Monday, September 22, 2014

Public media campaigns to obtain a Get have zero success rate - so why do they exist?

 The following is an embarrassing example of what is purported to be investigative reporting - when it is simply an example of the prostitution of the news media to get readership rather than provide cogent analysis as to what is happening. The reporter has not the slightest clue as to what the halachic issues are and clearly has simply relied on the claims of the women for determining what the facts are. While he did solicit  a counter response from Yoel Weiss - he didn't bother trying to understand what Yoel was saying. 

Inadvertently though he has succeeded in showing that despite huge international campaigns - none of these women have gotten a get one second sooner if at all - and the compromises they needed to make were no different than what they were being asked - before the campaign.

So if the campaigns are useless regarding the goal of obtaining a Get - then why do these women parade the most intimate details of their marriage in public? Why do they insist on creating an incredible chillul hashem - if it never succeeds in ending their marriage?

The answer is simple - and was expressed by Shira Dicker the publicist behind these campaigns. It is an attack on Torah laws and halacha in the name of feminism, individual freedom, and progress. It is a rejection of the traditional Jewish concept of marriage.
 =========================
Tablet Magazine   The coordinated use of publicists, Facebook, Twitter, donation sites, and rallies is becoming common for women like Rivky Stein who seek religious divorces from their husbands. Many Jews give little thought to the get, but in traditional Judaism only men can grant a divorce. Without one, a woman cannot date or remarry without carrying and passing onto her children what is widely considered in the Orthodox world to be a tremendous stigma. So, with few options in Jewish law, more agunot—Hebrew for “chained wives”—are embracing contemporary and high-tech tools to publicly shame men.

“People say, ‘This is a disgrace, you’re washing our dirty linen in public,’ ” said Susan Aranoff, an economics professor who has been an agunah activist for 30 years. “But I understand the women who are doing it, because what else are they to do?”


In late 2010, hundreds of protesters flocked to the Silver Spring, Md., home of Aharon Friedman, a tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee, who denied his wife, Tamar Epstein, a get. The rally was carefully planned, with activists distributing flyers and fact sheets while a Facebook event was shared with over 1,600 people.

Three years later Gital Dodelson, who was struggling to receive a get from her ex-husband, Avrohom Meir Weiss, worked with a publicist to set up the website setgitalfree.com. She eventually landed a front page tell-all in the New York Post and a segment on the public-radio show This American Life.

Just a few months ago protesters holding signs reading “Stop the Abuse!” and “Bigamist” gathered at the wedding of Meir Kin, who was remarrying despite his refusal to give his ex-wife, Lonna Kin, a religious divorce. He claimed that he had secured a heter meah rabbonim, the antiquated and seldom-used document, based on a technicality in Jewish law, that permits a man to remarry without a get if he can get permission from 100 rabbis.[...]

So, in her fight for a get, Stein needed help. In recent months, she has assembled up an impressive team. She hired Shira Dicker, the publicist who worked for Gital Dodelson. They set up the website redeemrivky.com as well as a Facebook page that has nearly 9,000 likes. A 7-minute YouTube video called “Rivky Speaks,” in the style of a close-up sit-down interview, has garnered about 125,000 views. Her donation page aims to raise $36,000, although she expects all of it to go to lawyer and PR fees. Media like the Daily News were invited to the beit din, which is used to resolve disputes including contested divorces. (Dicker told Tablet that “half” the work she did for Stein was pro bono and “the compensation was extremely modest.”)
[...]

And the track record for Stein’s social media-savvy successors isn’t completely encouraging. Publicity ultimately worked for Dodelson, who received a get three months after her story ran in the New York Post (and after she paid her ex-husband a six-figure sum, according to one knowledgeable source). While it was widely reported that Tamar Epstein was “free” three years after the protest against her husband, it seems that she never received her get, instead having her marriage annulled by a sympathetic rabbi or beit din. And after seven years of being civilly divorced, Kin has no get and is still vilified by blogs. [...]

85 comments :

  1. I attended a singles event several years ago, and between courses at the meal the men were told to switch tables to facilitate meeting as many women as possible. I ended up seated next to a woman who promptly started telling me about her divorce some twenty years earlier, and in such terms that it seemed like it had happened to her yesterday.

    After the Shabbaton, I asked a Rabbi about why this woman felt compelled to start her contact off with me exhibiting behavior that seemed designed to make her undesirable! He succinctly explained that it is the nature of a woman to be married. The trauma of the realization that she would be losing her husband was so painful that essentially nothing that subsequently transpired in her life had much meaning: the emotional pain of her divorce remained fresh and she was still consumed by it.

