I recently received a letter concerning a divorce in America. The letter writer noted that the beis din sent him a letter which said (this is my paraphrasing) :
A plan was being developed - if you had resisted giving the get - that would have prevented you from seeing your children for many years and you would have been severely beaten and tortured.
As the recent indictments of Mendel Epstein and associates have shown - the above was not a rare event and it was apparently common knowledge amongst American rabbis and those dealing with gittin. Why was it tolerated? 1) Was it simply an acknowledgment that justice for women requires ignoring halacha and secular law? 2) Was it too lucrative for rabbis and therefore they don't want to disturb another rabbi's parnossa? 3) Perhaps the rabbis were afraid of being called a moser or suffer other sanctions. The answer obviously is all of the above.
Furthermore while such activity is clearly illegal according to the law of the land (dina d'malchuso) it is also illegal according to halacha and produced an invalid get. Even if you want to argue that beis din has the ability to administer this type of punishment - I think that is only a community beis din which is appointed and supported by the community - such as existed in Europe. However in most cases the beis din in America that deal with these cases is an ad hoc entity which is not connected to the community and is certainly not authorized by it.
I dont understand what your writing about. This is / was standard procedure in america for many years (still going on in some prominent batei din.)
ReplyDeleteThe only alternative the husband has is to respond with his own bet din. Perhaps call for a boycott of the jewish newspaper that prints false seruvim against men only (their policy, as stated just above the (supposed) seruv listing is seruvim against men omly).
Rav Elishev decried the state of gittin in America years ago already. (And the status that many of the American gittin are pasul - get me'usa.) It certainly hasn't gotten better since.
ReplyDeleteSince this threat was made in writing, the recipient of it should immediately forward a copy of it to the FBI office in New Jersey which currently has an open investigation in coerced gittin. They are in the midst of filing prosecutions against various parties on exactly this.
Regarding a coerced Get, kofin oso, according to any opinion kofin oso can only be issued after the Besi Din heard the case with the husband present in Beis Din. If the husband never accepted the jurisdiction of the Beis Din, and never participated in its proceedings, there is no way under halacha, according to any shitta, that B"D can issue a kofin oso ruling.
ReplyDeleteRegarding a coerced Get - kofin oso - according to any opinion kofin oso can only be issued after the Beis Din heard the case with the husband present in Beis Din. If the husband never accepted the jurisdiction of the Beis Din, and never participated in its proceedings, there is no way under halacha, according to any shitta, that B"D can issue a kofin oso ruling.
ReplyDeleteIs there an other side to the story? Aren't they supported by R. Belsky who's a great posek?
ReplyDeleteYes, rabbi Belsky did seem to back Epstein.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/12/rabbis-epstein-wolmark-belsky-alleged.html
On the same note, the gedolim seemed to have very strongly and forcfully disagreed with Rabbi Belsky. See the next two links, among many others.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89023695/Rav-Besky-vs-Rav-Miller-and-Rav-Schecter-20120411104504?secret_password=l1j2diad1q39dbbrf5l
http://mishpattsedek.com/mtwp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Badatz-Protest-Gittin.jpg
Rav Eliashev said specifically regarding Epstein that his gittin were pasul and me'usa.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your last paragraph, (almost) all batei din in America consider themselves to have all powers they want to have and will arrogate to themselves all such powers including forcing gittin.
ReplyDeleteBesides, they have a constituency that wants this specific power (and no other, including no power to hear other or even the rest of a case.)
Yes. But if you read through the links, you see how Rav Elyashiv was critical of Rabbi Belsky as well!
ReplyDeleteThe Rubin case had Rabbi Belsky explicitly admitting that he paskened that Rubin should be beaten and forced to give a "get". However, let's see who disagreed and publicly wrote that the get was completely invalid m'derosaya.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch,
Rav Meir Brandsdorfer,
Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman,
Rav Yosef Rosenblum,
Rav Shmuel Zev Lichter (Krasna Rov),
Rav Menashe Klein,
Rav Pinchas Hircshprung (Montreal),
Rav Shlomo Blumenkrantz
All these specifically named the Rubin case. Yes, they publicly and specifically disagreed with Rabbi Belsky. They wrote and paskened that she remained an eishes ish.
Rav Elyashiv also wrote a letter, which was published in the Yated. While he doesn't name anyone specifically, it is obvious that he considered her an eishes ish.
Now, anyone care to explain the RDW of the Five Towns story? The rabbonim of the Five Towns versus Rabbi Belsky.
How about the Kolko junior case?
Rabbi Belsky isa big tzadik and a genious who has done a lot of good in his life. That does not make all his psakim - those grounded in halacha, and those routed in emotion - be considered correct.
How about a simple solution:
ReplyDeleteParties that are threatened כנגד ההלכה by a Bais Din or Rov, like this poster was, should forward corroborating evidence in the form of a photocopy or audio recording of the threat to R' Eidensohn.
Concerned citizens should then start a phone and letter-writing campaign to the threatening Rabbi.
I think this sort of bullying only thrives in DARKNESS.
Some Batei Din would definitely dig in, stand their ground & use stonewalling and/or misinformation (thus trying to "prove" that they're privy to some "inside" information). This could be dealt with by counteracting their tactics with clearly defined subjective criteria, such as:
The B"D / Rav would need to prove that there was a face-to-face meeting with the threatened party, otherwise, any Psak is invalid in places like the USA.
Additionally, we should organize the Halachic מקורות clearly stating the limits of Rabbinic authority - and make sure that we always conform fully to ALL pertinent Halachos. This would include the proper "tone" of תוכחה, as "כך כתוב בתורה", etc.
Would Rabbi Eidensohn be amenable to such an approach? Would he publicize it?
