I agree with her that the basis of the present chilul hashem started when these major rabbinical figures signed this Kol Koreh which has no basis in Shulchan Aruch or poskim.
============================================
sure thing my friend. please post this guest post. it includes e/th.
The laws regarding Avrohom Meir are detailed in Shulchan Aruch (Jewish Code of Law). He is to be dealt with like someone who is in Niddui. No one may come within four amos of him; no one may eat or drink together with him; he cannot be part of a zimun nor may he count towards a minyan, etc.
We turn to the administration of the Yeshiva of Staten Island, where he studies, to protest against him and to remove him from the Kollel.
We also turn to Artscroll (where his father and uncle who support him work) to protest against his family and to remove them from their positions, for it is not fitting that Torah should be transmitted through them.
We have been asked by the family of the Agunah, and by those who wish to save her from the chains of her detention, what is permissible according to the Torah. Is it permissible to protest against him and to gather in public protest and is it permissible to make it known publicly and in the newspapers?
We state that, according to the Torah, it is permissible and it is a mitzvah to protest against him, to gather publicly in front of his house and in other places, and to make the matter known publicly and in the newspapers in order to save an oppressed woman from her oppressor and an Agunah from being chained.
There is an obligation upon anyone who is able to do so, to influence Avrohom Meir that he should listen to Bais Din and that he should give a Get.
We affix our signatures on the 22nd day of Shevat, 5773
Rabbi Yaakov Perlow
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky
Rabbi Aharon Moshe Schechter (in great and deep pain due to the Chillul Hashem which has brought us
to take this step)
Rabbi Aharon Feldman
Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld
Rabbi Nota Tzvi Greenblatt
Rabbi Tzvi Schechter
Rabbi Moshe Heineman (I agree with all of the above until he comes to Bais Din)
Rabbi Elya Dov Wachtfogel
Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer
Regarding the matter of Avrohom Meir Weiss, son of Yosaif Asher Weiss: He went to court and refused to come to Bais Din. A Siruv has been issued against him by Bais Din Mechon L’hoyroa. And, for more than three years he has been withholding a Get from his wife.
The laws regarding Avrohom Meir are detailed in Shulchan Aruch (Jewish Code of Law). He is to be dealt with like someone who is in Niddui. No one may come within four amos of him; no one may eat or drink together with him; he cannot be part of a zimun nor may he count towards a minyan, etc.
We turn to the administration of the Yeshiva of Staten Island, where he studies, to protest against him and to remove him from the Kollel.
We also turn to Artscroll (where his father and uncle who support him work) to protest against his family and to remove them from their positions, for it is not fitting that Torah should be transmitted through them.
We have been asked by the family of the Agunah, and by those who wish to save her from the chains of her detention, what is permissible according to the Torah. Is it permissible to protest against him and to gather in public protest and is it permissible to make it known publicly and in the newspapers?
We state that, according to the Torah, it is permissible and it is a mitzvah to protest against him, to gather publicly in front of his house and in other places, and to make the matter known publicly and in the newspapers in order to save an oppressed woman from her oppressor and an Agunah from being chained.
There is an obligation upon anyone who is able to do so, to influence Avrohom Meir that he should listen to Bais Din and that he should give a Get.
We affix our signatures on the 22nd day of Shevat, 5773
Rabbi Yaakov Perlow
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky
Rabbi Aharon Moshe Schechter (in great and deep pain due to the Chillul Hashem which has brought us
to take this step)
Rabbi Aharon Feldman
Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld
Rabbi Nota Tzvi Greenblatt
Rabbi Tzvi Schechter
Rabbi Moshe Heineman (I agree with all of the above until he comes to Bais Din)
Rabbi Elya Dov Wachtfogel
Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer
DT why do you do this? To have fun with the unintelligent? If these rabbis don't know halacha what are you expecting from this woman? There has not been one rabbi, including those that signed, that can explain how one can demand the firing of the father or uncle. Call them up. Any of them. You will see. First they will tell you that this wasn't the paper they signed etc. We know its all true. But they won't remove their names. So, the question begs itself, is atara wrong for believing in the rabbis? Yes, you, dt, obviously have connection to the weisses side and understand that the halacha sides with them. All choshen mishpat chaburos also know that. We all know that. But why pick on a woman who doesnt know halacha? Someone who thinks Jeremy stern is a rabbi? Someone who thinks Herschel schechter can wash r' dovid Feinstein feet? She has emunas chachomim. The fact that these are your leaders are your fault and mine and hers. So, keep up your fight with the rabbis but leave the followers alone.
