Friday, May 16, 2014

Going to secular court: When and how? Does beis din need to give permission

This is a very important topic and keeps coming up. Would somebody like to do a guest post on the topic?









שו"ע חושן משפט כו

סעיף א
 אסור לדון בפני דייני עובדי כוכבים ובערכאות שלהם (פי' מושב
קבוע לשריהם לדון בו),  אפילו בדין שדנים בדיני ישראל, ואפילו נתרצו ב' בעלי דינים לדון בפניהם, אסור. וכל הבא לידון בפניהם, הרי זה רשע, וכאילו חרף וגדף והרים יד בתורת מרע"ה. הגה: ויש ביד בית דין לנדותו ולהחרימו עד שיסלק יד העובדי כוכבים מעל חבירו (מהרי"ק שורש קנ"ד). וכן היו מחרימין המחזיק ביד ההולך לפני עובדי כוכבים (ריב"ש סי' ק"ב). ואפילו אינו דן לפני עובדי כוכבים, ק שכופהו על ידי עובדי כוכבים שיעמוד עמו לדין ישראל, ראוי למתחו על העמוד (מרדכי פ' הגוזל קמא). וע"ל סימן שפ"ח. מי שהלך בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים ונתחייב בדיניהם, ואחר כך חזר ותבעו לפני דייני ישראל, יש אומרים שאין נזקקין לו (מהרי"ק שורש קפ"ח /קפ"ז/); ויש אומרים דנזקקין לו (מרדכי בפ' הגוזל בתרא), אם לא שגרם הפסד לבעל דינו לפני עובדי כוכבים (מהר"מ מירזברק). והסברא ראשונה נראה לי עיקר.

סעיף ב
 היתה יד עובדי כוכבים תקיפה, ובעל דינו אלם, ואינו יכול להציל ממנו בדייני ישראל, יתבענו לדייני ישראל תחלה; אם לא רצה לבא, נוטל רשות מבית דין ומציל בדייני עובד כוכבים מיד בעל דינו. הגה: ויש רשות לבית דין לילך לפני עובדי כוכבים ולהעיד שזה חייב לזה (בה"ת בשם ר' שרירא). וכל זה דווקא כשאינו רוצה להיות ציית דין, אבל בלאו הכי אסור לבית דין להרשות לדון לפני עובדי כוכבים (מהרי"ק שורש א').

סעיף ג
 המקבל עליו בקנין לידון עם חבירו לפני עובדי כוכבים, אינו כלום, ואסור לידון בפניהם.  ואם קבל עליו שאם לא ילך בפניהם יהיה עליו כך וכך לעניים, אסור לילך לדון עמו לפני עובדי כוכבים  וחייב ליתן מה שקיבל עליו לעניים. ויש מי שאומר שאין בית דין מוציאין ממנו, אלא מודיעין אותו שחל הנדר עליו.

סעיף ד
 שטר שכתוב שיוכל לתבעו בדיני העו"ג, אינו רשאי לתבעו בפניהם. ואם מסר השטר לעובד כוכבים שיתבענו בדיניהם, חייב לשלם לו כל מה שהפסיד יותר ממה שהוא חייב בדיני ישראל. הגה: וכל זה שיכול לכופו בדין ישראל, אבל אם הלוה אלם, מותר למסרו לעובדי כוכבים (ב"י ס"ו בשם הריטב"א). וע"ל סוף סי' שס"ט (הרא"ש בתשובה כלל י"ח סי' א'). מדין עובד כוכבים המוכר שטר חוב לישראל על ישראל אחר, אם דן הוא בדין עובדי כוכבים.

107 comments :

  1. All of these halachos are discussing private monetary disputes between two Jews. Not where one Jew has committed criminal acts and is a danger to others. Right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. If however there is absolutely no danger of asking a rabbi first - he should be asked. However if the rabbi says no - another rabbi should be asked until one is found that says to go to the police. In case of danger or no time to consult a rabbi a person can rely on his own judgment of danger to call the police.

      Delete
    2. I challenge, why no Rabbis are standing up against the women such as Lonna Kin and others who ran to the civil courts as their first actions and even in the Lonna Kin case where she obtained a gag-order which specifically prohibited him from revealing certain things that she and her daughter were doing, yet ORA attacks Meir with rabbis backing them up! When we live in a world where the women have no accountability for their Torah violations, some men such as Meir will rise to protect his Torah rights.Take a look at this site:http://mishpattsedek.com/mtwp/justice-denied/meir-kin-lonna-kin/ where Rabbi Ginzburg from the Agudas Rabbonim Bais Din ,Lonna Kin's cousin (Aryeh Ralbag)Bais Din, had issued a letter in advance of a phony seiruv against Meir Kin. The feminists will then turn around and call him a obstinate/recalcitrant husband but nothing is farther from the truth. Unfortunately nothing is farther from the truth, its all about the money and influence. Aryeh Ralbag, Lonnas cousin is ironically a cousin of the Ralbag in the Rabbanut in Israel who are both being investigated for ordering kidnappings against men!

      Delete
    3. I do the same idea about Shabbos. If the first rabbi paskens it is chillul Shabbos I keep going to other rabbis until I find one that says it's okay.

      Delete
    4. @ Tal Benshachar
      "All of these halachos are discussing private monetary disputes between two Jews".

      Incorrect.

      These halachos also apply to monetary disputes between Jews and non-Jews.

      This is supported by the Midrash Tanchuma (Parshas Shoftim, 1) [also quoted in Yalkut Shimoni (Tehillim 147)], and cited in Shut Tashbatz (II, 290)

      See also ibid. (IV, section 3:6) at the end, where he writes that if the non-Jew is willing to accept the authority of the beis din, and all the more so if he desires to have his case heard in beis din and to abide by its ruling, then the halacha is obvious that it's prohibited to take the non-Jew to a secular court.

      See also: "Orach Mishpat" (26:1) (p. 92a), "Bein Yisrael Lenachri" (3:15)

      Delete
    5. The prohibition of Arkaos is to be Dan before them instead of before a Bais Din. Going to the police for crime intervention is not connected to this. It needs to be cleared of Mesirah issues, but has nothing to do with Heter Arkaos, and doesn't need a Heter from a Bais Din but rather a Hora'ah that it is permissible, or if the person himself is a talmid chacham and knows that in that instance it is Mutar and correct to go to the police, that's good enough. There is no particular need to Davka get clearance from a 'Rabbi'

      Delete
  2. Is it only on something that has monetary value? What about in divorce and custody where one party is being totally unreasonable?

    What role can the Beth Din play.
    Afterall if these sort of cases go to the
    secular court, they may not have the
    same values as we as Jews hold, so
    decisions made may not hold by trueJewish values and present
    problems for the parties involved and
    also those on the outside looking in!

    In Jewish cases, should secular judges consult with the Dyanim to get a better understanding, bbefore making decisions that can wreck lives?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The problem is that this halacha is honored in the breach.