To make it really worthwhile - this campaign should be coupled with a total revamping of the "marital counseling" system. I think that in most (but not all) cases, there are ways of changing counseling from a "zero-sum" game into one of "win-win". But that's another subject..
I think they should forward it to the proper local authorities. If a person is coming to do you bodily harm against halakha, that is pretty much the definition of a rodef.
ReplyDeleteRav Shmuel Kaminetzky paskened that the tortured/forced "Get" in Briskman (Lakewood/Israel) case was pasul and me'usa and the wife remains an eishes ish.
ReplyDeleteThese thugs who do the beatings, and the so-called rabbis that organize it, try their best to leave no fingerprints.
ReplyDeleteThere or other forced Gets that are just as bad
ReplyDeleteI spoke to a well known Rav the son of a well known Rav in Monsey
He related the following:
His young nephew had martial difficulties
So after hearing about this new 'Baisdin'
created by reb Chaim Flohr
and Shlomo Zalman Kaufman
He
considered to use them he first spoke to Kaufman prior requesting him to try
counseling first and ,Kaufman agreed and said sure will will try counseling
first
So the young couple signed the four page beroorin /arbitration document this bais din requires to be signed before they will even hear the case .
The
ink was still wet on the document and a sitting in front of Kaufman was
scheduled , after not more then fifteen minutes discussion with each
side Kaufman decided to not do counseling When the uncle of the Young
boy called back Kaufman asking about this change , Kaufman responded
Oh! I met them and spoke to them both and I see it is not a Match!! so
am proceeding to a Get!!
But you met them for fifteen minutes!!!!
4 months later they were divorced and the young boy was also had payments large ones!!!
This young marriage was destroyed by Kaufman..... ,
When you ask him he says 'look at the paper the Beroorin you signed, I can do as I wish' !!!! I dont owe any answers
And I say 'its not Match , so a Get it must be'
Now bring the rest of the
$10,000 to the bais din by the way (in cash) each side
Again and again and again.... when will monsey wake up?
This is also a forced get ?
oh, and "in accordance with halacha", it is ok to do bodily harm?
ReplyDeleteaeiou,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?
How would this guy contact the FBI office in NJ?
ReplyDelete“The sick reality of gittin today” No. The sick reality of NYS law of separation actions. Allow me my letter August 15, 2023 to NYS Court of Appeals re mo.2023-398 June 5, 2023:
ReplyDelete“4.I'm prepared to come to NY to argue my rights to my property 498 East 18 Street Brooklyn and to my TIAA pension. Surely the Court will cancel the $20,000 Rigler/Rothbart and $5,000 Garson/Rothbart fines against me. Susan's website cites Hosea 2:21-22: “And I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and justice, and with goodness and mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord. Adultery in Jewish law is a capital crime, hard to prove, Proverbs 30:20 Such is the way of the adulteress: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, I have done no wrong. The essence of marriage the wife is forbidden to other men. The essence of divorce the wife is permitted to remarry Deuteronomy 24:1-2 “A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. She leaves his household and becomes the wife of another,” My complaint against Susan is that she committed divorce fraud taking my property Proverbs 20:17 “Bread gained by fraud may be tasty to a man, but later his mouth will be filled with gravel.” The $1,217.50 TIAA pays Susan monthly from my pension is Susan's bread. Her salary is modest, she enjoys the monthly TIAA check. I dared to go on a one-way EL-AL plane July 8, 1991. Two days before, after sex, fist time, Susan asked me for a NYS civil divorce. Earlier I sent some 7 large boxes and a Honda bike a neighbor gave me on a Zim boat to Israel. The whole aim of Susan's separation action was to steal my property Psalms 10:7 “His mouth is full of oaths, deceit, and fraud; mischief and evil are under his tongue.” “
Susan asked me for a NYS divorce in 1991 saying she’ll live with me and our 6 small children in Jerusalem if I agree to a NYS civil divorce. Problem is that after a supposed meaningless to me NYS civil divorce, ---- adultery. Rashi says on Proverbs 30-20 the adulteress is wiping [semen from a man other than her husband] from her vagina and [speaking to her husband] I have done nothing wrong. The rabbis advised me to send Susan a get. Today’s daf hayomi has the famous: Kiddushin 7a “Now, both are necessary: had we been informed this of kiddushin [only], that is because a woman is pleased [even] with very little, in accordance with Resh Lakish's dictum, for Resh Lakish said: It is better to dwell in grief with a load [So Jast.; Rashi, two bodies] than to dwell in widowhood [I.e., a woman prefers an unhappy married life to a happy single life.];”
Allow me to express my support to Ploni here who writes that threatened parties should forward to R’ Eidensohn corroborating evidence. Bravo. Today I heard the shofar in shul and I said Psalms 27 afterwards. Passages 11-12: “Show me הורני Your way, O Lord; And lead me in a level path באורח מישור, Because of my watchful foes למען שוררי. Deliver me not over unto the will of mine adversaries; For false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out violence.”
ReplyDeleteתהלים פרק כז פסוק יא - יג
(יא) הוֹרֵנִי יְקֹוָק דַּרְכֶּךָ וּנְחֵנִי בְּאֹרַח מִישׁוֹר לְמַעַן שׁוֹרְרָי:
(יב) אַל תִּתְּנֵנִי בְּנֶפֶשׁ צָרָי כִּי קָמוּ בִי עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר וִיפֵחַ חָמָס:
מלבי"ם תהלים פרק כז פסוק יב
אל תתני בנפש צרי, כי הלא לולא האמנתי לראות בטוב ה' בארץ חיים קמו בי עדי שקר ויפח חמס, ר"ל לולא האמונה הגדולה שיש לי שהאמנתי בהבטחת ה' שהבטיח לי את המלוכה, והאמנתי שעוד אשוב אראה בטוב ה' בארץ חיים היינו בא"י, שעוד אשוב לארץ, לולא האמונה הזאת, הלא כבר קמו נגדי עדי שקר שהעידו עלי שקר לפני שאול והפיחו חמס כדי להרגני, רק זכות האמונה הגדולה שהיה לי עמדה לי וגם שע"י גודל אמונתי התחזקתי בכל פעם, וע"י אומץ הלב באמונתי נמלטתי מידם, ...