    Some of the women we've met through this blog, we've come to learn, were not innocent victims of monster husbands. These women played a role in their own divorces; they are conscious that they were damaged goods to some extent going into their marriages, and that they are virtually unmarriageable to someone else coming out of their marriages. They are like wild animals in their psychic pain, lashing out at all who come close, including husbands who seek some minimal level of contact so that that issues like custody can be worked out.

    These women express their pain in a feminine way, in the original sense of the word. Their speech and behavior may seem irrational -- what we are fond on this blog of calling "lies" -- but it can be, in fact, a lyrical, intuitive form of communication. Is a poet a lier for calling the sky "on fire" when he witnesses a sunset?

    The women who make up their stories and draw the public in are mourning the loss of their very purpose in life to be a wife. Yes, they couch their persona in feminist clothing, but deep down they are asking the world to empathize with their suffering and to console them. And not a little bit of their behavior is churning up themselves and others so that they can avoid thinking about the harsh reality that they may possibly never marry again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Public media campaigns by so-called self-described "vaginas" exist for one reason only: an overt contempt of Halacha and hostility against the Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not so fast. The anti-extortion atmosphere may help lessen the number of husbands taking advantage of halacha to make a quick buck. My sister suffered from one of these predators and was supposed to pay $20,000 for her release. Fortunately, the ganav was not astute enough. He did not get most of the money because he failed to pay much child support.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A peek into the eye of the Storm and the "Day After"



    Seeking out a negative publicist are done for reasons of Nekama utilizing a
    weapon of mass destruction. "Gam li gam loch lo yihye". The ways justify the
    means. Along the campaign, the so called alleged Agunah collects fame and
    publicity with lots of sympathy gathering people to HER side for support, like
    Korach ve'edoso. The Shira Dickers are in it for money WHILE snowballing fame to
    sucker in more customers for the future. No, they do not do it leshem Shamayim
    or pro bono, no such thing as a little bit pregnant.



    Adaraba, they do do it lekanter and mechalell shem Shamayim trying to
    prove how the Torah is insufficient and expendable, under the banner of Feminism
    and Progress. The Feminist Rabbis are "oy lerosho veoy lishcheno", neighbors of
    Korach ve'edodso caught along with the tide, in it for fame trying to capture
    the cheers of the "veDovid Berivevotav" syndrome, some for money, and some for
    both like Epstein and Co. They connive themselves into believing that they mean
    it leshem shamayim, just like Eisav, Abba heich me'easrin et hateven ve'et
    hamelach, in total disregards of megaleh ponim baTorah shelo kehalacha, or even
    at the expense of marbeh mamzerim beYisrael, as long as "I Anochi" am in the eye
    of the storm. Otherwise, after the MEGA FRAUD STUNT is exposed, imploding like a
    deck of cards and the dust settles, why else don't they admit in front of the
    whole wide world, Ribono shel Olam, Chotosi, Ovisi, uPoshati! Indeed, veod yodom
    netuyo. Hayitochen? All parties concerned, are so shikor of their windfall fame,
    that even the Satan joins the dance, and 'nebach nebach', the little children
    pay the price. Imohos bishlu yaldehen R"L.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Several important points:


    1. Wondering why you are not being even-handed. Why didn't you post the latest affadavit posted at failed messiah. Do you only report things that support your side of the argument?


    2. Article by Rabbi Reiss states explicitly that although there is a halacha that one must settle issues in religious court (not erchaos) still - even if a woman violates that halacha, that should not prevent her from getting a Get in a Beis Din. The two issues are not dependent one on the other. Do you have any evidence to the contrary??


    This makes sense for an added reason (not mentioned in the article). What if they cannot agree on a beis din as is often the case. What if one party picks a beis din that is known for taking bribes? Zabla is not always a good solution -especially if one side picks an unscrupulous judge. Does it make sense that these issues should hold up a Get? Of course not!


    3. You have never explained why it would be wrong to give a Get. You only repeat that standard procedure is to give it at the end. That does not mean it must be given at the end. You confuse standard procedure with how things must be done.


    4. The idea that leverage and extortion are not the same thing is absurd. Using the Get as leverage is a form of extortion. You have never provided any logic to the contrary. Furthermore, why should the husband have leverage that the woman does not have? Do you have an answer for that??


    5. In this particular case, it might very well be warranted to go to secular courts due to the nature of the allegations from Rivky. Lack of evidence (even if there is a lack of evidence) is not proof that the allegations are false.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rabbi Michael TzadokSeptember 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM

    1. Wondering why you are not being even-handed. Why didn't you post the latest affadavit posted at failed messiah.

    That affadavit has yet to be submitted to the court. Anyone can sign a piece of paper, and it means nothing. Once it is submitted to the court and the person is willing to go to jail on it truthfulness, then that actually means something.

    2. Article by Rabbi Reiss states explicitly that although there is a halacha that one must settle issues in religious court (not erchaos) still - even if a woman violates that halacha, that should not prevent her from getting a Get in a Beis Din. The two issues are not dependent one on the other. Do you have any evidence to the contrary??