    Regardind divorce situations, one bet din openly states that women today dont know about the requirement to go to bet din, so their official policy is to ignore this halacha. (In actual practice rthey almost never do dinei torah anyway, just gitten and seruvim against men(they have a policy against writing a seruv against a woman. Sounds unusual? That's their poli y.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally I don't see what there is to discuss or what the point would be of a guest post. This was pretty much settled and is well documented

    as is seen in the Kol Koreh that can be found here.  It can all be read in a fairly decent English translation here.  The only question that remains is why it is selectively applied by the supporters of various sides.  Most notably in the Weiss case where the husband went to court against this clear halakha, lost, and then extorted his wife for his losses... Clearly against this Kol Koreh and against the Shulhan Arukh.

    Likewise with Friedman, he went to secular court against halakha, and the Beit Din did protest, but then Epstein stayed in court against all halakha.  Yet her supporters have never protested or even admitted that something was wrong.

    The selective application of this halakha is a hot topic for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have expressed yourself the above rather strongly and harshly on this topic for a long time - both on this blog and and yours. The view expressed on the kol koreh however represent a lchatchila view but there are major poskim who don't take such a strong view - especially given the circumstances of the Weiss and Friedman case. For example the Baltimore Beis Din continued involvment with the case after he went to secular court after receiving a heter from a rav and did not protest his going to secular court. Obviously the Baltiimore Beis Din doesn't agree with your understanding of the case.

      Which beis din protested - the Washington beis din which had no jurisdiction or the Philadelphia beis din which had no jurisdiction?

      It is also clear that if a person is in danger of suffering great loss and the beis din can not help him if he waits for their permission - that he can go.

      The Shulchan Aruch describes the ability of beis din to apply sanctions for him to withdraw from secular court. Something that the Baltimore beis din did not feel a need to do and it also wasn't necessary because part of the heter was to go for a specific issue but that beis din would retain control over the case.

      Bottom line: You are taking a very hard line on this as if there is no other view - expecially considering the circumstances in the two cases where both parties are fully aware of the halacha and have access to major talmidei chachomim who did not object to what they did. It is not selective application but application of the nuanced halacha in a way which was deemed appropriate by major talmidei chachomim. This no different than many other halachos which are publicly stated in extreme form but for individual cases the application is much different.

      If these 70 rabbis had signed a denunciation of Weiss and Friedman for going to secular court then there would relevancy but they were simply making a strong public condemnation of going to secular court when it debases the status of beis din.

      Delete
    2. Why are you talking about Friedman in the Friedman case? There I clearly said:
      Likewise with Friedman, he went to secular court against halakha, and the Beit Din did protest, but then Epstein stayed in court against all halakha. Yet her supporters have never protested or even admitted that something was wrong.

      In the Epstein case the problem is with Tamar, and from what has been said, the Balitmore B"D has condemned her actions and refused to do anything until she completely leaves the secular system.

      It is also clear that if a person is in danger of suffering great loss and the beis din can not help him if he waits for their permission - that he can go.
      In danger of bodily harm yes. But you cannot conflate that with monetary loss. If you have Teshuvot that say otherwise I would be happy to see them, but I have yet to see an opinion that says one can bypass the B"D to avoid monetary loss.

      If these 70 rabbis had signed a denunciation of Weiss and Friedman for going to secular court then there would relevancy but they were simply making a strong public condemnation of going to secular court when it debases the status of beis din.
      I'm sorry but I don't agree. Halakha is halakha.

      Delete
    3. http://www.bethdin.org/docs/JBDA_Vol1.pdf pages 32-33

      6. Cases Involving the Threat of Imminent Loss
      Most halachic authorities maintain that in a case of imminent loss when there is no time to go to beit din first, one is permitted to file for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order in secular court, even without permission from a beit din to do so.19
      The rationale for such a position seems to be that the prohibition of going to
      secular courts entails going to such a court for “judgment
      .”
      Since an injunction to prevent imminent loss is not dispositive of the underlying claims, obtaining such an injunction does not violate the prohibition.20
      The position of the Beth Din of America is that it is
      halachically permissible for parties to resort to civil courts, when necessary,
      for injunctions restraining the other party from taking action in a matter until a beit din can properly adjudicate the underlying dispute

      Similarly, where a party faces an approaching deadline, pursuant to a statute of limitations, to initiate an action in court, the party may file a petition or seek to toll the statute of limitations in secular court in order to preserve his or her right to seek remedies. Also, a landlord wishing to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent who stands to lose rent from re-letting the premises if he or she is unable to first begin eviction proceedings until after a hazmana process has played out, may initiate an action in
      landlord-tenant court simultaneously with initiating the hazmana
      process in beit din
      .
      Since the plaintiff is merely reserving the right to seek remedies in court if he or she is unable to do so in beit din and he or she will not begin substantial judicial involvement prior to completion of the
      hazmana process, such an action does not represent a
      violation of the prohibition against litigating in secular court. In both these cases, the plaintiff should simultaneously begin the
      hazmana process or make his or her preference to litigate in
      beit din clear to the defendant in the court pleadings or otherwise,
      and be prepared to adjudicate the substantive dispute in
      beit din in the event the defendant indicates a willingness to do so. 21

      #21There is an additional reason for permitting such actions. Certain judicial actions cannot be performed by a beit din
      . For example, obtaining a name change or adopting a child are governmental functions that can only be accomplished by a secular court judge, and one does not violate the prohibition against litigating in secular court by bringing such an action to secular court (see R. Bleich,
      Contemporary Halachic Problems V, 26). Other actions require action by a secular court judge, but also involve the adjudication of substantive disputes among litigants
      .
      Where the dispute can be separated from the court action in a manner that allows for beit din adjudication, Jewish law would require such separation. For example, a civil divorce can only be obtained in court, but the
      parties may also be disputing issues such as the allocation of their assets, spousal and child support, and custody and visitation. It is permissible to file a court action for civil divorce, so long as the plain-
      tiff makes his or her preference to litigate in beit din
      clear to the defendant, either in the court pleadings
      or by simultaneously initiating the hazmana process
      .
      Similarly, a landlord may file a complaint in secular court for possession of leased premises in landlord-tenant court, so long as it is clear that such action is merely a predicate for the enforcement of a beit din decision on the merits of the case.

      Delete
    4. I'm sorry but you are going to have to do better than that. The BDA also believes that one can be Kefiyah L'Get in any case of Maus Ali, and are in full support of ORA.

      Further if you would please read the footnote:
      See Teshuvot Chatam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat, no. 3 who permits registering the statement of a witness in secular court for use in beit din at a later date. Since the secular court is not asked to judge, no prohibition is violated. Kesef ha-Kodshim, Choshen Mishpat, 26:2 writes that the Torah only forbade “mishpatim” or judgments but not actions in secular court that do not require judgment.

      Apparently immenent loss according to those poskim only involves something requiring an injunction. Anything that would require an actual case to be heard is still in violation of the halakha.