Michael gave a downtick to Ploni..I give an uptick to Ploni and a downtick to Michael. Allow me my letter August 9, 2023
“4.Yes, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree between me and Susan. I had extensive dealings with main Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem, personal testimony and copies of letters I wrote to Susan and to Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag the head of the Rabbinical Court in Brooklyn Susan went to with her friend Rivkah Haut. The Israel Government issued me a divorce degree between me and Susan. I was the father of Susan's six children: Rachel, Yaffa, Deena, Tsvi, Aryea, and Miriam. The Israel Government issued me a marriage certificate me and Yemima. I am the father of Yemima's three daughters Hadassah, Tamar, and Sapphire Rivka. I secured USA social security numbers for all 9 of my children. I did receive some $1,000 per year each for Hadassah, Tamar, and Sapphire Rivka.part of President Bush (the father) tax break when they were little. I had a lawyer Ian Anderson but I did much on my own. Judge Kaye had an office in Manhattan that seemed to welcome complaints. I got nowhere with my complaints to Judge Kaye and to TIAA. Ian Anderson got nowhere with his motions to AD2 April 1996 and others. Yes, on Susan's application TIAA froze my pension 100% early 1994. I argued this was blocking my ability to pay Susan child support which I said I wanted to pay despite the 6 small children having \$2,000,000 in Merrillyn Lynch Cowen bank accounts with Susan as custodian. I argued much with TIAA Margaret Bryne and with her assistant at the time Julie Calderon Rizzo. Julie Calderon Rizzo is now my point person at TIAA. I argue now that I insist on my full TIAA pension which I paid for 100\%. I'm getting nowhere.”
King Saul sent false witnesses to kill David for no good reason. We pray today:”Deliver me not over unto the will of mine adversaries; For false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out violence.” Michael’s advice sometimes gets nowhere.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. This week’s parsha כי תצא has so much on gittin. Allow me my theory on marriage with a captive of war. The Israeli man probably wants to divorce the אשת יפת תאר but she probably says no. Probably she hates him too but she probably prefers a bad marriage to no marriage, according to Reish Lakish dictum. What’s he to do? Marry a second wife Deuteronomy 21: 15 "If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;:"
ReplyDeleteYes I’m still fighting Aranoff v Aranoff 398 June 5, 2023. NYS courts on vacation/shutdown till middle September. Allow me my court letter today.
“4.The matrimonial action brought by Susan Aranoff 1991 lacked any evidence whatsoever. True “In July 1991, the wife commenced this separation action after the husband had left the United States to settle permanently in the State of Israel.” I've been fighting Susan's false charges against me, myself, my lawyer Ian Anderson and only once personal appearance before Rigler/Rothbart August 1992. No, Sir Judge Pesce the matrimonial action brought by Susan Aranoff is not still pending on September 13, 1996. No Sir Judge Pesce and Sir Larry Rothbart my daughters' from Yemima are not illegitimate. Where is any evidence whatsoever on the separation action Susan Aranoff brought? The rules of AD2 state: “(h) Sanctions. An attorney or party who fails to comply with a rule or order of the court or who engages in frivolous conduct shall be subject to such sanction as the court may impose. The imposition of sanctions and costs may be made upon motion or upon the court's own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” I never engaged in frivolous conduct. In 2010 NYS adopted no fault divorce. I divorced Susan 2/17/1993 for Susan's refusal to join me in Jerusalem as she promised me. The Israel divorce, actually the get, effectively turned the issue into no-fault divorce as is now the law. There was no Rigler/Rothbart March 5, 1995 order of separation. All the repeated mentions in the 9/10/2013 Prus divorce and in the Inquest---evidence of corruption of Judge Prus. I request the Court investigate bogus court document---Rothbart, Susan, Judge Prus complicity. Also complicity of AD2 April 1996 judges. Susan had no reason for separation issues after recognizing the get that Susan initiated in Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag's Brooklyn Rabbinic Court."
Can I tell here my theory on twice cases man לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו? Deuteronomy 22:19 and 29 ? Wow he must stay married to her against his will ! Sounds terrible.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. This week’s parsha כי תצא has so much on gittin. Allow me my theory on twice cases man לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו? Deuteronomy 22:19 and 29.
ReplyDeleteHertz Chumash p. 846 “This man must pay the ‘bride-price’ and marry her, without right of divorce”
On 22:19 the man is fully married to her: “13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,” My theory is that the man in both 19 and 29 is a clown. In words of AD2 rules “one who fails to comply with a rule or order of the court or who engages in frivolous conduct.” On 19 the Torah flogs him and fines him 100 shekels he must pay the girl’s father. On 29 the Torah fines him, 50 shekels he must pay the girl’s father. He loses standing forever to file in a court for a divorce from her. Beautiful. Fair.
Wow in 19 he makes preposterous false attacks against her in a court. Wow in 29 he rapes her in the field and they be found. The Torah wants to punish only him, not her. Yes she can file for divorce, but not he, forever. Follow KA? Thanks for the 2 upticks.