    You mean other than the Shulhan Arukh which says they cannot have their case heard in a B"D until they vacate their case before non-Jewish courts? If we are writing a new Shulhan Arukh, or tossing out the one that has served our people for centuries, then no I guess not. However as long as we consider ourselves Torah observant Jews that follow the Halakha as brought down in the Gemarra and the Shulhan Arukh, then she has to wait.

    3. You have never explained why it would be wrong to give a Get. Because the Shulhan Arukh siman 134(I believe) states explicitly that the Get is only given after all other issues have been resolved. Further the Shulhan Arukh states explicitly that one may not make use of a B"D while taking a Jew to secular court k'neged halakha.

    4. The idea that leverage and extortion are not the same thing is absurd. Using the Get as leverage is a form of extortion.
    Leverage is the valid witholding of a reward or desired item until such time as a person's valid claims are satisfied. Extortion is using something to try and get that which you are not entitled to. They are very different. A B"D can allow the first, and should never allow the second.

    5. In this particular case, it might very well be warranted to go to secular courts due to the nature of the allegations from Rivky.
    Not for a $480mil lawsuit. The nature of the allegations would have allowed her, without doubt and without hesitation to bring criminal charges against her husband. However, the DA refuses to take any more complaints from her about her husband because she has lied so often, as witnessed by the court docs. Which means that she has no basis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Why didn't you post the latest affadavit posted at failed messiah."

    FM is an anti-semitic site that's sole purpose is to incite hatred against religious Jews. Your question is akin to asking why Der Stürmer's claims are not cited in an attempt at "even-handedness". Additionally, that affidavit clearly sounds as if it were written by a very angry man angry at the world at large considering the language utilized that is inappropriate in civil society.

    Furthermore, it is quite interesting that that affidavit you refer to openly admits to having issued a so-called "psak beis din" in absentia which he later admits was in contradiction to Halacha. He says this so-called beis din of so-called dayanim who supposedly know halacha thought giving a psak halacha in absentia (that a Get must be given) was okay because the "Prod-Fathers" of Epstein and Wolmark issued a landmark precedent ruling that it is okay. (I kid you not; the affidavit actually says that's why they "mistakenly" thought the halacha in Shulchan Aruch and the Gemora and everywhere else in the poskim that a psak cannot be given in absentia was overturned was because the prod-fathers (the affidavit actually uses that term) said it was now okay.

    2. Rabbi Jonathon Reiss is a member of the RCA/BDA, and as mentioned numerous times the RCA/BDA has changed normative halacha in regards to divorce and other issues targeted by feminists to accommodate a modern agenda. This is not accepted in normative Orthodox (Chareidi) practice as practiced for the past 2,000 years.

    3. A wife is not entitled to a Get/divorce just because she wants it. Only after a beis din conducts a trial with both the husband and wife in attendance and determines whether or not a Get is warranted is there anything to even talk about. Then the beis din will determine, if applicable, when a Get is necessary to be issued.

    4. If a wife in contravention to halacha utilizes non-Jewish court or steals her husbands money (do not forget that halachicly virtually all marital assets, up to and including the wife's income during the marriage, entirely belong to the husband) or she steals her husband's children by denying him his halachicly entitled access or custody to them (as determined by a beis din not a secular court) or she in contravention to halacha demands and received in secular court alimony or other forms of non-halachic support, then the husband most certainly has the halachic right to use it as leverage until she ceases and reverses her unhalachic actions against him and reverses the damages she already caused him.

    Do not forget that a husband does not have an obligation to give his wife a Get, by default.

    "Furthermore, why should the husband have leverage that the woman does not have? Do you have an answer for that??"



    According to the Torah and Halacha, the husband rightfully has rights the wife does not have. The Torah is 100% true and correct in everything it states. "Equality" is an 20th century American ideal not a Jewish one by any means.


    5. Going to secular court is a violation of halacha in the absence of a heter arkaos issued validly by a beis din. You cannot decide to utilize arkaos.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. I have no idea if it was or was not submitted yet. Either way there are many logical arguments in the document that strongly call into questions nearly all the assertions on this blog.


    2. See the article here:
    http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/divorcebeit.html



    In the second last paragraph, Rabbi Reiss lists three reasons why the Get should be given even if the woman wrongly went to secular courts. All three reasons likely apply in this case. What is your response?


    3. Yes... in a normal case that is being taken care of in Beis Din. You wrongly apply this to cases like ours where fights are holding up that process indefinitely but the marriage is clearly over. Giving a Get requires two witnesses - it does not require one to "make use of a beis din". Indeed if both parties had not dispute and only wanted to divorce a beis din would not even be needed for it to be effective!


