Monday, July 21, 2014

Rivky Stein & Yoel Weiss: ORA denies claim they are involved or have verified her beis din

A recent commentator pasted in his comment a quote from Rivky Stein's Facebook page claiming that ORA was involved and supporting them and in addition that ORA had verified the validity of Rivky's Mill Basin Beis Din. In addition the contact information for ORA was given.

I was just asked "for the sake of truth" to remove that comment by a member of ORA who says that ORA is not in fact involved in the case and has not ascertained whether Rivky's Mill Basin Beis din is authentic or not.

While I have my disagreements with ORA concerning halacha and the appropriate tactics - I have found them to be sincere and honest in what they believe to be facts. Therefore I have removed the false statement from my blog - as they requested. 

Another one of Rivky's "facts" that have turned out to be fiction.

121 comments :

  1. I have found ORA to make up lies (and or refuse to verify lies told to them.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Daas Torah - ORA's logo has been posted on the RedeemRivky page for at least a month. Why didn't ORA ask that it be removed until now? In addition I personally saw about a month ago a comment from the RedeemRivky page administrator stating that ORA was involved in the case, and had validated the Bais Din.

    So now that evidence indicates that Rivky's "Bais Din" is a fraud and her "seruv" is a fraud, ORA needs to suddenly disengage themselves from Rivky's case? However before the fraud was exposed, ORA apparently had no problem joining the feminist lynch mob against Yoel Weiss? What about all the other fake "seruvim" ORA has exploited to create fake legitimacy while forcing pasul GITTIN? Exactly what is sincere and honest about ORA's facts as you claim?

    https://www.facebook.com/RedeemRivky

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just because someone is a dangerous minion of an evil master, if you ask them what time it is, and they look at their watch and tell you, there's no reason to necessarily doubt them. In other words, the people at ORA are following their leaders. Where their leaders are in error, ORA can be expected to err. But ORA leaders have apparently not told ORA to mislead gratuitously. So if ORA says they haven't been involved in investigating a case, what should make us disbelieve them?

    ReplyDelete
  4. RDE: Can you please clarify whether what ORA told you indicates that Rabbi Rabovsky is indeed an ORA member and that neither he nor ORA have nothing to do with Rivky Stein or her beit din. Or whether what ORA is saying that they have nothing to do with Stein and that Rabbi Rabovsky is not an ORA member but Rabbi Rabovsky himself is or may be associated with Rivky Stein but not through ORA?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Daas Torah RDE or anyone else. Can you please show me where Rivky claimed that ORA verified her Beth Din and was supporting her case?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You may want to verify the other untruth that your followers keep repeating. That the Dodelsons are somehow involved in this as well. That is a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You don't have to post that, just verify the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Yoel Weiss: 24 days ago I wrote the following comment on a different post:

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/06/rivky-stein-and-yoel-weiss-who-are.html#comment-1457641153

    "If (again, "if") it turns out this Beth Din doesn't exist and the Psak that was posted on the website was a sham, I will find it very hard to believe that Rivki came up with this fraud on her own and put together the Psak helrself. There has to be a Toiyan or some other Professional Adviser that is helping her.

    So if the Beth Din turns out to be a fraud:

    a) the next question will be who is her Toiyan or Professional Adviser/s?

    b) it is also possible that she was told that a real Beth Din issued this Psak, but had no idea that the whole thing was a fraud."

    4 days later on a different post

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/06/rivky-stein-and-yoel-weissthe-meidators.html#comment-1463304718

    you wrote the following: "Hi uziel frankel is where rivky sleeps at night at 485 east 3rd st there r pics of them driving toghther he is the guy who made up the frivolis rico complaint he made the fake bes din all you have todo is googel his name it is there right in front of any one looking to see Just so you no uziel frankel did not give his wife a get for over 14 years he was paid 400K"

    Even in your recent posts, you keep calling it 'Uziel Frankel's Beth Din'.


    How do you know that Rivki knew all along that the Beth Din was a fake? Maybe she was taken in by Uziel's charm and took him on his word that there was a Beth Din that issued this Psak. If you have no proof that she knew that this Beth Din was a fake, why are you making threats against her?

    ReplyDelete
  9. the quote was in a comment that I deleted at the request of ORA. ORA noted that it originally appeared on Rivky's website and that it was replicated on my blog. I do not know the degree that Rivky determines or is aware of what is placed on her website and at this point I have know idea what she believes to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ORA's logo is on Rivky's facebook page as "liked by this page" - ie. her page "liked" them - a one-way action on her part that requires no participation on their part.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The question that I still have is, the claim on her Facebook page, that ORA authenticated her Beth Din and was supporting her, was that something that was posted as a "comment" by an anonymous person or something that the admins of her page posted? If anyone can post detailed info on this, I would really appreciate it.


    Even before Yoel publicly accused Uziel Frankel (don't know who he is except for what Yoel posted) I have been having doubts as to what Rivki really knows, is in control of, etc..., as it relates to her publicity campaign. I especially have doubts as to whether she knew from the beginning that the Beth Din was a sham (if indeed it is a sham).

    ReplyDelete
  12. @TruthJew


    1) Can you please direct me to where the Admin of Rivki's website or Facebook page made the claim that ORA was involved and had validated her Beth Din?


    2) Anyone can put up a link to ORA on their Facebook page to show the world that they "like" ORA and ask others to join in an "like" ORA as well. That is what Social Media, and especially Facebook is all about. Just because ORA didn't ask her to remove it, doesn't mean that they ever supported her case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Daas Torah

    You wrote: "I do not know the degree that Rivky determines or is aware of what is placed on her website and at this point I have know idea what she believes to be true."

    Would it be unreasonable for me to ask if in light of this, your comment in the post above "Another one of Rivky's "facts" that have turned out to be fiction." for it to be removed or qualified?

    ReplyDelete
  14. First who are You that you keep defending Rivky Stein & Uziel Frankel at all costs .




    weiss insider em • 2 hours ago

    If anyone were in Yoel's shoes, where his wife started off with out ever asking for a get, and accused him in court of raping and beating her with out any shred of proof, molesting the kids again with out any proof, which all of these charges he denies, would anyone be running to give her a get? or would you be waiting for an apology and for her to state to the world that she lied in order to try and get sole custody?

    Have a look at the situation in Israel, do we negotiate with terrorists? with liars?

    Forget address mistakes, has anyone ever heard of this bais din? of these rabbis?