To elaborate, the court cannot believe one word from the man, a clown. In 19 the punishment of flogging and 100 shekels is appropriate since he brought false charges to a court of law .In 29 the punishment of 50 shekels is appropriate since he does want her for a wife.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No.Today daf hayomi mischief-maker men to their girl-partners:
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 12b:
“A certain man betrothed [a woman] with a myrtle branch in a market place. Thereupon R. Aha b. Huna sent [a question] to R. Joseph: How is it in such a case? He sent back: Have him flagellated, in accordance with Rab; and demand a divorce, in accordance with Samuel [for the myrtle branch may be worth a perutah elsewhere.]. For Rab punished any man who betrothed [a woman] in a market place, or by intercourse [notwithstanding the Mishnah], or without [previous] shiddukin [V Glos. He regarded these as licentiousness], Or who annulled a divorce [After sending it to his wife, but before she received it, in which case it is annulled. But the messenger may not know of this and deliver the divorce, and the wife contract another marriage.], Or who lodged a protest against a divorce [A divorce had to be given of the husband's free will. Even when he was forced (e.g., for refusal of conjugal rights, Keth. V. 6; impotence, Ned. XI, 12), he had to declare that he was giving it voluntarily. Yet he might secretly lodge a protest before witnesses that he was giving it under compulsion, in which case it was invalid.], Or harassed a messenger of the Rabbis [sent to summon him to court]..Or permitted a ban to remain upon him thirty days [Without seeking its remission by expressing his regret at the offence which had occasioned it and undertaking to amend his ways. Buchler in MGWJ 1934 (Festschrift) p. 129, observes that as far as known the ban, during the days of Jamnia and Usha (first century) was imposed only on scholars, but that in the early amoraic period all were subject to it, as here (v. note 3, a.l.).], And a son-in-law who dwelt in his mother-in-law's house thirty days [Contrary to modern belief, the love between these two was regarded as so strong as to endanger their morals; cf. Pes. 113a.]. Only him who dwelt, but not him who merely passed by [his mother-in-law's house]? But a certain son-in-law passed by his mother-in-law's door, for which R. Shesheth chastised him? There his mother-in-law was [already] under suspicion through him. The Nehardeans maintained: For all these Rab inflicted no punishment, excepting for betrothing [a woman] by intercourse without shiddukin others state, even with shiddukin, on account of licentiousness [Tosaf.: this view is relied upon nowadays, in that sons-in-law live with their mothers-in-law].”
The Gamara sages faced same problems today. Rabbi Mendel Epstein has support in the Gamara. This week’s parsha כי תצא wow on family Torah laws.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Today daf hayomi.
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 15b What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — Scripture saith, ‘And if he be not redeemed by these’ — but by a stranger — ‘then he shall go out in the year of jubilee’ [And until then he is the stranger's slave.]. Allow me my letter today to NYS Ct of Appeals.
“4.With both Susan and I in good health and with Yemima and my 9 children, six from Susan and 3 from Yemima in good health, now is a good time for the Court to rule on who owns the property 498 East 18 Street Brookln NY 11226 USA and the TIAA pension that pays Susan $1,217.50 monthly. I argue as in Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. It's approaching 50 years, a jubilee, AD2 ruled me separated from my house and from my 6 children from Susan. Once Susan or I pass on, after 120, big legal fights could emerge among survivor inheritors of Susan or I. I could understand the thinking of AD2 April 1996. Me moving to Israel July 1991 without Susan's permission and Susan alone in the Brooklyn house to care for our 6 small children---understandable--- As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer. I argued, vainly, that Susan did deceptive means, fraud, such as exaggerating my child support obligation (backdating to when I was still in Brooklyn, using my salary as professor at Lehman College September 1988 - June 1991, and using a 9% compound interest on a phony balance). The AD2 April 1996 ruling and other rulings failed to get me to move back to Brooklyn. Judge Prus awarded the house and 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan 9/10/2013 after conducting an Inquest (all in my SCOTUS complaints in public view)”
I'm giving the thinking of the NYS judges of my case, follow KA? Do I have a good case?
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Today daf hayomi.
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 15b R. Jose the Galilean argues against R. Akiva. “And what Tanna disagrees with Rabbi? R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba. For it was taught: Leviticus 25:54 “And if he be not redeemed by any of these באלה means, then he shall go out in the year of jubilee, he, and his children with him.” R. Jose the Galilean said: If by these, it is for freedom, if by strangers [Lit., the rest of people], it is for servitude [If a relation redeems him, he goes free; if a stranger, he becomes his slave.]. R. Akiba said: If ‘by these’,it is for servitude: if by strangers, it is for freedom. What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — Scripture saith, ‘And if he be not redeemed by these’ — but by a stranger — ‘then he shall go out in the year of jubilee’ [And until then he is the stranger's slave]. While R. Akiba interprets: ‘And if he be not redeemed by any but these, then he shall go out in the year of jubilee’. And R. Jose the Galilean [How does he refute R. Akiba]? — Is it then written: ‘by any but these’ [Surely not! This is the reading in the curr. edd. Other versions, more plausibly: And R. Akiba: is it then written, etc.? This is both more logical and in keeping with what follows.] ? But they differ in respect of the following verse: Leviticus 25:49 “or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be waxen rich, he may redeem himself.” This is redemption by relations; or if he be waxen rich: this is self redemption: and he shall be redeemed: this is redemption by strangers.”
Beautiful Only R. Jose the Galilean maintains, Schottenstein, “that when a non-relative negotiates the servant’s release, the newly released Jew incurs an obligation to serve his benefactor.” The big problem is that a Jew that sells himself to a gentile, does not gain his freedom by completing his 6 years of service.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Today daf hayomi.