    4. This is a ridiculous distinction. Just because someone believes they are entitled to something does not mean they can use any means they want to get it. Can someone kidnap someone's child because they have a valid claim that needs to be satisfied?? And, you still have not explained why the man should have more leverage than the woman.


    5. Your understanding of court documents is questionable. Lack of evidence is not evidence and documents filed by one side in a court are not evidence either.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @eLamdan

    1. FM said it was not submitted
    2. Why is Rabbi Reiss relevant to this discussion? As you been told repeatedly that is not the way a chareidi beis din works
    3. Fights are not holding up anything. She refuses to go to a normal beis din.
    4.You insist on ignoring halacha and keep asking why halacha is relevant.
    5. there is a difference between a document filed with court and one that isn't. Your understanding is questionable.

    Elamdan - you have consistently refused to answer the many question which undermine your questionable assertions. If you want to ask question you need to answer questions. I am not publishing further reiteration of your broken record "but the Beis Din of America does it so why isn't it legitimate"

    ReplyDelete
  10. The affidavit has not been filed in court. Until it is, it's just a creative writing project with no meaning, purpose or significance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1 It is an affadavit from the manager of the beis din. Who cares what site it's posted on? the psak is tangential to the document...the main part of the document undermines nearly every argument on this blog.
    2. What argument specifically do these charedim make? Why do u side with this argument? Do u have a contemporary source?
    3 & 4. U have no source... just several illogical positions. For example, you have just argued that the man should have leverage to gain custody even when a court has determined the wife is more fit.
    5. See reiss article.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In the jlaw article linked to by elamdan (ORA Lamdan?), when the wife litigates in archaos, and only comes to Beis Din to handle the GET, the husband still has a "moral obligation" to give a GET. The wife is simply under a "mistaken impression". No mention is made of the husband's halachic right to demand that the court orders be removed before the wife receives her GET.

    However if the husband litigates in archaos, and the husband then comes to Beis Din for a rehearing, the husband is "unscrupulous" and trying to "abuse the institution of beit din".

    The ORA-MO-YU feminist double standard against Jewish husbands is quite blatant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. The affidavit barely addresses a single issue raised on this blog against it. And the little feeble attempts it makes is couched in angry language full of innuendo and speculation that has no basis in reality.


    2. Chareidiim make no "argument". They simply follow Shulchan Aruch and how Jewish Law has been practiced for many centuries. It is the feminist that in recent decades have been trying to alter Jewish divorce law. Some of the left-wing Orthodox, such as the MO BDA have been trying to make changes in Jewish practices.


    3 & 4 are black and white halacha as codified in Shulchan Aruch.


    And a secular court may not be utilized according to halacha to determine custody.


    5. I addressed Reiss above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I dint get it...the article is saying the get and other litigation are not interconnected. What's the double standard?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The rabbanut is part of the state court system so they have the authority to call both sides to court. The shulchan aruch is also written with regards to scenarios vastly different than ours. In America there is no central court so they can argue forever which court has jurisdiction. That's exactly what is happening in this case and that's why the rca is right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What question would u like me to answer?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mr or Miss stein rivky can get her get anytime she can get her three rabbis that you say mr farkash says are real ppl why do you keep asking ???? when all she has todo is show up with them

    ReplyDelete
  18. i spoke to rabbi reiss he told me to fight for full custody and when everything is settled to go to beis din you can call him and ask him

    ReplyDelete
  19. Your arguments here and elsewhere on this blog are very disingenuous apologetics for ORA's New Age religion. If you're the best that ORA can throw at us, ORA is not getting its money's worth.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1) Do you agree that Rivky's beis din is not valid/non existent?
    2) why do you insist that your interpretation of Beis Din of America outweights normative charedi pracitce as well as Shulch Aruch?
    3) Why do you ignore comments made by Yoel that contradict your description of the facts

    ReplyDelete
  21. i guess you still did not hear the recording with
    Sofer Rabbi Lichter says he did not see any rabbis so who's lying Farkash who is a gambler and a thief eats none kosher and openly dose not keep shobbos if mr farkash would like i can upload to youtube clips for proof

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is Rabbi Taub still in Israel? The two other Rabbis, are they still stuck in traffic? Why doesn't she get them back together, Yoel's offer is on the table and still holds. What's your problem? BTW, the prefix e- of your name, is it like e-kavod, e-efshi etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tzadok still doesn't get it! "Conclusion of the marriage" means as soon as
    the wife appears at the BDA and demands a GET, NOT when all disputes are
    legally settled.

    Tzadok:
    "Finally something I agree with. At the conclusion. While Rivka and
    Yoel's separation is painful and acrimonius it is not yet concluded.
    There are numerous issues that must yet be worked out. Until those are
    concluded no Get."