    I don't see why Yoel should be rushing to give her anything, once a prominent Bais Din asks him to give a get, I would imagine he would.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ORA's logo is not posted on Redeem Rivky. Redeem Rivky "liked" ORA on Facebook and that is why it appears.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The accusation that uzi did not give his wife a get only for a stated sum is incorrect and ludicrous. First, the amount cited is pretty minor, for a family with extensive real estate holdings. Second, there was a particular issue of a home in glatbiush, and a multi family investment property. The amount cited is minimal when you take this into consideration. Further, there was a particular issue of recalcitrant father in law, who would not allow settlement discussions while he was alive. In fact, the case was settled for this nominal sum, within weeks of the father in law's passing. One should say the f-i-l kept his daughter an aguna due to his obstinacy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. yes it would be unreasonable. There are alot of allegations that she has made. It could turn out that she herself hasn't made any allegations but somebody wrote it up and she didn't bother reading it.

    Thus I am labeling allegations made by her or for her as Rivky's facts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Yoel Weiss Show me a single post where I have defended Rivki Stein or Uziel Frankel?

    I don't know either one of them. All I have done is ask you and your supporters questions. Basic questions to try to get a better understanding of the case. Basic questions, which seem to continue to make you uncomfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Seems like you and Yoel Weiss disagree to the facts of what happened with Uziel's own Get.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It was posted by the administrator of her facebook page. There are screen shots of it.

    The administrator - who is clearly a convincing PR hack - clearly posted that the B"D was verified by ORA to be authentic.

    On June 16 Rivky Stein responded as follows:

    As I wrote earlier: It is absolutely a Beit Din. This is another lie that Yoel has been perpetuating. I know it's hard to believe in this day and age that something exists even when it doesn't show up on Google. But ORA has confirmed the validity of this Beit Din. (You can feel free to contact Rabbi Noach Rabovsky to confirm that.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. @just the facts - by repeatedly attacking Yoel and not Rivky - you certainly give the impression that you favor one side.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It would appear that both Rivky, ORA, and the ORA trolls on this blog are desperately trying to cover their tracks now, but it may be too late.

    From the Google cache:

    "Redeem Rivky: Demand that Yoel Weiss Give his Wife a Get As
    was previously stated, the Beit Din is a small community one. Rivky
    does not have the money for the larger established ones. This BD has
    been confirmed by ORA, and you are free to confirm it yourself. The
    address on this letterhead contains a typo. It reads "77nd St" instead
    of "72nd St." Both of which, incidentally, are real addresses."

    https://www.facebook.com/RedeemRivky/photos/pcb.458532657582384/458532274249089/?type=1&permPage=1

    "(Jeremy) Stern said ORA had only recently begun to look into Stein’s case."

    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/A-womans-struggle-for-a-Jewish-divorce-in-Brooklyn-360886

    ReplyDelete
  23. Erasing a previous post is a nice ploy. There are screen shots of this!

    On June 16 Rivky Stein responded as follows:

    As I wrote earlier: It is absolutely a Beit Din. This is another lie that Yoel has been perpetuating. I know it's hard to believe in this day and age that something exists even when it doesn't show up on Google. But ORA has confirmed the validity of this Beit Din. (You can feel free to contact Rabbi Noach Rabovsky to confirm that.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. It was posted by the admin of Rivky's page.

    ReplyDelete
  25. https://www.facebook.com/RedeemRivky/posts/458579244244392?comment_id=460342184068098&offset=0&total_comments=40

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't know either side nor do I favor either side in this dispute.

    "repeatedly" - over and over again; constantly.

    Other than attacking Yoel for posting unmodest pictures of Rivki (which I was very surprised you never took him to task for and should not counted as an attack against him) which he ended up removing because it backfired on him and not because he regretted what he did, please show me where I have attacked Yoel more than 3Xs?



    Again, asking basic questions that made Yoel or his supporters uncomfortable, does not constitute an attack.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks for the link.

    My biggest fear is that Rivki relied on amateurs who only made her situation much worse than it was before they got involved.

    Many woman feel the current system is biased against them and they feel they have no chance for a fair hearing and outcome.

    From what I have seen, is that when the husband says I will not give a Get until everything is settled, the wife feels like a caged animal and in many of those cases they ended up doing crazy things in order to get the Get. Even in cases where the husband did not implicitly say that he is not going to give a Get, but by nature he is a very controlling person, the wife is scared that the husband will not give a Get and in some cases she decides to play dirty from the outset. Just because they do that doesn't mean they are correct and it was the correct strategy.

    On the other hand, in the few cases where I have seen and heard of the husband giving the Get upfront, the parties end up coming to an arrangement in a more civilized manner, are able to move on with their lives less damaged and provide a stable and loving arrangement for their children.

    So in this case, what came first? Rivki getting Orders of Protection or Yoel threatening he is not giving a Get?


    Disclaimer: The above is not at attack against Yoel. It's just basic, unbiased questions that I have asked Yoel multiple times on this site, and correct me if I am wrong, I don't believe he ever answered.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yoel didn't say anything. He just copied and pasted from something one of his supporters wrote. I would like Yoel himself to answer the basic questions I have posted on throughout this site and still refuses to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "(Jeremy) Stern said ORA had only recently begun to look into Stein’s case."


    That does not mean that ORA ever supported her and is now backtracking or now trying to cover their tracks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And you aren't concerned about Rivky Stein telling salacious marital bedroom tales to the tabloids, including the Daily News and Daily Mirror?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Normative practice in divorces is for the Get to be given once all divorce issues are finalized. That is standard operating procedure in gittin cases and has been always.


    Many cases of the husband giving a Get prior to the completion of settling all outstanding divorce issues has resulted in the wife taking the husband to the cleaners, violating his halachic rights and using arkoyos, gentile courts, to overrule halacha. And worse.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Has anyone yet contacted Rabbi Noach Rabovsky to ask him how he verified that the beit din is legitimate? Rivky Stein referred everyone on her social media to reach out to him as he verified that the beit din is legit.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Y don't you ask Rivky Stein & Uziel Frankel Tel # 917-282-4855 or maybe Yossi Bamberger tel # 917-635-2658 He is looking to Marry Rivky Stein All your ???? I just got off the tel with Chabad Georgetown-Mill Basin Tel # 718-444-3770 she said there is no beis din there and she never heard of it she said she is getting a lot of tel calls again how Rivky Stein & Uziel Frankel dose not Care if They hurt Chabad or to fool more Jewish ppl all They care about is keeping there lies going so They could make more money. and all you like is keep asking me ??? it sounds like you are one of them she Knows exactly whats she's doing i saw her for 12 hours by the Deposition she says Uziel Frankel is her Rabbi wow now the crook is a rabbi and Ezra Stein is the one who invented the rico Claims

    ReplyDelete
  34. First how do you know what Rivky Stein the Thief and lier thoughts are.Rivky is the controlling one if you would read the transcripts you would not need to ask so many ???. So Are you agreeing she did crazy things all to get her get . Keep it up you just sound very smart . she sounds unfit to take care of her kids she puts her intrests Before her kids telling a 4yr old boy to say that tatty played with his private parts is discusting is that all Rivky stein did .