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 15b What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — Scripture saith, ‘And if he be not redeemed by these’ — but by a stranger — ‘then he shall go out in the year of jubilee’ [And until then he is the stranger's slave.]. Allow me my letter today to NYS Ct of Appeals.
“4.With both Susan and I in good health and with Yemima and my 9 children, six from Susan and 3 from Yemima in good health, now is a good time for the Court to rule on who owns the property 498 East 18 Street Brookln NY 11226 USA and the TIAA pension that pays Susan $1,217.50 monthly. I argue as in Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. It's approaching 50 years, a jubilee, AD2 ruled me separated from my house and from my 6 children from Susan. Once Susan or I pass on, after 120, big legal fights could emerge among survivor inheritors of Susan or I. I could understand the thinking of AD2 April 1996. Me moving to Israel July 1991 without Susan's permission and Susan alone in the Brooklyn house to care for our 6 small children---understandable--- As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer. I argued, vainly, that Susan did deceptive means, fraud, such as exaggerating my child support obligation (backdating to when I was still in Brooklyn, using my salary as professor at Lehman College September 1988 - June 1991, and using a 9% compound interest on a phony balance). The AD2 April 1996 ruling and other rulings failed to get me to move back to Brooklyn. Judge Prus awarded the house and 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan 9/10/2013 after conducting an Inquest (all in my SCOTUS complaints in public view)”
I'm giving the thinking of the NYS judges of my case, follow KA? Do I have a good case?
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Daf hayomi.
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 13b:
“Again they sat and related: In reference to what we learnt: If a woman brought her sin-offering [after childbirth] and then died, her heirs must bring her burnt-offering,3 Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Providing that she had separated it4 during her lifetime, but not otherwise; thus proving that in his opinion the hypothecary obligation5 is not Biblical.6 [But] R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: Even if she did not separate it during her lifetime, thus proving that he holds that hypothecary obligation is Biblical.7”
AD2 April 1996 treated me as if I committed a crime. Susan owes me my TIAA pension and my property. When we go after 120 my 6 children from Susan will owe Yemima and my 3 daughters from Yemima. Allow me what I write yesterday to the Court:
“4.With both Susan and I in good health and with Yemima and my 9 children, six from Susan and 3 from Yemima in good health, now is a good time for the Court to rule on who owns the property 498 East 18 Street Brooklyn NY 11226 USA and the TIAA pension that pays Susan \$1,217.50 monthly. I argue as in {\em Leviticus} 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. It's approaching 50 years, a jubilee, AD2 ruled me separated from my house and from my 6 children from Susan. Once Susan or I pass on, after 120, big legal fights could emerge among survivor inheritors of Susan or I. I could understand the thinking of AD2 April 1996. Me moving to Israel July 1991 without Susan's permission and Susan alone in the Brooklyn house to care for our 6 small children---understandable--- As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer. I argued, vainly, that Susan did deceptive means, fraud, such as exaggerating my child support obligation (backdating to when I was still in Brooklyn, using my salary as professor at Lehman College September 1988 - June 1991, and using a 9\% compound interest on a phony balance). The AD2 April 1996 ruling and other rulings failed to get me to move back to Brooklyn. Judge Prus awarded the house and 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan 9/10/2013 after conducting an Inquest (all in my SCOTUS complaints in public view).”
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Wow pageviews 22,935! Daf hayomi today Kiddushin 17b:
ReplyDelete“ R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: The matter is as it is written: if the house was blessed on his account, a gift is made to him; if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him. If so, what is intimated by ‘thou shalt surely furnish him’? The Torah employed human idiom.”:
He bought a Jew to be his slave for 6 years and contrary to plain reading of Deuteronomy 15: “12If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty; 14thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress; of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.” He can send the slave free with no present if he’s poor! Joseph brought blessings to Potiphar Genesis 39:3 “And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.” I brought blessings to Susan: 6 children, gave them bottles diaper changes dr visits/shots PTA meetings taught them to drive etc.
Allow me my letter Sunday to Court:
“4.With both Susan and I in good health and with Yemima and my 9 children, six from Susan and 3 from Yemima in good health, now is a good time for the Court to rule on who owns the property 498 East 18 Street Brooklyn NY 11226 USA and the TIAA pension that pays Susan $1,217.50 monthly. I argue as in Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. It's approaching 50 years, a jubilee, AD2 ruled me separated from my house and from my 6 children from Susan. Once Susan or I pass on, after 120, big legal fights could emerge among survivor inheritors of Susan or I. I could understand the thinking of AD2 April 1996. Me moving to Israel July 1991 without Susan's permission and Susan alone in the Brooklyn house to care for our 6 small children---understandable--- As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer I argued, vainly, that Susan did deceptive means, fraud, such as exaggerating my child support obligation (backdating to when I was still in Brooklyn, using my salary as professor at Lehman College September 1988 - June 1991, and using a 9% compound interest on a phony balance). The AD2 April 1996 ruling and other rulings failed to get me to move back to Brooklyn. Judge Prus awarded the house and 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan 9/10/2013 after conducting an Inquest (all in my SCOTUS complaints in public view).”
I asked Rabbi Drori after his shiur, R. Eleazar b. Azariah allows the poor Jew to send his slave free to let him go empty? R’ Drori told me he had money to buy the slave. Hertz Chumash on Deuteronomy 15:14 “liberally. The compliance with this command must be more than sour obedience of the letter of the law.”
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Wow pageviews 25,059! Daf hayomi today Kiddushin 17b:
ReplyDelete“ R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: The matter is as it is written: if the house was blessed on his account, a gift is made to him; if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him. If so, what is intimated by ‘thou shalt surely furnish him’? The Torah employed human idiom.”:
He bought a Jew to be his slave for 6 years and contrary to plain reading of Deuteronomy 15: “12If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty; 14thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress; of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.” He can send the slave free with no present if he’s poor! Joseph brought blessings to Potiphar Genesis 39:3 “And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.” I brought blessings to Susan: 6 children, gave them bottles diaper changes dr visits/shots PTA meetings taught them to drive etc.