    BDA Guidelines:
    "the Beth Din of America finalizes the Get at the beginning of the proceeding between the parties." http://www.bethdin.org/docs/PDF9-Get_standards_and_proceedings.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rabbi Michael TzadokSeptember 23, 2014 at 4:20 PM

    ShekerJew,

    This apparently is not the case:
    Yoel Weiss eLamdan • 10 hours ago
    i spoke to rabbi reiss he told me to fight for full custody and when everything is settled to go to beis din you can call him and ask him




    Rabbi Reiss is the author of the article in question. If their position was as you claim, he would not be advising Yoel to wait. Once again I ask you are you accusing Yoel Weiss of lying about what the BDA says and does because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tzadok, I never accused or suspected Yoel Weiss of lying about anything. Yoel's comment in no way contradicts my comments, which were only referring to the jlaw article and BDA documents. If Yoel appears before the BDA, their guidelines will require him to immediately provide a GET to Rivky.



    Instead of admitting your own confusion, contradictory statements, and lack of understanding of the issues, you simply fabricate a bogus lie against me that I'm accusing Yoel of lying.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1 no idea...we now have competing affadavits. But in my judgement there is more evidence that it does than does not.
    2. RCA approach makes the most sense in America where there is no central beit din system. Plus, in many divorce cases it is reasonable to go to secular court if there is suspicion that one side is using a disreputable beis din which is ez to do in America.
    3. I can't respond to every comment but I think I've responded to all the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Farkash might be a liar. I don't know him and don't really care... I find these arguments about jurisdiction a distraction.

    ReplyDelete
  28. How about a skype session with them in case they don't want to keep reconvening?

    ReplyDelete
  29. If that is true then post the evidence. I think rabbi reiss is a reasonable man and could accept what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think ORA should pay me more than they currently are for my work on their behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Rabbi Michael TzadokSeptember 23, 2014 at 7:24 PM

    That simply isn't true, as his statements have made clear. It would seem that you are the one who is confused.
    Even their own site which you linked above states that they only do the Get first when the couple agrees that ALL other issues are going to be decided by the B"D.

    10. When a husband and wife agree to come to the Beth Din to adjudicate financial (and where
    appropriate, custodial) matters relating to the end of their marriage, the Beth Din of America finalizes the Get at the beginning of the proceeding between the parties.


    If they do their job correctly neither party is going to be running to Arkhaot as the shtar berrurim is a legal document preventing such.
    I can see a certain logic in that, as it takes away the temptation of either party to use the Get as a form of extortion.. Whether or not it is appropriate is for Gedolim and Poskim to write about. Not for you and I to decide in a blog comment.

    Further they state:
    There will be no a priori requirements under the aegis of the Beth Din of America for issuing a Get.

    Meaning that the issuance of a Get is not automatic. Get on demand is an a priori requirement. They claim here that they reject such.

    I find it immensely interesting that you are using the plight of this poor man to attack two organizations. One ORA which has no involvment, and the second BDA, which has, at least according to Yoel, supported him against your many assertions that they operate differently.
    If you want to talk about ORA or the BDA why don't you do a guest post for the blog owner with well reasoned and more importantly well sourced arguments, and stop Trolling by trying to derail the conversation onto your pet topics.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1. Your judgement is severely flawed based on the numerous irrational and illogical comments based on a flawed understanding of the facts and of the law.


    2. The RCA is not a central BD. And its approach is at odds with traditional Jewish practice. And going to secular court is against Jewish law.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rabbi Michael TzadokSeptember 23, 2014 at 7:56 PM

    "Reconvening" implies that they have previously convened. Which has been proven to not be true.

    ReplyDelete
  34. https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2600/2641.html

    See the above link. Apparently simply releasing the affidavit for public circulation is enough for possible perjury. I'm no legal expert so correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 1. It affirms two Rabbis were there and that reporters spoke to them personally. It affirms that the other Abales who signed the affadavit is a known drunk who was either conned or paid off by someone who is not connected to Farkash.


    2, 3, 4, 5. I've already addressed. Times and circumstances have changed. In America we lack a centralized beit din system. Because of this reality it is necessary to separate the issues of giving a Get from the issues of custody, money, etc. To put it another way, a woman not being able to remarry is a more pressing issue than going to secular courts.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rabbi Michael TzadokSeptember 23, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    Let's try this again. Until the affadavit is deposited with the court, AND it and Mr. Farkash is entered as a witness into the court proceedings, the affidavit which you are placing so much faith in is just a piece of creative writing.
    The link you keep pointing to lists six criteria that all must be present for him to enter into jeopardy of perjury. As it is he signed a piece of paper and delivered it to a less than thorough journalist, that has been known to make things up, to post on his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I did not say that RCA was a central beis din. I said America has no central beis din and therefore the RCA approach is correct. Going to secular court is a severe violation of Jewish Law. Not allowing your wife to remarry when you are clearly not together anymore is a more severe violation. Everything is relative.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The Mighty power of Might'a Would'a Should'a, Could'a