ReplyDelete@Just Saying - the fact remains that Gital has produced the bizarre situation where the uneducated masses have become a lynch mob with the express approval of these rabbis - in the name of halacha
DeleteNot sure that this has happened before in Jewish history. This is a twisted form of Daas Torah - which is against the halacha.. The only solution I see is that the mob has to understand that they have been had and to get them to take responsibility for their actions - instead of hiding behind "daas Torah".
Obviously the victim in this mess is emunas hachomim. I really don't see anyway around this conclusion.
In other words intelligent but sincerely mistaken people such as Atara need to be educated - and that is the only way to change the situation.
"There has not been one rabbi, including those that signed, that can explain how one can demand the firing of the father or uncle."
DeleteArtscroll did the firing. So I put the blame only on artscroll. They should have handled this differently.
I agree that it is completely illegitimate to fire father and uncle. However, in war they do as they do in war, so it is artscroll who should have kept a cool head and should have protected their employees....
Well said, Atara, now we can sit back & see how the Weiss ally's disgrace the name of Chachmei Yisroel.
ReplyDeleteI welcome responses joycefeldman54@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteHey. R u scared to publish my poem or is this an open forum?
ReplyDeletescared of what? - the poem was nonsense
Delete@ Just saying. Shame on you. You sit behind an anonymous screen name and lament on the Chillul Hashem and zilzul talmid chachamim and then you do the same thing yourself. Does your smicha allow you to insult R' Shachter and R' Stern? Why do you call people who you disagree with "unintelligent"?
ReplyDeleteI don't need to say it. I believe they're track record speaks for itself. If you would like to call them rabbis go right ahead. Just realize how much you are degenerating the title.
DeleteJoyce Feldman,
ReplyDeleteI am Dovid Eidensohn who has posted here many times many proofs that it is wrong to coerce a GET in the Dodelson-Weiss case. One of the proofs was the Vilna Gaon who says EH 77:5 that there is no posek who permits coercion with MOUS OLEI, and this is the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo and nosei kalim of the Shulchan Aruch EH 77 para 2,3. This pesak has been upheld recently by Gedolei HaDor Rav Chaim Kaniefsky, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, Reb Nissim Karelitz, Rav Yuvia Weiss and the Beis Din in Bnei Braq. If you coerce the husband with humiliation or loss of income the GET is invalid and child born from this GET is a mamzer. What kind of incredible chutspah do these signers have to refuse to acknowledge their terrible mistake? I have spoke to some of the big ones, and I assure you, they don't know the laws of Gittin. One person offered me a source, and I wrote a teshuva on it, and sent it to the Beis Din in Bnei Braq and they accepted it and sent out flyers all over Israel that one who humiliates the husband makes an invalid GET.
Now, I have been calling the signers to task for not showing their source. Let them prove that I am a liar by showing their source. I guarantee you, there is no source. And if they claim to have one, as that one rabbi claimed, I will show you why he is completely wrong with solid sources backing up my rejection. Incidentally, the laws of MOUS OLEI, when a woman demands a GET because she loathes her husband, is not mentioned at all in the laws of Gittin. It is in the laws of KESUBOSE. Why? Because we don't want a GET with MOUS OLEI and do not recognize the right of the woman to have one, even though she claims that her husband repels her. So the laws of MOUS OLEI are not in the laws of Gittin, but in the laws of KESUBOSE about a couple living as married people.