Allow me my letter Sunday to Court:
“4.With both Susan and I in good health and with Yemima and my 9 children, six from Susan and 3 from Yemima in good health, now is a good time for the Court to rule on who owns the property 498 East 18 Street Brooklyn NY 11226 USA and the TIAA pension that pays Susan $1,217.50 monthly. I argue as in Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. It's approaching 50 years, a jubilee, AD2 ruled me separated from my house and from my 6 children from Susan. Once Susan or I pass on, after 120, big legal fights could emerge among survivor inheritors of Susan or I. I could understand the thinking of AD2 April 1996. Me moving to Israel July 1991 without Susan's permission and Susan alone in the Brooklyn house to care for our 6 small children---understandable--- As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer I argued, vainly, that Susan did deceptive means, fraud, such as exaggerating my child support obligation (backdating to when I was still in Brooklyn, using my salary as professor at Lehman College September 1988 - June 1991, and using a 9% compound interest on a phony balance). The AD2 April 1996 ruling and other rulings failed to get me to move back to Brooklyn. Judge Prus awarded the house and 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan 9/10/2013 after conducting an Inquest (all in my SCOTUS complaints in public view).”
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Wow pageviews 33,007! Daf hayomi today Kiddushin 17b:
ReplyDelete“ R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: The matter is as it is written: if the house was blessed on his account, a gift is made to him; if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him. If so, what is intimated by ‘thou shalt surely furnish him’? The Torah employed human idiom.”:
He bought a Jew to be his slave for 6 years and contrary to plain reading of Deuteronomy 15: “12If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty; 14thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress; of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.” He can send the slave free with no present if he’s poor! Joseph brought blessings to Potiphar Genesis 39:3 “And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.” I brought blessings to Susan: 6 children, gave them bottles diaper changes dr visits/shots PTA meetings taught them to drive etc.
Allow me my letter Sunday to Court:
“4.With both Susan and I in good health and with Yemima and my 9 children, six from Susan and 3 from Yemima in good health, now is a good time for the Court to rule on who owns the property 498 East 18 Street Brooklyn NY 11226 USA and the TIAA pension that pays Susan $1,217.50 monthly. I argue as in Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. It's approaching 50 years, a jubilee, AD2 ruled me separated from my house and from my 6 children from Susan. Once Susan or I pass on, after 120, big legal fights could emerge among survivor inheritors of Susan or I. I could understand the thinking of AD2 April 1996. Me moving to Israel July 1991 without Susan's permission and Susan alone in the Brooklyn house to care for our 6 small children---understandable--- As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer I argued, vainly, that Susan did deceptive means, fraud, such as exaggerating my child support obligation (backdating to when I was still in Brooklyn, using my salary as professor at Lehman College September 1988 - June 1991, and using a 9% compound interest on a phony balance). The AD2 April 1996 ruling and other rulings failed to get me to move back to Brooklyn. Judge Prus awarded the house and 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan 9/10/2013 after conducting an Inquest (all in my SCOTUS complaints in public view).”
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Wow pageviews 33,979 ! Daf hayomi today
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 17b:
“ R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: The matter is as it is written: if the house was blessed on his account, a gift is made to him; if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him. If so, what is intimated by ‘thou shalt surely furnish him’? The Torah employed human idiom.”:
He bought a Jew to be his slave for 6 years and contrary to plain reading of Deuteronomy 15: “12If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty; 14thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress; of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.” He can send the slave free with no present if he’s poor! Joseph brought blessings to Potiphar Genesis 39:3 “And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.” I brought blessings to Susan: 6 children, gave them bottles diaper changes dr visits/shots PTA meetings taught them to drive etc.
Wow tonight at the siyum for Gittin I shook hands with Rabbi Lau, the father. What a stirring speech he made.
דברים פרשת עקב פרק ח פסוק יט
וְהָיָה אִם שָׁכֹחַ תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקֶיךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַעֲבַדְתָּם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתָ לָהֶם הַעִדֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אָבֹד תֹּאבֵדוּן:
Moses saw all the future troubles, including destruction of 1/3 of our people Torah we study in daf hayomi is witness, a witness before God, on our side.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Daf hayomi today
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 18:
“Now this enters into the dispute of the following Tannaim. For it was taught: [To sell her unto a strange people he shall have no power], seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her [be-bigedo bah]: once he spread his cloak over her [i.e., given her in marriage; for this idiom cf. Ruth III, 9: spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid (i.e., take me in marriage)],1 he can no longer sell her: this is R. Akiba's view [deriving be-bigedo fr. beged, a garment]. R. Eliezer said: seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her having dealt deceitfully with her [i.e., disgracefully, by selling her into slavery],he may not sell her [again]. Wherein do they differ? R. Eliezer maintains: the traditional text [i.e., letters without vowels] is authoritative [V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 4, n. 4]; R. Akiba maintains: the text as read is authoritative; whereas R. Simeon holds: both the traditional text and the vocalization are authoritative [The traditional text is be-bagedo, seeing that he hath deceived, i.e., sold her; it is vocalised be-bigedo, with his garment, i.e., having married her.].”
:Exodus 21: “7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.”
אִם רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר לוֹ יְעָדָהּ וְהֶפְדָּהּ לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ:
The Torah uses a strong word בבגדו where clearly referenced to the father who And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant. My theory the Torah warns the father be extremely careful when exercising his power to sell his daughter. Today we say bad faith = an. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others.