    ReplyDelete
  35. My biggest fear is that Rivki relied on amateurs who only made her situation much worse than it was before they got involved.


    Shira Dicker is an armature? LOL - Any more jokes?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Contrary to Tzadok's standard misinformation and obfuscation while attempting to vindicate ORA, Jeremy Stern of ORA clearly did make statements that strongly suggest his support for Rivky Stein's demand for a GET and suggesting Yoel Weiss is "recalcitrant". This is in spite of the fact that there is no evidence a legitimate Beis Din ever ordered a GET. Exactly how much Stern has been involved in the case is obviously open to debate.

    “Stern said ORA had only recently begun to look into Stein’s case...The message we need to get out is that get refusal is a form of domestic abuse. The refusal to give a get is the repeated attempt to maintain control and assert authority over a spouse...“Nowhere in rabbinic literature, no where, is it intimated that it [the get] should be used as a tool in the divorce process,” Stern said...The idea of these recalcitrants is a modern phenomenon...The rabbinic courts now have much more limited ability to coerce a get from a recalcitrant husband.”

    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/A-womans-struggle-for-a-Jewish-divorce-in-Brooklyn-360886

    ReplyDelete
  37. My biggest fear is that Rivki relied on amateurs who only made her situation much worse than it was before they got involved.

    Shira Dicker is an amateur? LOL - Any more jokes?

    1) Amateurs understand the strategic need of a siruv from a Beis Din?

    2) Amateurs understand the strategic need for a "psak" from a beit din?

    3) Amateurs know how to set up a fake beit din?

    4) Amateurs understand the strategic need for the RICO complaint?



    5) Amateurs would understand how to record Yoel for many, many hours and entrap him for soundbite snippets for sensationalist shock?


    6) Amateurs would have professional posters (i.e. Just the Facts) coming on here like staring tigers to try and find any and every way to paint a negative image of Yoel, and a pitiful image of the abusive Ms. Stein?


    Any more jokes, Mr. Just the Facts?

    ReplyDelete
  38. This post itself of yours contains two attacks on Yoel's integrity.

    1) You attack him for the posting pictures, which accurately portrays the REAL Rivky - not the fake of Rivky her handlers and advisers want to make her out to be.

    2) You also throw in this attack: Again, asking basic questions that made Yoel or his supporters uncomfortable... - while, of course, claiming its not an attack.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Would you stop attacking Yoel? I, nor anyone else, cares what you claim you would like? You can try to obfuscate and attack as much as you'd like to. You can then, of course, claim that you're not attacking.


    Who cares? Those of us who care about the truth, care about the horrible, indefensible and shameful attacks you and Rivky are making against him.


    Those of us who care about the truth, care about the horrible chillul Hashem you guys made with the tabloids, the fake "beit din" and all else.


    And most of all, those of us who care about the truth, care about the horrible precedent you've set, that any rotten, spoiled brat can try to snatch custody from their childs father with a shameful and horrendous campaign as this. I'm looking forward to your rally. I will meet you there.

    ReplyDelete
  40. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJuly 22, 2014 at 5:16 AM

    I find it laughable that ORA denies their involvement in this case and deny knowing the Bais Din. It appears that they do just the opposite in the Meir lonna kin case where the seiruv on Meir which they post on their website is also a bogus bais din. It comprises 2 rabbis from RCC Los angeles joining with Herschel Schachter from Ny to punish Meir. There is no logo on the seiruv and these rabbis never sit on a bais din together? Additionally they never sent him any Hazmonos! This corrupt Bais Din that doesnt follow halachic protocol and doesnt exist as a real bais din they do recognize??????

    ReplyDelete
  41. Its not only fathers-in-law who can keep a woman an agunah. It can organazations and do-gooders who will seek to use this disgusting, shameful campaigns to get stuff - and build up their own name - rather than just settle things nicely and quietly.


    If Rivky had wanted to settle like a mentch, all this would have been over more than a year ago.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yoel was not asked for a get for the first few months after she left him.


    = she accused him of rape way before she asked for a get


    = she accused him of molesting the children way before she asked for a get


    = she got her order of protection way before she asked for a get


    = she had him arrested 5 times for falsely violating her order of protection before she asked for a get


    = she spread rumors about him way before she asked for a get


    = she manipulated the kids against him way before she asked for a get


    = she bad mouthed his entire family way before she asked for a get


    = she showed her true color's and character way before she asked for a get


    = she did not ask for a get as long as Yoel had supervised visits


    = she only asked for a get once everyone started viewing her as a liar

    ReplyDelete
  43. It does not make him uncomfortable, any normal person that knows Yoel's family, or any normal person that knew Rivky, or any normal person that read all of her documents and watched her clips, knows that she is a professional liar and pathological liar, I am not blaming her for her sickness, it something that her environment fostered unfortunately.

    So for you to act so naive after reading all of her documents, either you are related to her or you hate him for another personal reason(or just plain dumb and don't belong here).

    Either way stop playing around with everyone on the blog, pick a side and let it be known as to what your opinions are.

    Stop trying to play mind games and pick at every word to try and prove shes not a liar, she was a born liar, her mother was sick and a pathological liar, her father was and is a drunk, and unfortunately all of the children were affected.

    I am not trying in anyway to hurt her mother or father, all the information I am writing is public info, everyone in BP who knows her father can attest to his behavior, you can do a simple google search on her mother and you will see where the daughter came up with all of her false allegations.


    just an example

    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/76/393/519366/

    ReplyDelete
  44. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 22, 2014 at 9:59 AM

    ShekerJew
    Contrary to Tzadok's standard misinformation and obfuscation while attempting to vindicate ORA
    Lie number one. I have repeatedly repudiated and condemned ORA for its practices which clearly run counter to halakha.

    Jeremy Stern of ORA clearly did make statements that strongly suggest his support for Rivky Stein's demand for a GET and suggesting Yoel Weiss is "recalcitrant".
    Lie number two. Jeremy Stern said about Rivka Stein's case that they had only started to look into it. Then he went on with his tired party line about Get refusal being a form of abuse.


    Finally I find it amazing, but par for the course for you, that any time I quote the JPost saying something you don't like, it is a source that cannot be trusted. However, when it says something that you can spin to fit your argument suddenly is Torah Moshe M'Sinai.

    ReplyDelete
  45. As I have noted ORA denies having verified that the beis din is legitimate and thus directly contracts her statement.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @TruthJew - your attempt at proof is laughable. Rabbi Stern has not problem stating when he supports someone. He is not shy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Honesty


    You wrote: "If Rivky had wanted to settle like a mentch, all this would have been over more than a year ago."


    What knowledge do you have about this case to backup that statement?

    ReplyDelete
  48. LOL!


    You obviously have no understanding of what is an "attack" Vs when someone is just having a discussion and is just "disagreeing" with you or has a different viewpoint.