It's amazing how you twist halacha to not only condone this extortion, but to make it a chiyuv! Where does the SA or any other poskim that you quote say that it is okay for a husband to demand money in return for a get? It's true that halacha does not call for coercion in such a case. However, the husband is "encouraged" to give a get when a marriage is clearly over. Now, you keep repeating that term GET MEUSA, that if Weiss finally acquiesces and gives the Get that it would be illegitimate since he is not doing it willfully. I disagree. I truly believe that this man wants to get on with his life and to remarry. Likewise he does not want to labelled a meagen by the hamon am. To try to spin it that only when his appetite is whetted with $350K or so will he then be a willful get surrenderrer is ludicrous and preposterous. This type of "koshering" a get is unheard of, has no halachic basis and would surely set a dangerous precedent if it is condoned. That's why the rabbis are not rallying around Weiss' cause. This will give every deadbeat husband the halachic right to extort his ex-wife's family. I agree that every attempt should be made at Shalom Bayit. However, once it is clear that the two sides cannot coexist, there is no reason to delay giving the get. I am aware of the halacha of moredes. However, we do not know when and how to apply it today and nobody can say with certainty what drove Gital away. None of the pro-Weiss commenters here would wish their daughters such a fate, to live in misery the rest of their lives if C'V their marriage falls apart. So you can all pound your chests proudly screaming HALACHA, but deep down you know that you are all hypocrites. Naval Birshut Hotorah is the perfect description to what's going on here. Tell me, if the Dodelson's were not supposedly wealthy, would there be anything to discuss? The custody arrangements would have long been settled and both of them would have already been remarried and starting new families. Every day that you persist in this ill advised and ill conceived treasure quest, you are preventing these two people the opportunity to get on with their lives.
DeleteProblem #1 - There is no demand for money in exchange for a Get! AM Weiss is not obligated halachicly to give Gital a Get. If she would like a Get let her pay for her damages first!!!
DeleteThe money has nothing to do with the get. The money is to compensate for all the damages she has caused. Protocol calls for the get, only after all outstanding business has been taken care of.
DeleteUnless you are suggesting that R. Weiss still wants to be married to Ms. Dodelson, and fulfill his obligation of onah, the issue of ma'us alai has long become irrelevant. If the stories one reads from R. Weiss's supporters the issues are custody and payment of his legal bills, not a desire to continue the marriage. In that case, however they got to this point, he also does not want to remain married; thus, this has stopped being a case of ma'us alai and started being a case about child custody and money between a couple who both want to divorce.
DeleteChaim,
DeletePlease read the posts on this blog from the Weiss's supporters. It will explain everything. Stop defining the Weiss's side from the Dodelson's perspective.
"To try to spin it that only when his appetite is whetted with $350K or so will he then be a willful get surrenderrer is ludicrous and preposterous."
DeleteWho is spinning it that way? The argument is that coercion in the forms of humiliation and protests can invalidate a Get.
"I am aware of the halacha of moredes. However, we do not know when and how to apply it today...."
Who is the "we"? Experts in Gittin know how.
May I request that you expend a little more effort in studying the positions of your opponents before posting here in the future?
Thanks.
You are totally wrong Reb d. There is no coercion taken place. Just people who asking to help convince him to give a get. I already bought you a few teshuvous to prove my point,but you haven't answer not one single of them. You seem to be blinded by the truth and twist the Halacha as you want it to be. The poskim listed on the kk are the biggest poskim in gitin. They probably ignore because they think you and your brother are not interested in the emes, just looking to pretend that only you know the Halacha, and if you disagree, you are called producing a mamzer factory. I wouldn't answer you either, but I don't want others reading this blog to think that somehow, only you and nobody else can pasken on this.
DeleteReb Dovid, with all do respect, you sure sound like you know what you are talking about. To me, a lay man, you surely sound right. But may I just ask you, what are the other sides svarois, even if you think that they are wrong. Although they may not know Halocho, do they at least have a Lomdos?
ReplyDeleteChaim,
DeleteI spoke to many of the signers and I have not yet heard anything that is not either a lie, or possible a lie, or a clear revelation that somebody doesn't know the laws of Gittin. There are two exceptions, one of the signers, and another Rov in Israel. Both of them said or wrote a reason to permit humiliating the husband. I asked one of them how he can pasken against an open Rashbo who is quoted and accepted by the Radvaz, Beis Yosef and Chazon Ish, and he told me that he has a source, and he named it, a late Rishon who is nowhere near the level of the Rashbo. I asked him, okay, you have a source, but if the Rashbo argues, you have a machlokes, and you are talking about a sofek aishes ish and a sofek diorayso. He replied that if the source he quoted said what he said, that means that the Rashbo agrees and the text we have in the Rashbo is wrong. But the Radvaz and the Beis Yosef and the Chazon Ish all bring the Rashbo and nobody brings his source? Furthermore, his source is not talking about somebody who claims MOUS OLEI, but it is about somebody who is in clear violation of the Torah and who must divorce his wife. So how can the Rov claim that the ladies today who have husbands of MOUS OLEI may do what a lady may do when the husband is forbidden not to give a GET? And how can he make the claim that if the Rivash disagrees with the Rashbo we change the text in the Rashbo? Especially as the Radvaz Beis Yosef and Chazon Ish bring the Rashbo and nobody brings the Rivash. , I quote the Shulchan Aruch EH 77 para 2 and 3 and all of the poskim there including the GRO #5 who says that nobody permits coercion with MOUS OLEI. How come the Gro never heard of the Rivash? end part one. See part 2.