Beautiful. My JPS Tanakh translates בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ he broke faith with her. I support R. Eliezer said: seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her, the father to his daughter.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Daf hayomi today
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 19a:
“What is our decision on the matter? Come and hear: For R. Aibu said in R. Jannaiðs name: Designation can be performed only by an adult; designation is only by consent. [Are these] two [statements]? He states the reason: What is the reason that designation can be performed only by an adult? Because designation is only by consent. Alternatively, what is the meaning of, by consent? By her consent. For Abaye son of R. Abbahu recited: [If she please not her master,] who hath not espoused her [ye'adah]: this teaches that he must inform her [that he intends to designate her.] He recited it and he explained it: This refers to betrothal by designation, and is in accordance with R. Jose son of R. Judah, who maintained, The original money was not given as kiddushin. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Even if you say that it was given as kiddushin, here it is different, because Scripture expressed [betrothal by the word] ye'adah.”
Beautiful. R. Nahman b. Isaac absolutely only in the rare case of Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant. Underage girls can sign up themselves at the House of the Rising Sun (Joan Biez) for prostitution or to marry a mamzer or whatever. Joan Biez wails if only I listened to my mother (not to join...) I’d be home today. The Torah allows a father to sell his under-12 daughter to a master without her consent! The father hopes the master or his son will want to marry the under-12 daughter. Then, and only then, Kiddushin allowed even without the girls’ consent. Otherwise, all Kiddushin require the girl’s consent, even for an underaged girl.
According to R. Nahman b. Isaac no fathers marrying off their under-aged daughters without the daughter’s consent. Yes the Torah permits And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, but not to end up in life of shame (as in the House of the Rising Sun). Hertz Chumash p. 307: “a maidservant. Or, ‘a bondwoman’; to be the secondary wife for the master or his son. In an age of polygamy, the position of concubine, or second wife, was not a degraded one. Her offspring had equal rights in matters of inheritance, with the children of the first wife (Deut. xxi, 10-14). ” Torah laws are so beautiful.
“The sick reality of gittin today” Yes, thanks KA for the post and for 3 upticks you gave me here. Wow pageviews 37,493. My case is progressing at NYS ct of Appeals. 2023-398 June 5, 2023. Allow me my letter today:
ReplyDelete“4.I propose to drop my complaints on Susan's exaggerated my child support obligation and balance today if any. I propose also to drop my complaints on Judge Prus Inquest August 1, 2013 and the 9/10/2013 NYS contested civil divorce Aranoff v Aranoff based on the bogus March 5, 1995 Rigler/Rothbart Order of Separation which I never saw. I quote from Leviticus 25:14-17: “And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or buy of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee. According to the multitude of the years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years thou shalt diminish the price of it; for the number of crops doth he sell unto thee. And ye shall not wrong one another; but thou shalt fear thy God; for I am the LORD your God.” 5.The Court awarded Susan my house and 55% of my TIAA pension only because Susan was alone in Brooklyn to raise my 6 small children from Susan. It was a temporary award valid only with me living in Israel with my wife Yemima in Yemima's house raising my 3 daughters from Yemima. What would happen to the ownership of the house and the 55% of the TIAA pension if Susan passes on and I and Yemima are alive and well? I pray for Susan long life, good health and happiness. On September 1, 2023 TIAA paid Susan $1,217.50 55% of my pension---theft. God demands that we don't wrong one another.”
“The sick reality of gittin today” Yes, thanks KA for the post and for 3 upticks you gave me here. My case is progressing at NYS ct of Appeals. 2023-398 June 5, 2023. Daf hayomi today.
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 22b:
“How do we know this (that Canaanite slaves are freed with money or deed and not with 6 years and not with Jubilee)? Because it is written: And ye shall make them [the heathen slaves] an inheritance for your children after you, to possess as an inheritance [Lev. XXV, 46]; just as a ‘field of possession’ is acquired by hazakah [like all other landed property], so is a heathen slave acquired by money, deed, or hazakah. If so, just as ‘a field of possession’ reverts to its [original] owner at jubilee, so should a heathen slave revert to his [former] owner at jubilee? Therefore it is stated, of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever.”
Leviticus 25:46 “And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.”
Allow me my letter today:
“4.I propose to drop my complaints on Susan's exaggerated my child support obligation and balance today if any. I propose also to drop my complaints on Judge Prus Inquest August 1, 2013 and the 9/10/2013 NYS contested civil divorce Aranoff v Aranoff based on the bogus March 5, 1995 Rigler/Rothbart Order of Separation which I never saw. I quote from Leviticus 25:14-17: “And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or buy of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee. According to the multitude of the years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years thou shalt diminish the price of it; for the number of crops doth he sell unto thee. And ye shall not wrong one another; but thou shalt fear thy God; for I am the LORD your God.” 5.The Court awarded Susan my house and 55% of my TIAA pension only because Susan was alone in Brooklyn to raise my 6 small children from Susan. It was a temporary award valid only with me living in Israel with my wife Yemima in Yemima's house raising my 3 daughters from Yemima. What would happen to the ownership of the house and the 55% of the TIAA pension if Susan passes on and I and Yemima are alive and well? I pray for Susan long life, good health and happiness. On September 1, 2023 TIAA paid Susan $1,217.50 55% of my pension---theft. God demands that we don't wrong one another.”