    There is nothing in my previous post that you responded to, that would indicate that I was attacking you or Yoel.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Just the Facts - you are fooling yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Assuming you are correct and she has issues, does not mean:


    a) that Yoel does not share some of the blame if not all of the blame for what happened here


    b) that she knew that the Beth Din was fake.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 1) Yes, I did and will continue to attack him for that. Regardless of what she did, it shows his true colors. In addition, the reasons he gave why he removed them without expressing any remorse for his actions, also shows us what Yoeli is all about.


    2) I still stand by my statement that asking basic, unbiased questions, is not an attack.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If they are true, no.


    The same way we needed a spotlight aimed at sexual molesters, in order to get our community to wake up that we have an issue and can no longer cover it up, the same holds true for abusive husbands.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Daas Torah Please show me how I am fooling myself?

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Just the Facts - your constant nitpicking questions regarding everything Yoel as said or done sure don't come across as unbiased but rather as an attack. You don't do the same with Rivky. Why not?.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yoel Weiss

    You of course don't need to, but I will point out that you still didn't answer my questions:

    1) How do you know that Rivki knew all along that the Beth Din was a fake? Maybe she was taken in by Uziel's charm and took him on his word that there was a Beth Din that issued this Psak.


    2) If you have no proof that she knew that this Beth Din was a fake, why are you making threats against her?

    ReplyDelete
  56. @Just the Facts - another example of justifying Rifky's questionable activities while not responding the same way to Yoel. Clearly you are biased in favor of Rivky

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Just the Facts - I have no doubt that you think yourself as being sincere but you lack elementary self awareness. Your flood of nitpicking questions about Yoel and defending Rivky's questionable activiites has simply gotten out of hand. You are not making any contribution to resolving this and I am simply not approving your further reiteration of things you have said here over and over again.

    I would suggestion you reread your 95 plus comments and understand how far from unbaised you are.

    ReplyDelete
  58. My questions to Yoel are basic unbiased questions anyone who has an interest in understanding this case should be asking.

    Just because I am asking questions of Yoel, does not mean that I am defending Rivki's activities. It would only feel that way to someone who has been an unquestioning defender of Yoel and all of a sudden is faced with questions that are uncomfortable to answer.

    Yoel has been trying to portray himself as having had a decent marriage with Rivki for 4 years until one day she suddenly snapped, walked out on him and starting filing Orders of Protection.

    From day one of this horrible public saga, I have a hard time buying that narrative. I believe that for every action, there is a reaction and that is why I have been asking the questions, I have. I am trying to understand what drove Rivki to go public with her story, a story that is very difficult for anyone to believe. Was this an action or a reaction? If it was a reaction, what were the actions that caused this reaction?

    1) A couple of days ago, Yoel posted an email from their therapist http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/rivky-stein-yoel-weiss-mill-basin-beis.html#comment-1491097529

    Obviously, there were serious issues in their marriage before Rivki suddendly walked out on him.

    2) From what I have seen, is that when the husband says I will not give a Get, the wife feels like a caged animal and in many of those cases they ended up doing crazy things in order to get the Get.

    So in this case, what came first? Rivki getting Orders of Protection or Yoel threatening he is not giving a Get?

    Just because I am asking that question, does not mean that I am justifying what Rivki has done, especially if she lied.

    In addition, as is obvious from my 95+ plus posts, from the very beginning (even before Yoel publicly accused Uziel Frankel of the one running Rivki's case) I have had a very difficult time believing that if the Psak was a forgery, Rivki came up with this elaborate and brainless hoax on her own. Just because I believed that does not mean that I am a defender of Rivki.

    ReplyDelete
  59. As I wrote/implied above, I am simply trying to determine what is the "root" cause that drove Rivki to take such a large step and go public. Was it an "action" or a "reaction".


    If it was a reaction, what was she reacting to? Did Yoel threaten her that he will never give her a Get? Did he make this threat even before she walked out on him?


    The fact that she went public is a symptomatic of an underlying issue. Asking these questions to get to the root cause, does not make me a defender of Rivki.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yoel has been trying to portray himself as having had a decent marriage with Rivki for 4 years until one day she suddenly snapped, walked out on him and starting filing Orders of Protection. I am having a very hard time buying that narrative and believe there is more to the story.



    In addition, many people on this site are very focused on bashing Rivki for going public with her story. My sole focus is to understand, what drives someone to take such a drastic step. Was this a stand alone delusional "action" on her own (as Yoel is trying to portray) or a "reaction" to something that Yoel did or said and therefore she felt she had no choice. Was this a reaction to Yoel threatening her that he will never give her a Get?


    Rivki has already publicly stated that Yoel threatened that he will never give a Get. Hence, there is no need for me to ask her that question. I am therefore only asking this question of Yoel and to date, he has refused to answer the question.


    In addition, Yoel's latest stunt where he threatens her that if there is no Beth Din, he will never give her a Get:


    a) is that the first time he has threatened that or



    b) that's just him just trying to publicly defend himself for something that is totally unreasonable, was his position all along and the cause of this whole mess to begin with?


    P.S. Talking about his latest move regarding the Beth Din. if he would of not threatened her to never give a Get, I would of commended him for a brilliant move.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Daas Torah - "Rabbi" Stern may or may not be actively involved in the Rivky Stein case. But if you're claiming that "Rabbi" Stern does not support Rivky's demand for a GET, then you are completely ignorant of ORA's ideology, and you are simply serving as ORA's useful idiot in their goal to reform Torah Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Tzadok - Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows that you are the master obfuscator and liar on this blog. You have repeatedly been exposed by multiple bloggers here of simply inventing "facts" out of thin air.

    "any time I quote the JPost saying something you don't like" - I don't recall us ever even discussing the JPost before. You've pulled another lie out of thin air.

    Your attempt to whitewash and kasher Jeremy Stern by denying that he would support Rivky Stein's demand for a GET is simply pathetic, and totally contrary to all the evidence we have about Stern. (I am not claiming Stern is publicly involved in the case.)

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Just the Facts - let me break it to you gently - you are not a brilliant D.A. who is going to break this case with your persistent questioning.. Your questioning is not leading to a break through in understanding. It is clear what is happening but you don't seem to get it. It is also it is obvious that you are sincere in your belief that you are neutral. Please stop the nitpicking questiongs and keep your eye on the ball.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Let's see, what's the root that caused her to go public?? Money Money Money...

    She started off thinking that Yoel had money and she would have an easy life, shopping at all the high end stores, when she hit reality, she decided that maybe there's a better sucker out there, but first she has to get rid of the first one with no strings attached, keep it nice and simple for her new sucker, in the mean time why not try to suck the public for as much as they will bite.

    Does the picture start adding up??

    ReplyDelete
  65. Who cares if she knew anything, she's guilty by association with these low life's..


