar, but there isn't one posek in the world in this kind of thing that isn't nogea bedavar in some way. I just feel that if I had to choose who I should follow in this whole confusion, when everyone is twisting facts to their advantage, the one person I have always known for sure I can trust with my life and death shailos and my olam haba has to be R Dovid. Anyone who knows him even a little knows exactly what I mean. I'm sure what he wrote won't make a difference to most people who have dug in, especially not the modern orthodox or the poster on this blog who I can only refer to as the one with many names because he changes them to have conversations with him or herself, but for me it is enough to know that I have to wait and see before I just dismiss Avrohom Meir as a rasha. I hope that someone, maybe rabbi Greenwald, maybe R Dovid, is given siyata dishmaya to resolve this. We in klal yisrael can't afford this anymore. May Hashem help us achieve achdus.
ReplyDeleteI see no contradiction between the feinstein and dodelson view of Ronnie Greenwald's role. Did r d Feinstein ever claim that gital agreed to binding arbitration?
ReplyDeleteTo me it's clear it's all min hashomayim. Pay back time for the Rabbi Kotler and the heter maih rabbonim. Rabbi R finestien, and the tropper scandals. Reb Moshe was a great possik but his grandchildren are well..
ReplyDeleteWell... Well..... Did you find the right word rockymountainnanach? The words you are looking for ...
Deleteתלמידי חכמים
Yes Rav Reuvain Feinstien, Rav Yoseif Asher Weiss. These are Talmidei Chachamin who know how to learn very well. Do you think they chose Rav Yoseif Asher Weiss to write the Shas for Artscroll by mistake ? It wasn't because of his traveling to Uman on Rosh Hashana !! He is a real תלמיד חכם, and I would be very careful making disparaging comments about him, or Rav Reuvain Feinstein, or Rav Malkiel Kotler.
FYI: Rav Moshe Feinstien was actually mesader kidushin in Rav Malkiel kotlers SECOND marriage.
Rav Moshe was not against a heter meah rabbonim. It was just the use of it for finanical gain which wasn't a factor with Rav Kotler
DeleteJames is misrepresentating. He got a hetter from a dayan. As for his claims that it is muttar just to go to arko'oys because everyone is corrupt well then lets just close everything down shabbos kashrus etc.
ReplyDeleteI do find this case a lot more murky than epstein where it is clearcut tamar waljed out of bais din and is not an agunah by any stretch of the imagination. This case should be decided by independent gedolim if they exist in eretz yisroel.
Which heter and which dayan?
DeleteI wouldnt say it is muttar to go to arkaos. I said there are no competent BD and I would understand if people go to arkaos. I think binding arbitration by trained jewish attorneys who are well acquainted with the law is ideal and I think the Shulchan Aruch would permit this given the reality.
What does a lack of BD have to do with Shabbos?
DeleteJames. No you said you dont hold of bais din so why hold of a get? You clearly have never dealt with American divorce lawyers have you? They are what makes the system so corrupt. Your suggestion is a joke.
ReplyDeletePreviously you described machol l'hoyro as a a respected bais din. Now they are incompetent. Frankly you seem seem confused which is okay except you are very strong in your opinions so which way is it?
Weiss got a hetter from rabbi wohlhandler. The true halocho is like rav gestetner no matter how much you protest. You have a point about a psak from a single dayan but I am unsure and doubt this gave Dodelson a right to go to arko"oys in regard to all other matters. I agree this case is somewhat murky but the epstein case most certainly is not.
Even with a hetter arko'oys one is not allowed to collect more than what tbe halocho grants
@James - "I dont hold that it is assur to go to US courts" - Since you and your ORA cohorts are so agonized by the "agunot" problem, here's a simple solution: You've ripped out the Choshen Mishpat section of the Torah. Now just rip out the Evan haEzer section of the Torah also, and all your "agunot" will magically disappear!
ReplyDeleteStop 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