    Farkash Might be a liar, he Might have lied to R.S., the two Rabbis Might
    still be stuck in traffic for all you know, Abeles affidavit Could be made up,
    Rabbi Taub Might still be in Israel sitting shivo shovuos for sheva shnas porim
    hadakos shdufot kodim climbing Yaakov's ladder al yad sfat hayeor. He Could
    also possibly be in Israel and chuts la'aretz at the same time, should he
    sit somewhere in middle of the ladder beshipua poseach al shnei heseifim
    mechuvan keneged Ako and Might Possibly still declare befonay nechtav ubefonay
    nechtam. You don't even need to dream up a chalom bechelem or chalomot beAspamya
    of Jacobs ladder if you apply the mechanics of Quantom theory. A kangaroo moving
    ball "Court" in midst of a field, having moving Rabbis, Bufoons, Baboons, even
    Clowns that are not stuck in middle of a traffic Might also be Kosher, even
    though it Might have a dynamic electronic address like on the buses that Can and
    Might change in a blink of an eye. You don't even need two parties in pursuit of
    a Din Torah, you can always condemn a ham sandwich bekuf nun taamim in abstentia
    and draft up a Ksav Siruv, put it in CHEREM, where Farkash bacsi will eat it on
    Yom Kipur shechol lihyot beShabbat, provided it has enough mouth watering
    mustard.


    Therefore, having Farkash as a manager, you don't need baalei /
    botei Dinim, even fake Dayanim Might do, so what's the problem. Even Job, lo
    haya velo nivra, still and all soval harbeh yisurin. You needn't be a Pesi
    maamin lechol dovor. Everything that Might be true, Could be true, except for
    the names and places have been changed for the safety and privacy of the
    individuals. So what am I missing? Should I have what you are missing, Einstein
    couldn't do the trick. One thing however, I am trying to fathom. Since you are
    fighting an uphill losing battle against the tide, what is YOUR INTEREST that
    you put yourself beuvei hakoiro? Vechi ma lecho uletsoro hazos? You do admit of
    not having either the facts, or the players of the game, neither the validity of
    the affidavits, nor equipped with the wherewithal how to handle it, im ken lama
    ze onoichi?Just answer the question!

    ReplyDelete
  39. what is your source that not allowing your wife to remarry because she refuses to go to beis din and instead went to secular court and as a result important issues such as custody have not been taken care of - is more serious violation of Jewish law than going to secular court?!

    ReplyDelete
  40. His "source" is his boich svara.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Here we go again.

    " It affirms two Rabbis were
    there":
    Are
    you referring to two Abeles's? Were those two Rabbis, from the original Dayanim
    that wrote the phantom siruv, and put him in Cherem in abstentia? What are the
    names of those two Rabbi's?

    "and
    that reporters spoke to them personally. It affirms that the other Abales who
    signed the affadavit":
    "other
    Abeles", Is that Quark Abeles number two?

    "is
    a known drunk": Is that Quark one or Quark two?
    FYI,
    this Abeles, severally, and jointly are one and the same is a finer yungerman,
    no drunk, no nothing.

    "who
    was either conned or paid off by someone who is not connected to
    Farkash."















    FYI,
    he was not conned, he said a Mr. Galant approached him and did make an offer of
    which he refused to accept, and declared he is not a Dayan, and has nothing to
    do with a Get, and a Farkash was introduced to him. If anyone is a drunkard, it
    is you. You make yourself l'laag vokeles going around in circles like the Yid
    from 'Maad'.

    ReplyDelete
  42. When rde posts a bizarre affidavit written by someone no one has yet heard of who resides in Israel you eat up every word. But an affidavit from someone integral to the case with information that he states reporters can corroborate it is not even posted!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Farkash has no crediblity at this point. Since Yoel's offer still stands - all he has to do is to show up with the 3 dayanim - and Rifky would receive her get.

    Why doesn't Farkash produce them already? All he has produced is a clearly hateful document - most of which has no relevance to the issue of whether the beis din is real or not. It is not rocket science what information is needed to establish who is telling the truth - and so far Farkash has not provided it. Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Abeles is a very integral part of the "case" if there ever was a case. He supposedly was one of the judges of the supposed case. Farkash is just a "manager".

    ReplyDelete
  45. AFRA LEPIMAYICH!

    You blatant liar with an agenda and a chip on his shoulder. You must be an
    agent for this Shira Dicker ... . It is YOU that is bizarre, cunning and
    conniving a real Farkash (fox bela'aaz) in sheeps clothing.