Susann does not get my house and my pension forever, but only for herself and our 6 small children when Susan refused to join me in Israel as she promised.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Daf hayomi today
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 22b-23a
“R. Judah the Indian was a proselyte who had no heirs. He fell sick and Mar Zutra went and paid him a sick visit [lit., to enquire concerning him]. Seeing him in extremis [lit., he saw that the world weighed very heavily upon him] he said to his [R. Judah's] slave, Remove me my shoes and take them to my house [He wished the slave to be in his service when his master died, so as to acquire him by hazakah]. Some maintain, He [the slave] was an adult [and Mar Zutra wished that he should not be without a master for a single moment at his master's death, as he would thereby become free]. One [R. Judah] departed to death, and the other [the slave] departed [from his former master] to life. Others maintain, He was a minor, and this was not in accordance with Abba Saul. For it was taught: If a proselyte dies [without heirs] and Israelites take possession of his property, which includes slaves, whether adults or minors, they gain their liberty. Abba Saul said: Adults acquire their freedom, but as for minors, whoever takes possession of them [even afterwards] gains a title to them [I.e., from the other side of the door (Rashi)].”
The Gamara shows us a video (as it were) of a sick proselyte Canaanite slave who followed mitzvot last moments before his death who had no heirs. Mar Zutra got title to the Canaanite slave.
Mar Zutra gave him a job to do, to take his shoes to his house in order to obtain ownership of the Canaanite slave. In the view the sick proselyte Canaanite slave was a minor and Mar Zutra followed the Abba Saul dictum that minors have no legal capacity to acquire anything including their own freedom. Thus Mar Zutra (Rashi and Tosafos explain) insured that the minor not remain ownerless even for a moment.
Hey, this might be the thinking of the judges in Aranoff v Aranoff 2023-398 June 5, 2023. They wished to give title of the house and 55% of my pension to the 6 small children I left in Brooklyn. I made aliya myself because Susan refused to join me in Jerusalem as she promised. NYS law: cannot give title of a house and 55% of a pension to minors. The Court award of house and pension to Susan was temporary as she was custodian of our 6 small children July 1991. The small children become of age, they become the full owners of the house and pension. So who owns the house and the pension today? Surely it’s me.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Daf hayomi today
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 22b-23a
“R. Judah the Indian was a proselyte who had no heirs. He fell sick and Mar Zutra went and paid him a sick visit [lit., to enquire concerning him]. Seeing him in extremis [lit., he saw that the world weighed very heavily upon him] he said to his [R. Judah's] slave, Remove me my shoes and take them to my house [He wished the slave to be in his service when his master died, so as to acquire him by hazakah]. Some maintain, He [the slave] was an adult [and Mar Zutra wished that he should not be without a master for a single moment at his master's death, as he would thereby become free]. One [R. Judah] departed to death, and the other [the slave] departed [from his former master] to life. Others maintain, He was a minor, and this was not in accordance with Abba Saul. For it was taught: If a proselyte dies [without heirs] and Israelites take possession of his property, which includes slaves, whether adults or minors, they gain their liberty. Abba Saul said: Adults acquire their freedom, but as for minors, whoever takes possession of them [even afterwards] gains a title to them [I.e., from the other side of the door (Rashi)].”
The Gamara shows us a video (as it were) of a sick proselyte Canaanite slave who followed mitzvot last moments before his death who had no heirs. Mar Zutra got title to the Canaanite slave.
Mar Zutra gave him a job to do, to take his shoes to his house in order to obtain ownership of the Canaanite slave. In the view the Canaanite slave was a minor and Mar Zutra followed the Abba Saul dictum that minors have no legal capacity to acquire anything including their own freedom. Thus Mar Zutra (Rashi and Tosafos explain) insured that the minor Canaanite slave not remain ownerless even for a moment. Beautiful. Minors, under-aged, have no legal powers of their own.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Daf hayomi today
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 26a
“AND BY DEED. How do we know it? Shall we say, because it is written, and subscribe the deeds, and attest them, and call witnesses [Jer. XXXII, 44]. But you have said that the deed is merely evidence? But from this verse, so I took the deed of purchase [after paying, but before the deed is drawn up; this shews that the deed itself consummates the purchase]. Samuel said: This was taught only of a deed of gift. But in the case of sale, no title is obtained until the money is paid [unless otherwise stipulated (Rashi)].”
According to Samuel: Reuven can buy a house by deed only if Shimon makes a gift of the house to Reuven. Otherwise Reuven has to pay some money, even token money.
My divorce from Susan because she refused to make aliya as she promised, Susan won 55% of my TIAA pension from early 1994 with no end in sight and the house, the marital residence. I expect next week NYS’s highest court will rule on 2023-398 June 5, 2023.
Jeremiah 32: 42For thus saith the LORD: Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them. 43And fields shall be bought in this land, whereof ye say: It is desolate, without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans. 44Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them, and call witnesses, in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the hill-country, and in the cities of the Lowland, and in the cities of the South; for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the LORD.’ Beautiful.
“The sick reality of gittin today” No. Daf hayomi today
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 26a
“AND BY DEED. How do we know it? Shall we say, because it is written, and subscribe the deeds, and attest them, and call witnesses [Jer. XXXII, 44]. But you have said that the deed is merely evidence? But from this verse, so I took the deed of purchase [after paying, but before the deed is drawn up; this shews that the deed itself consummates the purchase]. Samuel said: This was taught only of a deed of gift. But in the case of sale, no title is obtained until the money is paid [unless otherwise stipulated (Rashi)].”
According to Samuel: Reuven can buy a house by deed only (without money) if Shimon makes a gift of the house to Reuven. Otherwise Reuven has to pay some money, even token money.
Jeremiah 32: 42For thus saith the LORD: Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them. 43And fields shall be bought in this land, whereof ye say: It is desolate, without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans. 44Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them, and call witnesses, in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the hill-country, and in the cities of the Lowland, and in the cities of the South; for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the LORD.’ Beautiful.
Jeremiah says Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them, and call witnesses. Why all this to buy a house? Oh, to reduce fraud and scams.