part two to Chaim re the rabbi who permits humiliations
DeleteThe Rov's source is a Rivash 127 who is talking about a woman who was married about a year and the husband is unable to consummate the marriage. The Talmud says that such a person may be labelled a wicked person for not giving his wife a GET. Therefore, this has nothing to do with the ladies who have healthy husbands but who want a GET. Furthemore, the Rivash never says openly that we may humiliate him, but the Rov inferred this because the Rivash says that we may not put such a husband in cherem and we may not physically attack him, even though he does not say clearly it is forbidden to humiliate him. Again, maybe we may humiliate a husband who clearly sins by not giving a GET to his wife because he is not a man. But how does this apply to the women today who have healthy husbands? See Marshdam 63 that when the Rivash argues with the Rashbo we always do like the Rashbo even if the Rashbo is lenient in a Torah law and the Rivash is strict. He is talking there about a GET and he says that the Rashbo negates the Rivash so we would make the GET if the Rashbo permits it even if the Rivash forbids it. IThe Rivash next to the Rashbo doesn't exist so there is no doubt. Surely if the Rashbo forbids the GET the halacha is that it is forbidden, not like these two rabbis who say that we, in a Torah law of GET and Dovor Shevirvah we rule leniently like the Rivosh. Especially that the Rivash never said openly what the Rov invented.
Note also that the Mahari HaLevi IV:19 says that our custom is that when there is a majority of rabbis who permit something and a few forbid it, if it is a dovor shebivierva we are strict. Whoever permits humiliations when the husband is healthy based on this Rivash doesn't know what he is doing and doesn't know how to pasken hard shaalose. He doesn't know the Marshdam who is quoted at the end of the Radvaz, he doesn't know what the Rivash is talking about, and he doesn't know what he is talking about.
But in parting, unfortunately, there are greater people than these two rabbis who, in order to help ladies in distress, said ridiculous things, such as the one who said that Rabbeinu Tam, who is the major rfghter against coercions, didn't really believe what he said. And the dayan I spoke to who coerced a GET and he explained that it was his daughter. Oh well. The children of such Gittin are mamzerim and I hope they appreciate these rabbis and their efforts to be helpful. One last thing here, the Chasam Sofer says that in all arguments of the poskim whether to force a GET and some Rov ruled that we must coerce, the GET is invalid by the Torah law and the children born from the GET are mamzerim. And these rabbonim take a machlokess of the poskim where nobody quotes the Rivash until they invented it and make a doubt out of it and then they change the text of the Rashbo in defiance of the greatest poskim who bring the Rashbo that it is forbidden to humiliate a husband. Incidentally, the Rashbo forbids humiliation even if the husband is not a man and has a Talmudic decree that he must give a GET.
I don;t get it... Rav Shmuel kamenetzky, Chief Apologist for teh Dodelsons has already backed off... he said that in lihgt on ongoing negotiations the campaign must cease and desist.
ReplyDeleteSo why are they continuing?
U r sorely uninformed. The weisses were supposed to meet dodelson this past Sunday as the climax of said negotiations. Weiss backed off coming in the end. The kamenersjys are putting together a statement to say just that. I feel bad that u put out ur opinions prior to properly researching. As it stands there r no serious negotiations.
DeleteP Morris, you are sorely misinformed. It was the Dodelsons who backed off, not the Weisses. Go ahead and call the Kaminetskys if you don't believe it.
DeleteThe Kol Korei is dated more than 3 years after the couple first split and more than 3 years after R. Weiss initiated the first action in civil court. While it may have escalated things, it can hardly be said to have started the chilul Hashem, unless you think Jews publicly behaving against the Torah is not, per se, a chilul Hashem.