    What blame should Yoel share?? That he wasn't taught how to deal with a pathological liar? That he did not know that she was a gold digger?

    Why don't you investigate who her father is? You can see the Zerox clone that was made from him to her.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The point is that they are tremendous falsehoods and vicious lies.

    ReplyDelete
  67. It is virtually impossible she didn't know a very elaborate scheme of faking a beis din, dayanim, hazmanas, seruv, "psak din", etc was done on her behalf.

    The psak and other beit din documents say that Rivky showed up to beit din while Yoeli did not. So she was there in front of these non-existent dayanim somehow.

    Furthermore, even had she not been aware, something virtually impossible to be the case, she is responsible for allowing these unscrupulous thugs from creating this facade.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Just the Facts Daas Torah • 5 hours ago

    As I wrote/implied above, I am simply trying to determine what is the "root" cause that drove Rivki to take such a large step and go public. Was it an "action" or a "reaction".

    If it was a reaction, what was she reacting to? Did Yoel threaten her that he will never give her a Get? Did he make this threat even before she walked out on him?

    The fact that she went public is possibly symptomatic of an underlying issue. Asking these questions to get to the root cause, does not make me a defender of Rivki.

    Answer to your question is why she went public is she keeps on losing in court and she needs money to pay for all her losses. it was a "reaction".

    i did not no she wanted out so how could i say i am not giving you a get. If you would read instead of asking ?. Rivky Stein in her own words she says i don't know she's in court you will save a lot of ppl time read before you ask ?. hear is a link http://www.scribd.com/doc/232188719/Rivka-Stein-v-Yoel-Weiss-070212?secret_password=TuVZ519ceOAyD7NsCgrm

    It's been five days since I went public I was interested in meeting Rivky stein at her Beis din I have not heard a word from Rivky stein her lawyer the Beis Din her brother Ezra Stein Yossi Bomberger Uziel Frankel everybody got an email.

    Is it that hard to get her 3 rabonem who placed me in Cherem. [excommunication] because I supposedly ignored the Beis Din.

    As many times I tried, I was unsuccessful to reach those 3 rabonem to arrange a set time for the get. Please urge Rivky and her advisers to invite the 3 Dayanem "Rabbi Chaim Taub ('dayyan') Rabbi David Binyamin Abales ('av bais din') Rabbi Yehoshua Goodman ('dayyan')" at the address cited on their Hazmonos 1278 East 77nd Street Brooklyn, NY 11234 which is also the same address on the face of the excommunication order, where the excommunication proceeding supposedly took place. if they show up you won't have to ask anymore questions you will save Everyone a lot of time.


    instead of wasting everyone's time over here why don't you reach out to Rivky stein and let's get a date and time

    ReplyDelete
  69. RDE:Are you saying that Rabbi Rabovsky is an ORA official and that Rivky Stein lied when telling people to contact Rabbi Rabovsky as he verified the legitimacy of the beit din.

    Because it is may be the case that Rabbi Rabovsky is unaffiliated with ORA and that he is somehow tied to this Mill Basin Beit Din in his own capacity outside of ORA.

    It seems incongruous that Rivky Sten's team would mention Rabbi Rabovsky specifically by name, and advise people to contact him, if Rabbi Rabovsky was completely uninvolved with Rivky Stein's team.

    ReplyDelete
  70. They have worse. They have a "siruv" from "Orchos Mishpot". Of course it does not have three peoples signature.

    All in the know, know that "Orchos Mishpot" is Shmeel Fried's non-existent Beis Din. It only sends out bogus letters in Shmeel Fried cases. Always only signed by a supposed "Chaim Erenthaul".

    Their official address is that of Yidel Gruber, a retired toyan - known for funny practices. This is the "beit din" ORA uses on their website!

    http://www.getora.org/#!joseph-masri/c7o1



    BTW, I found it interesting that The Jewish Press has Yoel Weiss on their "siruv" list. What does this tell us about The Jewish Press' siruv list?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Who runs the facebook page "Halachic Prenup"? Are they affiliated with ORA? They are clearly in support of Ms. Stein.

    https://www.facebook.com/RedeemRivky/posts/473286199440363?comment_id=474629309306052&offset=50&total_comments=94

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 23, 2014 at 2:17 PM

    From the one comment that I see, I don't see how you say clearly in support of Ms. Stein. They want her to respond to his open offer for a Get. More specifically to respond to why nothing has been heard from her since he made the offer.

    ReplyDelete
  73. ORA claims a husband that refuses to do a get on demand, bet din or not,, deserves shaming , etc. Se their web site.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Honest - Please compare the contents of your link to Tzadok's comment "I don't see how you say clearly in support of Ms. Stein". I can't say more without having another one of my comments blocked. (I'm not one of the privileged ones on this blog.)

    ReplyDelete
  75. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 23, 2014 at 5:06 PM

    ShekerJew,

    Here you go again. "Halachic Prenup" made a single comment there. This is what they said:
    Halachic Prenup Have you seen this post? Please post a public reply to it! Thank you
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/.../rivky-stein-yoel-weiss...




    The rest are comments made by Rivka Stein supporters or Rivka Stein's FB.

    Would you please explain to us lesser intellects how the above comment is "clearly in support" of Rivka Stein?

    ReplyDelete
  76. I see what you mean. I had read it as a message to her Lynch mob supporters to come on here and post messages in support of her.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Honesty, you may have misread the comment from Halachic Prenup, but don't allow yourself to be manipulated by rather misleading arguments posted here - ie asking how is Halachic Prenup's comment in support of Rivky? That comment may or may not be in support of Rivky, but Halachic Prenup's policy very much is supporting Rivky - see Halachic Prenup's page where Redeem Rivky is liked, and where alleged Get refusal is called evil and despicable.
    https://www.facebook.com/Halachic.Prenup/timeline

    ReplyDelete
  78. This is R' Ashlag's commentary
    http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/36001?/eng/content/view/full/36001&main
    He writes that the tzimtzum did not take place in time or space, and hence was not physical

    ReplyDelete
  79. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 23, 2014 at 11:04 PM

    stopping alleged Get refusal, which is called evil and despicable.
    That is the language that Rav Ovadia ZTzUK"L used when he wrote a haskama for the halachic prenup. Is also part of your evil feminist conspiracy?
    Just face it there is real get refusal, which is evil and despicable. What people like Rav Eidensohn and myself are protesting is taking that term and applying it to all cases.
    Again from the commment that halachic prenup made, it does not seem that they are supporting Rivka Stein. Rather they are demanding a response from her.
    Namely how can she go on making the claim that she is an agunah when her husband is ready to give her a Get? Why hasn't she responded equally publicly as he has condemned?
    Their question is not that of a supporter. Anyone who cares about true agunot should be infuriated by behavior such as this.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I agree with you that Halachic Prenuptial's (oxymoron?) and ORA's agendas are more about "synthesizing" Torah and Western Secular Society, than the best interest of women.