      It is permissible to file a court action for civil divorce, so long as the plain- tiff makes his or her preference to litigate in beit din clear to the defendant, either in the court pleadings or by simultaneously initiating the hazmana process

      First this does seem to contradict many of the Teshuvot that we have seen posted here already, including that of Rav Shternbuch.

      Further, the need to simultaneously begin Beit Din proceedings is a very big condition. Weiss did not do this.

      Delete
    5. RMT: Dodelson kidnapped Weiss child. She unilaterally walked out of their marital home and took the child with her without the father's consent. That is equivalent to bodily harm. Hence he got a heter to go to secular court as only they could remedy that situation.

      Delete
    6. Charles, the State of NJ, and much of the US does not recognize it as kidnapping if one of the custodial parents has the child. Further no where in the US is it considered kidnapping if one of the custodial parents relocates with the child to within 100miles. All of NJ isn't 100miles long, and within Lakewood.

      Further kidnapping is a criminal offience, for which one should call the police. It is not a civil court matter.

      Thus he had no valid heter according to halakha.

      Delete
    7. @Rabbi Tzadok I did some more research and talked to Rabbi Triebitz.

      Basically our discussion revolves around two issues 1) the statements found in the literaturare vs what rabbis actually do 2) responding to situations immediately involving issues that beis din has no power to do anything and the consequences are serious.

      In the case of custody - beis din has no power to enforce anything. Thus if Tamar or Gittel leaves with their child - beis din can do nothing - only a secular court can force a result. It is clear to me and others that the possiblity of losing one's child - whether you call it abduction, kidnapping or merely alienation of affectin - is beyond the power of beis din and thus a person has no need to wait for beis din when their is the clear possiblity of a significant loss - especially when a rabbi gives a heter. Same is for financial issues such as a tenant who won't pay and won't comply with beis din.

      Regarding your claim that you need a beis din to permit this. In my experience in America I was told that if I stood to have a significant loss by waiting for beis din I should go right to secular court. This was not advice from a modern Orthodox beis din but was simply the understanding amongst a number of talmidei chachomim I discussed the issue with.

      Your response has been - but that is not what it says in Shulchan Aruch. It seems clear to me - especially after reading through Rabbi Bleich's articles on beis din that explanation of our differences is that the Shulchan Aruch and the teshuvos dealing with this were written in Europe and other countries where there was a community beis din. In such a situation it is an affront not only to beis din but the community not to get their permission to go to secular courts. But that is not the situation in America. In fact the Maharsham who permits going to secular courts with the permission of a single rabbi - requires that it be a dayan appointed by the community. That is not the reality in America.

      In sum, despite your disapproval of the statement of the Beis Din of America - it is my experience that it accurately reflects the reality of halacha in America in the yeshivishe world also. I also talked the matter of over with Rabbi Trievitz and he also had no problem with a person going to secular court to save himself from a serious loss which would result if he first went to beis din - even if went without a rabbis permission. Perhaps Israel is different. So l'chatchila one should always try and get a heter from a beis din before going to secular court. In situations that beis din can't deal with the problem and especially when there is chance of a significant loss - either considering personal status or money - one can go if there is a heter from a competent rabbi or even without a heter.

      Delete
    8. I think that your assumption that he was at risk of losing his child is wrong.

      (I am not privy to the details, but as far as I understand, he had the possibility to see the child while he was filing for kidnapping. So this was really unfounded).

      furthermore, he was treated fairly in divorce court and got a good deal, with appropriate visitation rights.

      He wanted more, but life is tough and we do not always get what we want.



      Delete
    9. RMT: I am speaking of a halachic offense of kidnapping, not secular offense necessarily, that Dodelson committed against the son's father. He had a right to remedy her halachic kidnapping of his son by her when she unilaterally walked out of their marital home and took the child with her without the father's consent.

      Delete
    10. Patience: A person can't unilaterally remove a child from his father home and then offer the father to "visit" the child in another home.

      Delete
    11. So to be clear. You have a Teshuva from Rav Shternbuch saying that this type of behavior is wrong. There are several teshuvot in piskei din, Yabia Omer, Maamar Mordekhai and various other recent poskim saying that this type of behavior is wrong, however the opinions of the poskim don't matter here.

      I'm sorry but you have yet to produce an actual teshuva from a recognized gadol saying that one may set aside halakha and proceed directly to court in a civil matter.

      Rav Dovid Eidensohn and to a lesser extent yourself, have spent the better part of the last two years demonstrating how BDA is ignorant of halakha, so it seems rather odd to resort to them now.

      Even the BDA stops short of saying that one may have the case adjudicated before secular authorities. They say one may get a temporary injunction, not a final judgement. So honestly, in a custody dispute they are not a support. He could have filed for an injunction for the child to be returned, however that would have failed under NJ law, as the child was only relocated within the same township. Instead he went for adjudication without simultaneously starting a case in the B"D. This goes against every leniecy that the BDA lays out.

      Again I would be happy to see any teshuvot that support him... However so far you have not produced one. I would be happy to discuss this from sources, but to my knowledge there are none that fall out on Weiss' side on this.

      Delete
    12. If Weiss had simply walked out of the marriage and marital home and took the child with him to his new home without the mother, without having asked her if he could take the son away from their home, would that be okay?

      Delete
    13. Charles you are asking moral and emotional questions. They are not legal or halakhic. If Weiss had simply walked out of the marriage and marital home and took the child with him to his new home without the mother, without having asked her if he could take the son away from their home
      Provided that he was not fleeing prosecution, that there was not a custodial judgement against him, and that he stayed in the same township(in other words all of the factors that affected Doddelson) then yes that would have been legal.

      Further any remedy would have needed to have been halakhic, meaning by means of a Beit Din.

      The moral and emotional issues really are not part of this discussion.

      Delete
    14. "A person can't unilaterally remove a child from his father home and then offer the father to "visit" the child in another home."

      Could you tell me the sources in halacha that say this??

      Because a wife can walk out of the common household, she even anticipates the consequence she is threatened with when she refuses to have marital relationships.

      That she should take a nursing child with her seems obvious too, since she is obliged to nurse him.

      The only consequence she could suffer according to halacha would be a get without payment of the ketuba - which is exatly what she wanted.

      Delete
    15. RMT: Your response to Charles Katz indicates you believe whoever walks out of the marriage first and grabs the child is entitled to hold the children and the other parent not. That is halachicly incorrect.

      Delete
    16. patience: And if the child is above nursing age you agree the father can walk out of the marriage unilaterally taking the children with him - as you seem to believe the mother can?

      Delete
    17. ZalmanMay 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM
      RMT: Your response to Charles Katz indicates you believe whoever walks out of the marriage first and grabs the child is entitled to hold the children and the other parent not. That is halachicly incorrect.


      Incorrect please read what I wrote again. I first dealt with the legal aspect of the question.

      I then said that it is a matter of the Beit Din deciding what the halakha is regarding child custody in the case. There are too many practical issues and intricacies to say the halakha is x.