ReplyDeletelol - the chaim berlin rosh yeshiva - himself a "lo tzayis dina" is a signator to this kol koreh - what a joke - talk about the kettle calling the pot black...
ReplyDeleteyankel fun mikkeys kaveh shteeb
amazing what passes for dAss Toyreh today... rabbi perlow whos not interested in hearing the story, rabbi wachfogel who paskens before he hears even half the story, rabbi hopfer who refuses to listen when hes being told the story, and rabbi kamenetsky who agrees with both sides of the story...
ReplyDeleteyaankel fun mikkeys kaveh shteeb
Atara Levine you are going to rot in a very very hot place. You have the brazeness to admit in public that you went and taped an elderly Rebbetzin without her permission?! That is illegal and immoral and disgusting. Oh, wait. i did not realize you were an Agunah as well. That is the only dun lkaf zechus I have. That or you are the Naaf that Shlomo HaMelech warns us not to take advcice from.
ReplyDeleteEliana. U can calm down. If u read well u will see that I said I heard the recording. The same way I hear the president speak. I did not record. :)
DeleteChayim you can claim extortion all you like. The bottom line is she has caused him financial loss with her insistence on fighting this out in arko'oys. She is liable for his legal costs. Now you can shout all you want but the the halocho is that if someone goes to arko'oys shelo k'din as has been ruled by rav gestetner and other here then she is chayav to pay his losses. i hardly call that extortion. That is the halocho. Now in this case i admit its somewhat murky but I have yet to see you protesting in other cases like Aharon Friedman and Meir Kin where it is completely clear the woman went to arko'oys shelo k'din or left bais din in the middle of the case. Yet i never saw you protest. So regarding this Dodelson woman thou doth protest too much. it is you who is the hypochrite. So please cut out your fake anger.
ReplyDeleteShe invited him to beith din. He went to civil court. He refused to appear before a beit din.
DeleteI trust civil courts, but even to those who frown on "arkaos" the case is clear that he went first and that her only possibility to counter his civil court claim for sole custody was to file for divorce.
So the argument that she owes him anything because he chose to go to court is really, really disingenious.
There was no beit din or civil court that found her liable for his legal costs or any other costs. To claim that she is halachically obligated to pay him money is false since only a beit din can make such a determination. Regarding the other cases, I do not offer any opinion as they have nothing to do with the case at hand.
DeleteOnce again...
DeleteHe was forced to go to court due to her kidnapping of his child!
On the other point, she is halachicly obligated to pay for the costs she incurred. You are correct that he can't FORCE it out of her unless he takes her to bais din over it, but she is still obligated to pay it. On the other hand, she can't force him to give her a Get, unless she takes him to bais din over it. That leaves us with the current situation, if she wants the Get let her pay up.
The court decided she did not kidnap the child. So I suppose it is libel to state that she "kidnapped" the child.
DeleteA goyish court saying she didn't kidnap is meaningless. She kidnapped per Torah law which grants custody of a son to the father.
DeleteDid the court decide that she did not kidnap the child?
Delete@guestpost there is not one gadol who says to go to the new york post,at least not one in the frum crowd.furthermore at least 3 of those gedolim told reb ruvein feinsteins wife that they did not sign this letter and just would not take their name off.also reb shmuel just signed a letter saying not to do what you have just done.and i dont mean to sound mean but you dont seem to know anything about this case.for example the seiruv wasnt for am to give a get because gital never asked for a get in beis din because she would have been named a moredes.also did the gedolim above sign on everything you wrote or you just wrote it so it seems like that.lets understand maybe am should be giving her a get but halacha states that he does not have to.she is a moredes plain and simple.i respect all those gedolim or at least the ones i know of but halacha will 10 times out of 10 be on the feinsteins side.if you wish to make a point that he should give a get because thats the right and moral thing to do,i can accept that maybe even agree to that.but please...gital going against reb dovid and reb ruvein in halacha?!you sound disturbed pumpkin
ReplyDeleteso at this point, I feel that whatever side we are on, we have way overstepped our lines. The judgment, condemnation, rifts and colossal chillul Hashem is so unbearably sad.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion is that we stop playing judge and arguing our side and daven our hearts out that this situation be resolved NOW and that all involved parties should go on to live happy, peaceful, content yashrusdike lives steeped in Torah, Avodah and gemilus Chasodim and that the name of Hashem and His messengers be glorified once again in the world.