    The reason for a kesubah is that a man should not easily divorce his wife. Mostly, it is working. A man doesn't easily divorce his wife.


    However, if we would like to make it easy for a woman to divorce her husband - through the "halachic" prenuptial - then they should ask the woman to sign a kesubah, where if she asks for a get, then she would be required to pay the same amount a man has to pay if he chooses to divorce his wife. Then, we could consider them to be seeking "fairness" in mariage. Otherwise, its simply about following current Western values and mores.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Rabbi Tzadok,


    In for KO?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Rabbi Tzadok,

    I agree with you that an agreement to go to a specific kosher B"D, in a case of marital discord and complaints, is the right thing. And certainly, it is beneficial to all the involved parties.

    This would be similar to the way it was back in the shtetle etc. There was one Beis Din in the city, elected by the tuvei ha'ir etc. Attending Beis Din wasn't optional, it was mandatory. A cherem was real. In some places, they had shluchei Beis Din who would be able to bring a defiant party to Beis Din. I don't think that an agreement to go to a kosher Beis Din is more sided to any gender.

    1) Beis Din could decide chayev L'garshah.

    2) Beis Din could decide aynah chayav l'garshah.

    3) Beis Din could decide that she is a moredes, and that she should seek to make shalom bais. (And if she remains defiant, then the halachos outlined in the shulchan oruch would apply. Public announcements. Losing her nichsei milug...)

    4) Beis Din could decide that he is improper... and impose the relevant halachos.

    I never saw the prenuptial you're speaking about. Does it impose fines on one defiant party, and not on the other?

    ___

    I'm talking about the current "halachic prenuptial", in their various forms, being thrown around. Those require a get-on-demand.

    Without touching the halachic aspect thereof, I have a fairness issue. Why should only the husband be required to pay a hefty sum if he chooses to divorce his wife, while if the wife chooses to divorce him, she does not have to pay? Not only that, he has to pay her if he refuses her divorce desire, yet she doesn't have to pay him she refuses his divorce desire. Wheres the gender equality?! Wheres the gender equality?!

    Let me get my mega phone out. Alright here it is:

    "'Halachic prenuptuals', SHAME ON YOU!"
    "TEAM ORA, SHAME ON YOU!"
    "'Halachic prenuptuals', SHAME ON YOU!"
    "TEAM ORA, SHAME ON YOU!"

    ReplyDelete
  83. Rav Ovadia's prenup that you describe is vastly different, like night and day, than the RCA/BDA type prenup - which includes economic payments. The two types of prenups are different animals and essentially incomparable to each other.

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Honesty, notice how Tzadok tries to divert attention to Rav Ovadia's prenup, which does not appear to be the prenup advocated by https://www.facebook.com/Halachic.Prenup.

    However the real subject of our discussion is the prenup advocated by https://www.facebook.com/Halachic.Prenup. In THAT prenup, a Jewish wife can run off with another man and her husband owes her $150 per day for support, independent of any family court ordered child support and alimony, while the husband forfeits any rights to her income.

    Sounds like feminist heaven to me!

    ReplyDelete
  85. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 1:53 AM

    No actually it isn't. He signed off on the original form of the BDA prenup. What they did since was add options.
    I had the chance to ask him about this. He still felt that that the prenup was valid halakhicly so long as the appropriate options were selected.
    Specifically if you were to look at the prenup as it now statnds:
    http://www.theprenup.org/pdf/Prenup_Standard.pdf



    One would have to choose IV:A(1) and IV:B for it to still fit the format that Rav Ovadia deems to be halakhically acceptable.

    Yes I decry them adding options to the prenup. However, again, leaving aside those anti-halakhic options what counter can you bring against their prenup?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 1:57 AM

    Not only that, he has to pay her if he refuses her divorce desire, yet she doesn't have to pay him if she refuses his divorce desire.
    Who says he has to pay her if he refuses to divorce her? He has to pay her if he refuses to appear before a B"D. He can appear and claim, as he should and is his halakhic right, that he was Shalom Bayit. Nothing there says that he has to divorce her. Whether or not the BDA will adhere to halakha... that's a different story I do no know. However, a person could simply substitute any B"D for the BDA if they so chose.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM

    TruthJew Honesty • 11 hours ago

    @Honesty, notice how Tzadok tries to divert attention to Rav Ovadia's prenup, which does not appear to be the prenup advocated byhttps://www.facebook.com/Halac...</i?



    ShekerJew you speak before you know the facts. Rav Ovadia signed off on the original version of the BDA prenup. It was not Rav Ovadia's invention, it was the invention of the BDA which he thoroughly approved.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Section IV (both A or B) are optional and by default unless specifically signed to in addition to signing the prenup itself, are not going to be part of the agreement. So, by default, couples signing just the standard BDA prenup without any additional options, are signing an anti-halachic agreement.

    Did the original BDA agreement that Rav Ovadia approved of automatically include the provisions of what are now IV:A(1) and IV:B? Also, did the original version include a daily dollar amount the husband was obligated to pay "from the date that our domestic residence together shall cease for whatever reasons"? Was the original dollar amount to the tune of $55,000 a year payments to support the wife?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Please check out this link.

    https://www.facebook.com/Halachic.Prenup/posts/459246760844307

    https://www.facebook.com/Halachic.Prenup/timeline



    The "Redeem Rivky" page and story was posted on Halachic Prenuptial's Facebook page. Why are they leaving it up and not deleting that post?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Again, I'm going to throw in my fairness argument. Why if a woman would refuse to come to Beis Din would she not have to pay him $55,000.00 a year? This is absolute gender discrimination. Why should a woman be treated differently? This is sooo archaic! I demand equality for women!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Who says he has to pay her if he refuses to divorce her? He has to pay her if he refuses to appear before a B"D.


    Ok, you got me.


    Again, why does he have to pay her if he refuses to show up, yet she doesn't have to pay him if she refuses to show up?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM

    Moe I can try and describe for you what Rav Ovadia signed off on originally or you can simply read it for yourself:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98148440/Rav-Ovadia

    ReplyDelete
  93. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    However the real subject of our discussion is the prenup advocated byhttps://www.facebook.com/Halac.... In THAT prenup, a Jewish wife can run off with another man and her husband owes her $150 per day for support,

    Please tell me more about how THAT prenup differs in any way from the one that Rav Ovadia signed off on for use in Israel.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98148440/Rav-Ovadia



    Please I would like to know more about Rav Ovadia Yosef's supposed feminist conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I'm claiming the prenup is feminist heaven!


    Oy, how dare you! This is very unfair to women. Women must be treated equally! Why are we discriminating against women and not demanding equality, that if the man trashes the marriage for a pretty girl he meets - then the woman must accept it immediately. For every day that she doesn't accept it, she should have to pay $150.00.