      If the child is a certain age. If the mother or father are a imminent physical danger to the child ect. All of those factor into the halakha, and it is for a Beit Din to decide, not a secular court.

      To that end I said in my response to Charles Katz, as the issue is whether or not one my go to secular court without heter from a B"D:
      Further any remedy would have needed to have been halakhic, meaning by means of a Beit Din.

      Delete
    18. as far as I understood, the original halacha was that the father could kick his wife out of the house, with no reason whatsoever, provided he paid the amount fixed in the ketuvah.

      And if he wanted to kick her out without paying, he had to curse her until she said that she did not want marital relations with him any more, then she was a moredet and he could kick her out for free, forcing her to leave whatever he gave her.

      It might have changed with Rabbi Gershon, but the second part is still true, according to the shulchan aruch cited by Tzadoik the blog owner in the thread about contradictions between torah and therapy started by Joe...

      See? It is just a question of how to...

      Delete
    19. To set a couple of things straight.

      First I am not the blog owner. That is Rav Daniel Eidensohn.

      Second regarding that specific Shulhan Arukh... Whaaat? No where does it say that the husband may curse and verbally drive off his wife in order to get out of paying his Ketubah.

      As I said before, there is Mais Ali(which is when a woman has a good reason, such as verbal abuse). Which is up to the B"D to determine.
      Then there is a moredet, which is someone without a good reason.

      She wants to make him suffer because he forgot to bring home flowers on Friday or some such nonsense. You may scoff, but I have seen the most rediculous things while doing shimush with various Rabbanim. My personal favorite is a woman who refused her husband relations because he wouldn't eat the salad she made on Shabbat. Apparently it was her favorite and he hated balsamic vinegar... So because he didn't like the salad she was going to punish him... That is a moredet.

      Please if you do not understand an issue or a text do not make wild assumptions, but rather ask questions.

      Delete
    20. Sorry, I forgot an "and" between tzadok and blog owner

      Shulchan aruch says "even if he cursed her, even if they did argue"...

      So the husband who wants to dispose of his wife without paying can just think of any way to make himself disgusting to her, sooner or later she will become a "moredes"

      Of course, today it's even easier, he may just run away and leave her, and then he can call her from tahiti and extort money from her for the get.

      That's an example of a law that does not serve it's purpose any more, because society has changed.... Or that was cruel to begin with.

      I proposed that a moredes was a woman who really wanted to have sex with her husband but withheld it for extortion reasons, the blog owner roundly rejected this view.

      The only difference between a moredet and a non-moredet in the shulhan aruch cited over there is that a non-moredet does not ask for the money in her ketuba, and the moredes does.

      So either you just go without the money, then you are not a moredes (but you don't get the money) or you insist you want the money, then you are a moredes (and will not get the money).

      And besides: if a wife feels hurt because her husband won't eat a salad, and she does not want to have sex, who are you to impose her husband's sex on her?

      There might be enough motives to refuse sex that rabbanim or one particular beit din cannot understand.

      So then they announce every week in shul that she should have sex...???

      Delete
    21. Patience,

      You read one piece of the Shulhan Arukh and suddenly you are an expert on the entirety of it and all it says on a subject?

      Delete
  5. Epstein unilaterally relocated the child out-of-State, and then had the relocation treated as a fait accompli in civil court [successfully arguing that because she had already kept the child in Pennsylvania for so long before the case went to trial, that she should be able to keep the child in Pennsylvania] by delaying adjudication in civil court by tricking Friedman into going to Beis Din, whose orders regarding dismissing the civil case she violated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW- Friedman should have filed a complaint with the police immediately, and then Epestein would have had 30 days to return the child or face criminal charges for abduction according to Maryland State Law.

      You say that the concern is only the immediate relief of a problem. I am certain that filing a criminal complaint, and thus limiting the amount of time Epstein could have had the child outside of the marital home to 30 days, would have settled the problem quicker than attempting a civil court case.

      In that Epstein was wrong, and the Balitmore B"D was right in demanding that he drop his suite.

      Delete
  6. It is not the case that Friedman first filed the case in Maryland courts AFTER the parties had already brought the case to the Baltimore Beis Din.

    Epstein abducted the child from Maryland to Pennsylvania and refused Friedman's requests that she allow the child to return. She refused to allow the child to see Friedman other than on Sundays during the daytime. She refused to negotiate (other than through her civil court divorce lawyer who repeated this refusal) or to go with Friedman to a rav to mediate or agree upon a beis din to resolve the matter. Friedman received a psak to bring an emergency court order in Maryland civil court but only on the condition that Friedman would bring the matter to Beis Din for the case to be decided after the emergency motion, before any further proceedings in Court.
    Friedman agreed to cancel a pendete lite trial scheduled for October 2008 even though based on remarks from the Court at the earlier emergency hearing Friedman had every reason to believe that the Court would order that the child be returned to Maryland. Friedman cancelled the pendete lite trial when Epstein agreed to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din (if the parties could not resolve the matter through mediation) only because those were the terms of the psak under which he had brought the emergency motion in court in the first place. Friedman also repeatedly delayed a final trial in civil court, postponing the trial to June 2009, in order to leave time for the Baltimore Beis Din to decide the case, which decision would be brought to the court by the parties as their settlement.
    The Baltimore Beis Din held its first hearing in the case in January 2009. The Beis Din was told about the status of the matter in the Maryland courts. The Beis Din refused to order the parties to dismiss the case from the Maryland courts because that would allow Epstein to bring the case in civil court in Pennsylvania.
    It was only months later that the Baltimore Beis Din told the parties to jointly dismiss the case from the Maryland court both before the case went to trial in the Maryland court and after the trial but before the Maryland court had issued its decision. Friedman agreed and Epstein refused.
    At Epstein’s urging the court ruled that the child should stay in Pennsylvania because Epstein had already kept the child there for so long. Epstein specifically argued that Friedman could not argue that the length of time Epstein had kept the child in Pennsylvania should not be prejudicial because the delay was Friedman’s own fault because he had agreed to cancel the October 2008 pendete lite trial to bring the case to Beis Din.
    The details of the case were posted at:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/procedural-summary-of-epstein-friedman.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Weiss obtained an emergency hetter to go to arko"oys from a single rov. Most poskim hold you need a full bais din and this has been the position today of rav elyashiv, wosner and karelitz. However the feinsteins I am sure have on mi lismoch regardless of what tzaddok writes. in in this instance.eneral tzaddok is right. but if reb moshe held differently then he is wrong.

    tdaddok should worry about the corruption of the rabbanut and their forcing gittin when none is required. We have been there and he has illogically denied this occurs despite him knowing it does. They even have the chutzpah to do it to foreigners. And he knows they did it to the brisker rov's grandson or great grandson. And they were put in their place and another get had to be written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So much for you not directing comments at me until you got said apologies.

      However the feinsteins I am sure have on mi lismoch regardless of what tzaddok writes. in in this instance.eneral tzaddok is right. but if reb moshe held differently then he is wrong.