Rabbi Eidensohn, the scope of your influence is powerful, as evidenced by the volume of comments on stories related to this case. I'm wondering if you can perhaps start such a campaign, where people pledge in the comment section of your website to daven, take on a kabbalah in the zechus of these families.
Thank you and may all of kllal yisroel know only peace!
Davening is always a good idea but there are issues here that are fundamental not just to this marriage but to countless other present and future divorces & to the future of klal yisroel that need to be resolved.There is a fundamental disput about whether a get is given when the marriage is no longer salvageable or when all marital issues have been resolved.
ReplyDeleteThe dispute runs even deeper. Those advocating unconditional and immediate divorce on demand of the wife seek to change the Halacha.
DeleteJoe - I accept your clarification that the issue of divorce on demand needs to be exposed as Anti-Torah and according to G-d fearing people, anti common sense. But for even those who dont advocate for divorce on demand, the modern day TorAh world needs to once and for all clarify and unite around the basic halachic principle of whether a get is given when a marriage is no longer salvageable or only after the resolution of all marital issues through a beit din process or a mutually agreed upon Torah-based arbirator. This clarification needs to be made and accepted by all Orthodox mainstream rabbanim for there to be any possibility of avoiding unending outbreaks of divorce warfare among present and future families. It seems to me that the get is should be at the end of the divorce process, but this issue is bigger than I am able to determine and the major rabbis of this generation MUST come to Agreement on this issue if there is to be any hope of peace in klal yisroel.
DeleteRAV Eidesohn - could you consider making this a guest post as I beleive the issue I am raising is fundamental to not only this divorce , but many or most present and future divorces. Without a consensus on the issue highlighted above, it seems we are doomed to endless outbreaks of devastating divorce warfare between present and future families.
yes - if you expand on it.
DeleteI am not a scholar so I cant predent the sources for the two sided of the question. What are Rav Herschel Schecter's soutces for his evident position that when a marriage is no longer salvageable , a get should be given?
DeleteYour brother has done a thorough and heroic job of outlining the sources that a get is the FINAL resolution of all marital issues.
But most importantly, even if there ate competing sources on this issue, we must have a collective decision and a l'maaseh consensus to smeliorate rather than inflame present and future divorce warfare.
I would bet that a get would be given if she would agree to live within a 10 minute walk of the marital home until the child is 18, and that he gets custody every other weekend and one night a week. I would bet that all other demands would fall away. the only glitch would be to guarantee such an agreement.
ReplyDeletemoney in escrow is the only guarantee I know of. and the amount would have to be appropriate to her family's wealth.
What these 'gedolim' signed is and will remain an embarrassment and shame to the signers forever. and nothing they say can l ever change that. (same as the people who signed the friedman seiruv without a single hazmana)
Common denominator between Friedman and weiss is rabbi Shmuel kaminetzky. I think all if us will be very much informed as to how much he actually is involved with Ora and Jeremy stern. I think when the Epstein - wolmark case comes to trial you will hear mention of his name more than you would expect. He even signed the Friedman siruv with wolmark. Need I say more? The only redeeming factor here seems to be his cowardice when pressure comes the other way. Case in point, his meaningless rambling letter denouncing the attacks on the weiss family. I feel bad for Tamar Epstein these days. She's been replaced by dodelson as the pin-up girl for Ora. What did all of her years of attacks get her? White hairs. Maybe if she comes to the table there will be a breakthrough in the Friedman case and the country could end their stalemate.
DeleteThis correct position to take in this case would be:
ReplyDeleteGET GITAL.
From the Dod's side it means 'let Gital have her GET.
From the Wi's side it means 'get her (to agree to, at least, some compromise).
So this catch phrase is politically correct.
I can't make out why the Epstein Wolmark case has yet not come to trial, let alone making the news of the findings. Is it possible some backdoor deals are made? Obstruction of Justice?
DeleteCan someone compose a list of Gittins coerced by the INFAMOUS moitzoei shem ra ORA. I would love to see them throw in the towel after having them disgraced, put them in Cherem, expose their dirty tactics and dig up shmutz on their leaders to give them a taste their own medicine, compose a Mamzerim list, Eishes Ish list, boycott them all, venireh ma yihye chalomoisov.remeber, your influence counts, get 'em All.