    How dare these archaic YUnickers discriminate against women and not give women equal treatment.


    [Sarcastic.]

    ReplyDelete
  95. Thanks. I take it that you agree with my above assessment that the default BDA prenup, without enacting any of the optional provisions, is anti-halachic on the face of it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. @Honest - I also doubt Rav Ovadia agreed to this, although I do not pretend to know his responsa. Nor will I allow Tzadok to divert my attention to his opinions.

    I have spoken to many Askenazi rabbanim with experience in Gittin halachos. Not one of them ever indicated that normative Ashkenazi halacha allows a prenup (such as the YU/MO prenup) that forces the husband to pay large sums of money until he divorces his wife. Financial coercion is considered Get Meusah, a forced Get. The payments are also a gross injustice against the husband.

    Of course Tzadok may claim a forced GET is "sofek possul m'd'rabbanan", but Tzadok's opinion is k'neged halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "supposed feminist conspiracy" - This conspiracy is a strawman and purely a figment of Tzadok's imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Rav Eliashev was halachicly opposed to the prenup, including the BDA style one.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 7:30 PM

    Moe Ginsburg TruthJew • an hour ago

    Rav Eliashev was halachicly opposed to the prenup, including the BDA style one.


    Proof please.

    Need something in writing bearing his signature. Anything less is hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 7:37 PM

    TruthJew Honesty • 2 hours ago

    @Honest - I also doubt Rav Ovadia agreed to this, although I do not pretend to know his responsa. Nor will I allow Tzadok to divert my attention to his opinions.


    Once again you deny reality. Please, asssuming you are able to read Hebrew see here, wherein Rav Ovadia signed off on the text that you are objecting to.
    TruthJew Honesty • 2 hours ago

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98148440/Rav-Ovadia

    I have spoken to many Askenazi rabbanim with experience in Gittin halachos. Not one of them ever indicated that normative Ashkenazi halacha allows a prenup

    Please also notice that it bears the signature of Rav Nechemia Goldberg. A well respected Ashkenazi Chareidi Rav, Dayyan and the person that Chareidim who wish to avoid Rabbanut turn to for Semikha in Israel.

    that forces the husband to pay large sums of money until he divorces his wife. Financial coercion is considered Get Meusah, a forced Get. The payments are also a gross injustice against the husband.

    So glad to see that you know more about Hilkhot Gittin than Rav Ovadia ZTzUK"L and Rav Goldberg Shlit"a.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 7:39 PM

    Apparently even the text you find so problematic is halakhically permissable
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98148440/Rav-Ovadia

    ReplyDelete
  102. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 7:44 PM

    It is most unfortunate that they have made those provisions optional. 10yrs ago they were not optional, you had to choose one.
    Yes without selecting the appropriate options a person would be handing jurisdiction over to a secular court and that is anti-halachic. That however is the choice of the individual...
    Unfortunately the BDA has not stood for halakha as well as they could have or should have. Whether that possuls the prenup as is, is a matter for debate. When I presented it to Rav Ovadia ZTzUK"L he did not feel that it was a problem. That a G-d fearing Jew would both know enough and care enough to select the appropiate options.
    He did express regret that the other options were there, as instead of helping less observant Jews to uphold their halakhic committment, it allows them to continue on in their sin.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Tzadok holds that a forced GET is "sofek possul m'd'rabbanan".



    So why worry about a forced GET when we can save "agunot" with the BDA prenup?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 24, 2014 at 11:37 PM

    Once again you lie about my positions on things. Why do you feel the need to make such blatantly false statements? Do you think such false and thuggish behavior actually helps your arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  105. True or false please?

    Tzadok holds that a forced GET is "sofek possul m'd'rabbanan".

    ReplyDelete
  106. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 25, 2014 at 12:19 AM

    Answered above. I never said that. You are lying about what I have said.


    I assume that you are referring to the place where I quoted the Mechaber in the Sh"A. If you are going to quote me, at least give me the credit of admitting that I was quoting, verbatim the B"Y and Shulchan Arukh.

    The B"Y, and later the Sh"A Arukh brings 4 cases in which a get is forced, using various means. He gives four rulings regarding them, from aino get v'ain afilu reach get. To kosher. We were discussing a specific case and I quoted said B"Y.

    So once again you are lying about what I said, and what I hold. I never said Stam that a forced Get is only Possul M'D'Rabbanan. I am sorry that you fail to be able to comprehend the complexities of Halakha.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 25, 2014 at 1:26 AM

    Actually I don't know why I let you do this. You proven wrong... and you try to obfuscate and change the subject.

    True or False please?
    Does Rav Ovadia sign off on the language that you say is unkosher.


    True or False please?

    Does Rav Nechemia Goldberg sign off on the language that you say is unkosher.


    True or False please?
    Those two Gedolim know far more about Gittin then you can ever hope to.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I have a question regarding Yoel's claim. Whilst it is seems highly probable that the BD @Mill Baisin is fictitious, there may be another halachic problem.
    Yoeli has implied or even said explicitly that Rivky is cohabiting with another man, which until such time as the Get has been given, is adultery. If this is the case, then does not the halacha require that Yoel gives a get ?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Rabbi Tzadok,

    You said as follows:

    Yes I decry them adding options to the prenup. However, again, leaving aside those anti-halakhic options what counter can you bring against their prenup?

    You also wrote:

    Please tell me, as no one has yet been able to, how signing a binding agreement to go to B"D and not secular court is somehow inherently beneficial to the woman?

    1) If a man decides to terminate his marriage, he must pay the Kesubah money.


    2) If his wife decides she would like to terminate the marriage, he must immediately pay her $55,000 a year.


    3) A woman has no financial penalties.
    * If she seeks to terminate the marriage, she does not have to pay.
    * If she refuses to come to Beis DIn or accept a get when he seeks to terminate the marriage, she doesn't have any financial penalties.


    Do you see how this prenuptial is only beneficial/protective to the woman, but not to the man?


    Do you see this as a non-halachic counter to their prenup?


    I do.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 25, 2014 at 2:37 AM

    2) If his wife decides she would like to terminate the marriage, he must immediately pay her $55,000 a year.

    Only until he goes to B"D. It is clearly not until the marriage is terminated, but rather until he goes to B"D.

    * If she refuses to come to Beis DIn or accept a get when he seeks to terminate the marriage, she doesn't have any financial penalties.

    This statement is simply not true. It clearly states that if his wife refuses to go to B"D he relieved of needing to pay her and whoever is acting against the stipulations of the B"D will have to pay the B"D fees, lawyer fees, and any court costs necessary to enforce their decision.

    Do you see how this prenuptial is only beneficial/protective to the woman, but not to the man?