      Following this logic, the Chida in Birkei Yosef(EH"E 1:10) writes that we can be Kefiyah L'Get for the sake of Pru U'Vru. Rav Ovadia Hedayya(who the Chazon Ish wrote was his superior in Torah learning) brings in two places that once a woman enters into the status of Moredet upon which 12mos has passed, we may be Kefiyah L'Get in order for the husband to uphold Pru U'Vru. Rav Ovadia Yosef brings in at least three places in Yabia Omer that we may be Kefiyah L'Get for the sake of Pru U'Vru... While I will readily admit that Rov Poskim hold against them, by your logic ORA and Rabbanut(assuming the falsehoods you claim against them are true) have al ma lismokh.

      Sorry my friend, you cannot claim that in one case and deny it in another.

      Delete
  8. Virtually every state has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the official comment to which, refers to the unilateral relocation of a child out-of-state by one parent as an abduction.
    "there are still a number of cases where parents, or their surrogates, act in a reprehensible manner, such as removing, secreting, retaining, or restraining the child.
    This section ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct."

    http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/child_custody_jurisdiction/uccjea_final_97.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  9. Under the UCCJEA, the state to which a parent has abducted the child generally may not assert jurisdiction because jurisdiction remains with the state from which the child was abducted. However, there are important exceptions, including if the parent from whom the child was abducted acquiesces, including by going to beis din instead of immediately going to court in the state from which the child was taken.
    "Such acquiescence may occur by filing a pleading submitting to the jurisdiction, or by not filing in the court that would otherwise have jurisdiction under this Act."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob that law only applies if the the parent is either fleeing prosecution or there has already been a custody judgement against them. If one is underway, and the parent relocates outside of the original township then, it depends on state and local law.

      I freely admit, and have said that the halakha is completely against Epstein in this case.

      In the Weiss case, she remained in the same township, there was no judgement against her, and she was not fleeing prosecution. Thus the Federal law does not apply. The NJ State law, only considers it a problem if there is a) a custody dispute and b) she relocates to a different township/county or state. At which point she has 24hrs to notify the other spouse and the legal officials of such relocation. If done, again it is not considered an abduction. However, Doddelson did not relocate outside of the township, and thus again the state law does not apply.

      In the end we have Weiss going to secular court, without going to B"D.

      Delete
    2. Unilaterally relocating a child out-of-State even before there is a custody judgment is referred to by the UCCJAE as an abduction that is reprehensible and unjustifiable. I hadn't excerpted that sentence above, but see below:

      "there are still a number of cases where parents, or their surrogates, act in a reprehensible manner, such as removing, secreting, retaining, or restraining the child. This section ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct If the conduct that creates the jurisdiction is unjustified, courts must decline to exercise jurisdiction that is inappropriately invoked by one of the parties. If the conduct that creates the jurisdiction is unjustified, courts must decline to exercise jurisdiction that is inappropriately invoked by one of the parties."

      http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/child_custody_jurisdiction/uccjea_final_97.pdf

      Delete
    3. The UCCJEA is not a Federal law, but a uniform act that has been adopted as state law by nearly every State in response to the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. (And I did not state that this Act applies if a child is not taken out-of-State.)

      Delete
    4. Bob, you are arguing apples and oranges. Doddelson didn't move the child out of State. She didn't even move him out of the town.

      Unilaterally relocating a child out-of-State even before there is a custody judgment is referred to by the UCCJAE as an abduction that is reprehensible and unjustifiable. I hadn't excerpted that sentence above, but see below:
      Sorry my friend but you have not read that document correctly. You are quoting the NGO's critique of the law, not the actual law which does not start until page 9.

      Delete
    5. The comment is the explanation of the law by the law's drafters.
      I never said that Dodelson moved the child out-of-State.

      Delete
    6. It is critique of how the law is applied by the drafters which are an NGO. It is not the law. You have been conflating the law, with the critque by the drafters of how it has been implemented.

      Delete
  10. Amongst the reasons why there is strong cause for quickly litigating in civil court rather than in beis din in cases of child custody where one party has changed the status quo, such as by abducting the children, are that:
    (1) failure to quickly file in civil court would result in jurisdiction passing to the state to which the children were abducted;
    (2) in most states, the doctrine of parens patriae means that a court may not give any deference whatsoever to the decision of a binding arbitrator (including a beis din) even if both parties had agreed to such binding arbitration if one party refuses to accept the decision of the binding arbitrator - this is different than most other matters where courts generally are required to follow the decision of an arbitrator (absent demonstrated failure to follow a minimal level proper procedure); and
    (3) in child custody cases, a court is very likely to rubber stamp whatever status quo has been established by the time the matter has gone to trial in court on the argument that this is what the children have become used to - in contrast with most other disputes in which the merits of the matter are not as connected to how quickly the matter is decided so long as the matter is brought to court within the applicable statute of limitations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob your argument falls apart in the Weiss case.

      1) The mother and child relocated within the same township. If she had relocated to a different township/county or state and had not notified the necessary authorities, the husband would not need to adjudicate in civil court, he could file a criminal complaint for abduction.

      2) NJ upholds binding arbitration.

      3) You can get a B"D involved within 48hrs in Philadelphia(you need only call Rav Brisman) and just as quickly in Lakewood. 48hrs is not going to establish any sort of status quo.

      Regardless of all that you have written there is no teshuva anywhere to which I am aware that would permit this. Even the BDA does not permit litigation in custody cases without simultaneous litigation in B"D, as the document that Rav Eidensohn linked above clearly dictates.

      You are giving logic, which is nice and sounds good. However, as has been repeatedly stated on this blog by the blog owner, if we are going to say that the nature of society has changed so as to necessitate a change in halakha, then there need to be teshuvot and needs to have a consensus of Rov poskim. All I am asking is that there be consistancy. If we insist on a consensus of poskim for other matters(child abuse, gittin ect) then we must insist on a consensus of poskim here as well.

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

      Delete
    3. The three reasons laid out above above are general reasons and I never said that those reasons applied to a particular case, let alone Weiss-Dodelson.
      As for Weiss-Dodelson, it appears that Dodelson unilaterally relocated the child (although not out-of-State) and unilaterally restricted the child's access to Weiss, trying to establish a status quo that would be virtually impossible to later change in any venue. It is not clear to me why the parties apparently could not mutually agree upon a specific beis din in which to litigate the matter.

      Delete
    4. NJ State law does not recognize status quo. Unilaterally moving the child is more likely to result in a negative judgement against the parent. However, so long as the child remains in the same township there is no legal problems. Outside of township, county or state various legal authorities need to be notified within 24 hrs, or the parent making the move will be criminally liable:
      http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/state-kidnapping-abduction-laws/new-jersey-kidnappingabducting-laws/

      Delete
  11. Another tzaddok falsehood: http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/
    NJ is more than 100 miles long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan have you ever driven the NJ turnpike? It is hardly a straight road. Also it goes from the NE corner of the state to the SW corner of the State. Simple Geometry will tell you that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is longer than either of the sides. NJ is largely a rectangle. So yes the Turnpike is longer than 100miles woohoo, you have just discovered Geometry.