    Nothing bizarre about the Affidavit, his Teudat Zehut is real, his name is
    real, his picture is Genuine, his testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth! I can attest to that. Have seen him in NY many times,
    have seen him in Israel many times as well as many others members of his family.
    He is the spit image of his father A"H who was a known Talmid Chochom Yerei
    Shamayim and marbitz Torah of pirchechei hakhunah. How dare you? Shame on you!.
    Nisgaleh kloncha borabim, you fake, fraud and phony. All your katavot have no
    logic, hypothetical, just trying to poke holes, childish, while you admit you
    don't know anybody, lo shamati - lo raiti, not the two stuck in traffic, not the
    one who disappeared in Israel and never reappeared, never bothered explaining
    why he does not REAPPEAR, creating a Phantom Golem miPrague giving two names for
    Sofer, creating two Abaleses from one, never mind according to your claims he
    doesn't even exist once, let alone doubling him. Even Quarks, at least one
    exists. Still and all, you go on and on...








    As far as Rabbi Eidensohn, he is a Talmid Chacham, yadua behalichos Olam, A
    PhD on this very subject, mole vegodish bechochmo and yirat Shamayim, a Straight
    Shooter, Sechel hayoshor logic etc. etc. Comes you lil pipsqueek liar, calls him
    names. Rest assured, that RDE does his homework ad sheyado magaas, never found
    him mesalef dvarim with malicious intent or without. I gave you a mouthful, now
    bevaksha YOU eat it. Do us all a favor, scram and beat it. Go away! Why are you
    here anyway?


    The rest of your garbled garbage is not even worth to respond, Shtuyot bemits agvaniyot.

    ReplyDelete
  46. its funny how mr farkash says he knows them and that he is the fake abbles but he can't say who the real one is
    its 69 days and we still have not had any one who ever saw them except mr farkash the videos shows every one who was there.


    but smelly Farkash the guy who got arrested for stealing and beating up a 65 year old guy is the one who the world should believe

    ReplyDelete
  47. Skype with who smelly farkash or smelly frankel

    ReplyDelete
  48. Why do i need to post anything rivky is the one playing games let her post not send you

    ReplyDelete
  49. she dose not want to remarry did you speak to her

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rabbi Michael TzadokSeptember 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM

    Huge difference. One is an affidavit, has been submitted to a court by someone who will testify. He thus has opened himself to jeopardy of perjury. The second is a piece of creative writing that parades as an affidavit.
    Where are the reporters that corroborate this? Where is the video of the "Rabbis" at the B"D? Why does Rabbi Licther say that they were never there?

    ReplyDelete
  51. It looked to me as though all 6 were present but I think I read it differently than u.

    ReplyDelete
  52. " Asya bemagna, bemana shavye", in other words, you get what you (ORA') pay for.

    ReplyDelete
  53. what makes it bizarre because its the truth its funny how you only no how to believe liars . rivky ezra hillel farkash uzi frankel soon the world is going to see how god takes care of them

    ReplyDelete
  54. My name is Rebecca Miller I'm from united state, i have been married for 4 years and i have a break up with my husband 3 months ago and i was worried and so confuse because i love him so much. i was really going too depressed and a friend directed me to this spell caster Dr. Laco and i made all my problems known to him and he told me not to worry that he was going to make my husband to come back to me and in just 48hours i receive a call from my husband and he was appealing that i should come back to the house. i have never in my life believe in spell and but now it have just helped me and i am now so happy. All Thanks to him and if you also want to have your Husband back to yourself here !! his emailAddress(lacopowerfulspellcaster@yahoo.com) i am so happy to testify of your work and kindness....

    ReplyDelete
  55. ROFL, they can always draft up a KSAV SIRUV beinom lebein atsmam, and even in absentia, if they still don't reconvene, they Might'a, Should'a, Could'a put themselves in CHEREM, and have the Reporters for 'A yohr Eidus' (rent a years worth of witness), with or without an Affidavit, you be the Sofer, having Farkash as manager and
    post in on FM for what it's worth. I dink it can flah, in fact I believe it can flah hah to the skah.

    ReplyDelete
  56. What if farkash can produce a letter written by a well known torah personality that attests to knowing the three rabbis and that they are real dayanim? Can we all then agree that the get should be given?

    ReplyDelete
  57. @eLamdan - the simple question is why he can't produce the dayanim? He hasn't even produced elemenatry evidence of their existence such as driver's license or semicha. What kind of beis din is that after months of yelling and screaming over whether these dayanim exist all he has produced is a slanderous statment against Yoel which he apparently hasn't even given to the court after a month - but only gave it to FM

    If someone claimed that you didn't exist and the status of a marriage depended on your existence - would you have any problem of producing proof that you existed?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Let's imagine for a moment that they actually did show up the day after tisha bav when yoel did not. Wouldn't it then be reasonable for them to conclude that no matter what they do it won't really matter?