    No. I see how parts of it are being ignored to make it appear that way.

    Do you see this as a non-halachic counter to their prenup?

    No. Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Nechemia Goldberg clearly signed off on it. I think they have a better understanding of the halakha and its ramifications than you and I put together.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Wouldn't a legitimate Beis Din have to rule that way?

    ReplyDelete
  112. I think the halacha requires a beis din to rule that she is an adulteress before he has a halachic obligation to divorce her.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Only until he goes to B"D. It is clearly not until the marriage is terminated, but rather until he goes to B"D.

    That is not in the terminology of his accepting this financial responsibility. Please reread it. It may be the personal choice, as well as the internal policy, of BDA only to require that payment until he shows up. Maybe. But that is their choice, not his. He has already accepted to pay.

    This statement is simply not true. It clearly states that if his wife refuses to go to B"D he relieved of needing to pay her and whoever is acting against the stipulations of the B"D will have to pay the B"D fees, lawyer fees, and any court costs necessary to enforce their decision.

    I don't know if there is a communication barrier between us.

    Is there ever a case where she must pay him $150 a day - equal to the way he would potentially have to pay her?

    If we aren't suffering from a communication barrier, I don't see how the answer is "yes, it's equal".

    The fees you speak about are equal. Meaning, that in addition to the $150 a day, the husband would be required to pay legal fees etc. The legal fees stipulation is indeed equal.

    The $150 a day penalty is not.

    No. I see how parts of it are being ignored to make it appear that way.

    See above. I don't know why you would accuse me of purposely ignoring parts to fit an agenda. If you feel I made mistake, please point me to it. Why the finger pointing?

    No. Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Nechemia Goldberg clearly signed off on it. I think they have a better understanding of the halakha and its ramifications than you and I put together.

    Huh?

    I was answering this:

    leaving aside those anti-halakhic options what counter can you bring against their prenup?

    I agree that Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Nechemia Goldberg have a better understanding of the halakha and its ramifications than I do.



    I was leaving the halacha discussion aside.


    I respect you, Rabbi Tzadok. Should we respectfully leave this conversation here?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Tzadok reveals his true opinions in regard to Gittin below. Tzadok's bogus claims and ugly attacks on Rav Dovid Eidensohn and other Askenazi rabbanim (including Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L) are truly disgusting in my opinion. It is Tzadok who owes Rav Dovid Eidensohn (the brother of this blog owner) an apology:



    1. TruthJew -> Rabbi Michael Tzadok • 6 hours ago

    True or false please?

    Tzadok holds that a forced GET is "sofek possul m'd'rabbanan".

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/rivky-stein-yoel-weiss-ora-denies-claim.html

    2. Rabbi Michael Tzadok -> TruthJew • 6 hours ago

    Answered above. I never said that. You are lying about what I have said...

    So once again you are lying about what I said, and what I hold. I never
    said Stam that a forced Get is only Possul M'D'Rabbanan.

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/rivky-stein-yoel-weiss-ora-denies-claim.html



    3. Rabbi Michael Tzadok said...

    Mamzerut claim is really and truly a false claim that is meant to be more incendiary than it is helpful. It is pure propaganda...M'doraitta, we can force a
    husband to give a Get...a forced Get(never mind R"T), an actual forced Get, is only possul m'd'rabbanan...You throw on top of that Bitul Modaah, then what you are left with is a Get that is sofek possul m'd'rabbanan(at best, and then only by the stringent opinions which the B"Y rejects). But let us say that you have a sofek d'rbannan. Since when do we not rule sofek d'rabbanan l'kula?...In short the claim of mamzerim is a despicable propaganda attempt and nothing more. Since the get would be a sofek d'rabbanan, we would say
    that b'diavad the remarriage is fine, and chas v'shalom that we would say anything against the children. Rav Dovid Eidensohn's push to publish the names of these women and claim Ishet Ish in all of their marriages and that the resultant children are mamzerim is nothing less than a motzei shem ra, Hashem Yekaper.

    Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:34:00 PM

    http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/04/mechooh.html

    ReplyDelete
  115. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 25, 2014 at 10:25 AM

    Of course you couldn't actually quote what I said on this very blog could you? Where I actually quoted the B"Y and the Sh"A from siman 134. Tell me oh amazing one do you know more than the B"Y? Is the B"Y someone upon whom we cannot rely. That would be be beneath your thugishness, and way to honest for you. You know where Rav Eidensohn actually agreed that I was giving Halakha Al Pi Sephardim...


    ELY I am done with you lies, distortions and obfuscations. I see no reason to have any further discussions with you as they are at best bitul zman.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 25, 2014 at 10:33 AM

    @Honesty
    You are looking for equality between the sexes. That does not exist in Judaism. The sexes are not "equal". That itself is the essences of feminism.


    I cannot discuss equality from a Jewish perspective, because there is no equality under Jewish law. We elevate individuals above others(Kohanim, Rabbanim ect). Others such as gerim have a defacto second class status, and still others, such as mamzerim have a lower status still.


    Equality, as you speak of it, is a product of the Enlightenment philosophers, it is not from the Torah.

    If we want to leave the halakhic discussion aside then it is probably best that we leave this discussion here, because I don't know of any other way to discuss this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  117. @Tzadok - I'm willing to accept a "cease fire" here (while reserving the right to disagree with you in respectful terms) as long as you stop speaking in derogatory terms about certain Ashkenazi rabbanim and you stop referring to me in derogatory terms.

    ReplyDelete
  118. You are looking for equality between the sexes. That does not exist in Judaism. The sexes are not "equal". That itself is the essences of feminism.


    Here's the deal. Me and many YUnickers, and many of the people whom ORA targets with their prenuptial campaign, are doing it because we are seeking to synthesize Torah and western societal mores. We are seeking to liberate the women, whom Judaism is claimed is oppressing. By nature, to them, halacha is a form of domestic abuse.


    I agree that to those people, they should sign this lopsided prenuptial. The woman should also give the husband a ring under the chupah. I also feel that the woman should sign a kesubah.


    Rav Ovadia had a very, very, very different reason why allowed a prenuptial (in the right form). Some of those who signed after him on that paper, have absolutely nothing to do with Rav Ovadia.


    -----


    Oh, truthfully, I don't ascribe to the stupidity that the Torah or Judaism is C"V oppressive to women. Nor do I subscribe to the idea that we should dare seek to "synthesize" Torah ideals together with western societal mores. In fact, the idea of equating Torah ideals with western societal mores is no good at all.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Verification of AddressJuly 30, 2014 at 5:28 AM

    Why is rivky & her supporters etc. so quiet? It has already passed about 2 weeks since Yoilie gave in to a great offer in her favor?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Verification of AddressAugust 3, 2014 at 4:58 AM

    Rivkah and her supporters are unbelievable?

    ReplyDelete

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