      So yes if a person lived in Rockleigh and moved to Pennsville you could get a distance of more than a 100miles(though still in the same state so the Federal law wouldn't apply and State law would... that is another aside). However, that has nothing to do with the length of the State. That is a diagonal...

      Nice try.

      Delete
    2. Stan,

      Its frankly astounding that Tzaddok could claim "All of NJ isn't 100miles long". This is just further proof of Tzaddok's ingrained habit of making blatantly erroneous statements. Just go to www.mapquest.com and get directions for Colesville, NJ to Cape May, NJ. Its about 200 miles.

      Delete
    3. Yes because mapquest gives you a straight line... absurd. Besides the point this whole argument over the size of NJ is nothing less than obfuscation, as Doddelson moved just blocks away.

      Delete
  12. Tzaddok writes absolute boba meises. According to most poskim in the case of a moredes the cheirem of rabbeinu gershom doesnt apply so the man can take a second wife. Even those who disagree only require a Get to be deposited in a Bais din and the man can get remarried. So no kefia is necessary.

    As for claiming someone virtually unknown is bigger than the chazon ish, tzaddok is 48 days too late or 317 days too early for April fools day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See Sefer Chabas Yerushalayim, you can read it in the Chazon Ish's own words.

      Delete
    2. http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nj_geography.htm

      Length x Width New Jersey is about 150 miles long and 70 miles wide.

      Delete
    3. klet's talk about obfuscation: answer this please

      Tzaddok writes absolute boba meises. According to most poskim in the case of a moredes the cheirem of rabbeinu gershom doesnt apply so the man can take a second wife. Even those who disagree only require a Get to be deposited in a Bais din and the man can get remarried. So no kefia is necessary.

      Delete
    4. Let's talk about obfuscation 2:

      Explain why you have never addressed the corruption of the rabbanut and their forcing gittin on yosef dov meyerson, trying on uzi frankel and meir briskman who had to flee israel and chaimowitz a foreiner like frankel who was forced by the rabbanut to give a get when the wife was in arko"oys shelo k'din.

      obfuscation = corrupt tik numbers.

      Delete
    5. stanMay 18, 2014 at 7:02 PM
      http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nj_geography.htm

      Length x Width New Jersey is about 150 miles long and 70 miles wide.

      Honest mistake from living in Jersey throughout my youth.

      On any account irrelevant:
      NJ State Law
      http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/state-kidnapping-abduction-laws/new-jersey-kidnappingabducting-laws/

      Federal law:
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/cac/family-abductions

      According to both Doddleson did not commit an illegal abduction.

      Delete
    6. Explain why you have never addressed the corruption of the rabbanut

      Because it exists only in your head and I refuse to step foot into crazy land.

      Delete
  13. I repeat again what I asked. You claiim that R ovadiyia Yosef allowed a get to be forced in the case of a moredes after 12 months because of forcing the man presumably to be mekayem pru u'rvu. As far as i know a woman does not have this mitzvah so you must be referring to the man.

    I have already explained how a get is not needed and hence what you wrote was illogical michael tzaddok. We all await your answer.

    We also await your answer on the rabbanut forcing gittin shelo k'din.

    You seem to be making a lot of mistakes.

    I never argued you with you on kidnapping because I have not spent sufficient time on this matter to conduct an argument. In any case the real issue is if it is considered kidnapping according to halocho.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I repeat again what I asked. You claiim that R ovadiyia Yosef allowed a get to be forced in the case of a moredes after 12 months because of forcing the man presumably to be mekayem pru u'rvu. As far as i know a woman does not have this mitzvah so you must be referring to the man.
      You didn't ask. At least not under this account, but that's OK I understand that you like to troll and sock puppet.
      See the Chida
      Birkei Yosef 1:10

      Rav Ovadia Hedayya
      Yaskil Avdei 2:8:2
      http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=960&st=&pgnum=128

      Sorry don't have a copy of the Yabia Omer at home yet, and Otzar Hokhmah doesn't have it either. If you have access look up his Teshuvot regarding EvH"E 1, and I'm sure you will find it, or wait until my Yeshiva moves back from Meron later this week and I have access to a Yabia Omer again and I will give you the source. It does make sense, in that Sephardim at least, and Ashkenazim arguably, need a Get in order to remarry. Sorry Stan, but Rov Poskim do not hold that we can throw away Rabbeinu Gershom.

      There are some sickos that try every now and again, and they get roundly denounced.

      Delete
    2. I repeat again what I asked.
      Here is a question why do you sockpuppet. Just so we know what that is:
      A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.

      It is really sad that you feel the need to be deceptive in order to try to make your point. Do you think deception and lying are positive Torah values? How can you speak of corruption when you engage in deception?

      While we are at it Stan. Can we discuss why you, and your sockpuppet army committed identity theft and set up a false blog in my name? Aside from the felonious nature of that, is it not being over Genivat HaDaat?

      How can you purport to be a defender of Torah when you so readily flaunt it's various precepts?

      Delete
    3. Oh and Joe/Stan/Emes L'Yaakov/Ben Torah/Whoever you are pretending to be today,

      Did you miss the part of my comment where I said:
      While I will readily admit that Rov Poskim hold against them, by your logic ORA and Rabbanut(assuming the falsehoods you claim against them are true) have al ma lismokh.

      Sorry my friend, you cannot claim that in one case and deny it in another.


      Clearly I admit that views of these Rabbanim are not the accepted halakha. In fact in one of his teshuvot Rav Ovadia Yosef goes so far as to say that the Ben Ish Hai was ignorant of the halakha, because he rules that we are not Kefiyah L'Get for Pru U'Vru, which I think is a bit Chutzpadik to be entirely honest. However, I was simply pointing out the logical inconsistancy of your own position.

      Delete
    4. PS Joe/Stan/Emes L'Yaakov/Ben Torah/Whoeveryouarepretendingtobetoday,

      Did you miss the part of my comment where I said:
      While I will readily admit that Rov Poskim hold against them, by your logic ORA and Rabbanut(assuming the falsehoods you claim against them are true) have al ma lismokh.

      Sorry my friend, you cannot claim that in one case and deny it in another.


      I clearly stated that their position was not the normative halakha. I was simply pointing out your own logical inconsistency.

      Delete
  14. "I clearly stated that their position was not the normative halakha. I was simply pointing out your own logical inconsistency"

    What I have pointed out is that the alleged psakim you quote can't be correct as they are totally illogical themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I forgot Stan, while you have no problem lying and attempting to deceive through sockpuppetry, you also can't read Hebrew, otherwise you would be able to read the psakim. I linked one above.

      Delete
  15. "While we are at it Stan. Can we discuss why you, and your sockpuppet army committed identity theft and set up a false blog in my name? Aside from the felonious nature of that, is it not being over Genivat HaDaat?"

    Tzaddok nobody would bother stealing your ID. However not only are your allegations nonsense, you clearly have comprehension problems. No one claims to be you. Stop inventing fiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have done it. You made the mistake of using comments that were blocked here. You have also done it here. Which is why I started using my google account to make all comments, so as to verify identity.

      Lie all you like. But you have been caught. You are a felon and a liar.

      Delete
    2. RMT: How do YOU know what comments were blocked here?

      Delete
    3. They were offensive and in some cases racist. Because of their overly offensive nature Rav Eidensohn emailed them to me, to see if I wanted them blocked.

      Delete
  16. "Sorry Stan, but Rov Poskim do not hold that we can throw away Rabbeinu Gershom.

    There are some sickos that try every now and again, and they get roundly denounced."

    Tzaddok level of ignorence is very dangerous. callling Achiezer, the Ashkenazi version ie,.. Reb Chaim Oyzer, The Maharshdam, the Chasam Sofer and R Akiva Eiger et al sickos is pathetic. Read the teshuva in achiezer on the cheirem rabbenu gershom and a mordes before you shoot your mouth off. You frankly are so off mark as to it being pathetic. It is clear that what i said is correct the cheirem was not meant for a moredes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Stan - Tzaddok seems quite confused on the principles of Cherem D'Rabbeinu Gershom. That cherem, which is probably only a minhag today, only applies in the case of a Jewish woman who is complying with Jewish divorce law. I've learned this from rabbanim, and I believe I saw an Igros Moshe that Rabbeinu Gershom is not applicable in the case of moredes.

      So Tzaddok and MO rabbis who suddenly become ultra machmir in Rabbeinu Gershom are usually aiding the cause of moredes women who are in archaos against their husbands k'neged halacha.

      Delete
    2. That cherem, which is probably only a minhag today,
      Please open the Sh"A and learn something before you comment. For a little help I suggest Pitchei Teshuva EvH"E 1:19.

      Delete
  17. Rabbeinu Gershom's cherem only applies to Ashkenazim and does not apply to Sephardim. Ashkenazim can get a heter meah rabbonim, if necessary, but Sephardim have no need for a heter meah rabbonim.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here tzaddok goes again calling me a felon. Is this guy for real? He needs help. Who exactly convicted Stan other than tzaddok.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am asking tzadok to retract calling the Achiezer, the Maharaahdam and Rebi Akiva Eiger sickos. It is clear from Teahuva 10 of the Achiezer at the end that for a Moredes one doesnt need a Hetter and mi'iker hadib there ia no cheirem in this case. The teshuva is available even online at hebrewbooks.org. what tzaddok has been claiming is the line of the BDA and other feminist groups which represent the antithesis of the Torah such as the rabbanut

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First you would have to give sources for Reb Chaim Ozer and Rabbi Akiva. However I would note that the Rema(EvH"E 1:10) says that the Ban and all of it's issues is forever.
      You can see the Beit Shmuel 21 and the Helkat Mehokek there.
      The Taz talks briely about it.
      However the real kicker is the Pitchei Teshuva(1:19) in the name of the B"Y, Ran, the Mordekhai, the Maharam Rotenberg, the Raviah, that Mahrik in the name of the Rashba and the Yashash that the takanah and all it's matters are forever saying specifically:
      כל המקומות שקבלו אותה עליהם עד היום הרי היא לדידהו כאלו היא תוך זמנה לכל ענינים

      Further the Haghaot of Rabbi Akiva Eiger on the page lists the same sources regarding the continuation of the Herem... So you need to prove that he was chozer on himself elsewhere.

      Now you say Rov poskim... First I doubt that considering the above, but let's put it to the test, if you can bring a teshuva from any two the the following: Rav Eliashiv, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach... saying what you say, I will admit that it is Rov poskim. Otherwise I think we are encountering another of your lies.

      Delete
    2. RMT: Even if stan's halachic source is only a minority, the husband can avail himself to using that minority opinion.

      Delete
    3. amMay 20, 2014 at 5:06 PM
      RMT: Even if stan's halachic source is only a minority, the husband can avail himself to using that minority opinion.

      Says who and since when?
      Again the logic doesn't work. Then the wife can also avail herself of a minority opinion in kefiyah l'get correct?

      Delete
    4. RMT: Your logic doesn't work since the only way kefiyah l'get could be implemented is via beis din. And it has to be a beis din both parties acquiesced jurisdiction to. The wife cannot unilaterally impose her chosen beis din on her husband. So he can veto jurisdiction and utilization of any beis din that will rely on such a minority opinion for kefiyah l'get.

      OTOH, for him to utilize the opinion we are discussing, even if we assume it is a minority one, he doesn't need a beis din and he surely doesn't need her to acquiesce to anything. He can ask his shaila to his own chosen posek. And his posek can allow him to proceed based on the minority opinion. No one can force him to go with other opposing halachic opinions.

      Delete
    5. It does work. The wife can say Kim Li. Or alternately by your logic Tamar Epstein should be free. After all a minority opinion says so... We can go on, but in the end Stan sockpuppet... it doesn't work.

      Delete
    6. RMT: Kim Li doesn't work for kefiyah l'get. Kim li is if someone receives a demand for payment in beis din, they can say kim li with another source that they don't have to pay. Kil Li works if the person claiming kim li already has possession of what is being demanded. Kim li cannot be used to force beis din to use a specific shitta you want beis din to use. Otherwise the husband could equally kim li to use the (vast) majority shitta that prohibits the use of kefiyah l'get.

      And you haven't addressed my valid point that he has the right to use the shitta of his posek. If his posek paskens with a minority opinion allowing him to proceed, there is no reason he is bound by other halachic opinions opposing that halachic opinion.

      (FTR, I'm not stan. You should be able to easily tell that by the vast differences in our English vocabulary and language skills.)

      Delete
    7. Kim li only works in dinei mamonos based on the principle of mamon hamotel b'safek hamotzi mechaveiro alav haraya. No person has a right to force a posek's hand by claiming kim li in issur v'hetter, where the posek or dayan (with proper authority over the case) has full authority to decide what the halacha is with respect to that case.

      Delete
    8. Chaim Tzvi BlobsteinMay 21, 2014 at 6:44 AM

      Poster "am" is correct in his explanation of "Kim Li". (Other than that point, I don't want to get involved in the disagreement whether Chrem Rabbeinu Gershom applies in a case of a moredes.)

      Delete
    9. Not true. A classic case of Kim LI is Rav Yossi HaGalili eating a birds head boiled in milk.

      Delete
    10. RMT: Your logic still doesn't hold. If the wife could logically say kim li to demand beis din us the minority opinion allowing kefiyah l'get, the husband could equally say kim li to demand beis din use the majority opinion forbidding use of kefiyah l'get. Which puts beis din at a standstill and makes no sense.

      So your earlier retort using this example (May 20 / 8:44pm) does not answer the two points in my challenge to you (May 20 / 7:51pm).

      Delete
  20. Tzadok are you for real? Can you not understand english. I tokd you teshuva 10 ten assarah esser. I also said in rhe case of a moredes the cheirem doesnt apply. I saus nothing about its expiration. You then said sickos.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Please explain yosef dov meyersons forced get by the rabbanut tzadok. Stoo the lying already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get me a tik number and we can talk. Until then no dice.

      Delete
  22. Tzadok answer the achiezer and you calling him a sicko. Secondly provide me with 6 million tik nos IDs etc you revisionist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said:
      According to most poskim in the case of a moredes the cheirem of rabbeinu gershom doesnt apply
      I'm still waiting for your most poskim. Please demonstrate your Rov Poskim with verifiable sources.

      Secondly where did I call the Achiezer(even if he says what you claim which is doubtful, considering your inability to read Hebrew and your tendency to falsify statements) a sicko?

      I said:
      Sorry Stan, but Rov Poskim do not hold that we can throw away Rabbeinu Gershom.
      There are some sickos that try every now and again, and they get roundly denounced.

      Now are you claiming that the Achiezer is a daat yachid in not holding by Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom? Otherwise my comment doesn't apply to him.

      Now lets talk about your felonious identity theft and lying deceiving sockpuppetry shall we? Before we can begin to take you seriously or any charges that you may try to level against anyone, you really do need to come clean and apologize for trying to deceive the community here through your sockpuppetry.

      How many identities have you used Stan/Joe/EmesL'Yaakov/Ben Torah/Anti Rabbinut? Are you the same troll that defended Tropper all those years ago?

      You need to explain how comments that were blocked here showed up on a blog that you started under my name.

      Delete
    2. Whoever he is and whatever your fight is all about, I post under this name and never saw anyone else post using it. And I am not part of that cabal list you reference. Please keep me out of this.

      Delete
  23. Tzadok answer the achiezer and you calling him a sicko. Secondly provide me with 6 million tik nos IDs etc you revisionist

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bad enough tzadok calls me a liar and fellon with zeri proof and his garbage is published ob thia blog. But to call the achiezer, maharashdam, rab akiva eiger and the chasam sofer sickos, unbelievable!!!!

    Blog owner how do you allow tzadok to publish such filth on your blog??????????

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tzadok you need help. Tzadok just read the achiezer and stop making a fool of yourself with your wild allegations. No one woukd be daft enough to steal your identity. Exactly whixh blog do you allege stole your identity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Tzadok you need help" - Very true words. Tzadok has been bashing and denigrating one prominent Ashkenazi rav or gadol after another on this blog, including contemptuous attacks on Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Dovid Eidensohn, Rav Gestetner, Rabbi Aryeh Spero, etc. Tzadok's latest "sicko" comment against great Ashkenazi poskim is simply abhorrent.

      In response to criticism against him, Tzadok attempts to divert the discussion to the army of imaginary sock-puppets in Tzadok's mind. Its just pathetic.

      Delete
  26. "There are some sickos that try every now and again, and they get roundly denounced" that is what you said in response to those who hold that rabbeinu gershom doesn't apply in the case of a moredes. And those who hold that are rav chaim oyzer, the maharashdam, r akiva eiger and the chasam sofer. So if you want to find those that argue on them that's your prerogative but few would go against such big guns tzadok. Just face reality - your remark what that of an ignoramous eho has been caught out and who now refuses to apologize. I dont know who you did shimush under as you allege but please already you are ignorant and that's the bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I've looked up the Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Chatam Sofer and neither say what you claim. So I am convinced that you are once again lying.

      Thanks for yet another troll job sockpuppet.

      Delete
  27. tzadok who are you kidding lying again.. you obviously never read the teshuva I referred you to or you can't read hebrew. for those who can read hebrew please see below"

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14671&st=&pgnum=65

    see daled and in particular the top of the left column of this page. tzadok you are a joke.

    show us sources where you looked this up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL... You really can't read Hebrew can you?

      There he writes that Chatam Sofer says that man does need a heter meah Rabbanim(Seven lines down at the, starting at the end of the line).

      He also write עיקר החרם עליו the essence of the Cherem is still upon him. Namely that he still has to write a Ketubah and deposit it with a B"D. As the Beit Shmuel says.

      He does not say that Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom doesn't apply, he says, taking all the factors into account, that given the situation there is what to rely upon to not need a Heter Meah Rabbanim.

      Keep trolling Stan. It's always interesting.

      Delete
    2. Michael,
      At the end of the day you admit the bottom line is that the Chasam Sofer rules that he can remarry a) without effecting a Get AND b) without getting a Heter Meah Rabbonim.

      Delete
    3. NO!!! The Achiezer quotes the Hatam Sofer as saying that there needs to be a Heter:
      דבתשוב' חת''ס חאה''ע סי' ג השוה את הדין דאפילו בפשעה צריק התר ק' רבנים ולפי נראה גדר גדרו עפ"י מש"ב המהרי"ק כי הדור פרוץ ואם יתירו במורדת יבואו להתיר גם לכשהדיחו תבשילו ויאמר שהיא מורדת
      In the Teshuva of the Hatam Sofer, Even HaEzer Siman 3 he explains that even in the case of sin there needs to be a heter meah rabbanim and it would seem that this boundary is according to the Maharik that the generation is becoming immorral and if he were to free him in the case of a moredet he will come to free him also when his wife burns his food and he says she is a moredet.

      Clearly the Hatam Sofer, according to the understanding of the Achiezer requires a heter meah rabbanim.

      Delete
  28. Tzadok stop lying. The chasam sofer says that although the cheirem doesnt apply, he is concerned rhat people will ignore it in cases where it does apply and is strict. However in case of waiting more than 4 years with a moredes it dies not apply so you cant read hebrew and are guilty of lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No that is not what the Hatam Sofer is saying. The Achiezer is saying that it seems to him that the Hatam Sofer is following the Maharik, who is worried that if we were to allow a man to simply deposit a Get in the case of a moredet, then every time a man has a problem with his wife he will simply call her a moredet.

      Therefore they believe that it is necessary to require a heter meah rabbanim.

      Again nowhere does that Achiezer himself say that Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom applies. He is simply holding by the Beit Shmuel's understanding of the Cherem, that in certain cases the Cherem is satisfied with the man depositing a Get with B"D.

      Delete
  29. Tzadok the whole need to deposit a get comes from the cherem of rabbeinu gershom. There is no requirement to deposit a get where the cherem does not apply. I have not seen the Maharik inside recently but the 2 go together. And again, it is not that the cherem applies according to the chasam sofer in the case of a Moredes but it is required for another reason. And you called people who say in the case of a moredes no chreme no get SICKOS. DISGRACEFUL.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 22, 2014 at 4:50 PM

    Sorry but that is not what the Hatam Sofer says. The Hatam Sofer specifically requires Heter Meah Rabbanim.

    The Achiezer specifcally says that the man needs to desposit a Get. Nowhere does he say that the Cherem doesn't apply, simiply the need for Heter Meah Rabbanim, like the Beit Shmuel.

    You are simply making stuff up.

    ReplyDelete

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