    ReplyDelete
  59. @eLamdan - you did it again. Asking a ridiculous question. "Wouldn't it then be reasonable for them to conclude that no matter what they do it won't really matter? " The answer is obvioulsy no!

    Yoel called in to see if the Dayanim showed up. When they didn't he didn't either. Why do you, Farkash and Rivky insist on doing a song and dance instead of requiring the obvious. Let the 3 dayanim appear in public together, present their identification and their credentials as dayanim.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rabbi Michael TzadokSeptember 28, 2014 at 12:27 PM

    While we are assuming, let's assume that two monkeys and four apes built a space ship out vines and branches, and colonized Mars for Antarctica and all Earth bound homonoids. How would that affect their standing as a sapient species in the United Nations?

    We can play with all the absurd assumptions you want all day long... but we might as well be discussing spacefaring primates.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Fantasy land, my friend!



    Since you have exhausted all irrational attempts to murky the waters
    unsuccessfully, you now resort to hypothetical's and imaginaries from fantasy
    land playing the "if game". Cheap cop out. Time to wake up and smell the
    coffee. For Summary, R.S. lost all credibility, in Court, in existing Beis Din,
    even in imaginary Beis Din, Kangaroo or boiler room and fly by night, Dayanim
    fictitious or otherwise, with self declared managers pulling horses without a
    cart, Dayenu. If your grandmother would have had wheels, she could have been a
    wheelchair. Why not just imagine with the same effort that everybody showed up,
    she got her Get, and they all lived happily forever after. Fantasy land, my
    friend.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Give it up already. Your arguments are weak and you are losing every time.

    ReplyDelete
  63. They told yoel two dayanim were there yet he still did not show. Listen to the audios carefully. It's hard to hear sometimes because yoel cuts off the speaker constantly.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Maybe they don't want to release their information on the web... especially with websites like yours dedicated to attacking them. So I ask...what if wet can get a respected authority to vouch for them? Would that suffice?

    ReplyDelete
  65. @eLamdan - again you are missing the point. I have only criticized them for being non-existent. Since when is it considered normal for a beis din to establish it exists by getting a letter from a gadol?!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Explain why I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  67. One of the videos show two men who appear to be dayanim walking out when they go to check the other location. The guy with the camera of course fails to ask who they are.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ad delo yada as in Yom K'purim / asah et atzmo keilu lo yada!




    They "told Yoel", and how do you know that it was so, maybe they were stuck
    in traffic even as of now? Were those alleged two, the two Abeles' ? If so, Odom
    korov etsel atsmo, hence they are not viable Dayonim. If they were other
    two, WHICH other two? Besides, since when do two Dayonim suffice, and why would
    they convene with only two? Huh? Maybe Yoel had his people scouting out there,
    and found out lo dubim velo ya'ar. Besides, what does the audio have to do with
    the price of eggs in Denmark? Especially if the audio is hard to hear, how would
    you hear what's been said altogether? Produce the three Dayonim now, and if you
    can't, it is because they never existed, hence, we know now that the whole saga
    was a lie to begin with, just so that you and Shira should have what to be
    'meranen' her smear campaign. Therefore my friend, it is time to call Houston.
    Not that it would help, but when your invincible boat is Titanic-ing head over
    heels full throttle down to the bottom of the Ocean, you try to hang on to a
    straw and you know it is time to say Vidui and klap al Cheit. Don't forget to
    sign a DNR while you can, and close the lights. Tam venihslam masechet Purim.
    Our condolences! Yisgadel veYis.... le'eilo uleilo... veyonuach al mishkavo
    beshalom, venomar amen. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @eLamdan - please stop this nonsense. The burden of proof was on Rivky to establish that the 3 dayanim showed up.. Yoel said simply - produce the original dayanim and show that they know gittin and I'll give you the get. Why is it so hard for you to understand elementary English. I'll repeat it one more time THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON RIFKY. Yoel announced he thought the beis din didn't exist i.e., it was phony. IF RIFKY WANTS A GET SHE HAS TO SIMPLY SHOW THAT YOEL IS WRONG BY SHOWING THAT THEY DO EXIST. All your nonsensical statements about maybe they do exist. Maybe they were walking on the wrong street. Maybe maybe maybe - totally ignores the fact that RIVKY HAS TO PROVE THEY EXIST AND ARE COMPETENT IN GITTIN.

    I am not publishing anymore more of your conjectures.

    ReplyDelete
  70. How do they "appear to be dayanim"? Were they wearing a nametag that said DAYAN in big black letters? Was it because they had a long white beard? Old fashioned glasses?

    ReplyDelete
  71. I'm not convinced that such campaigns are useless. I suspect that Dodelson, for one, might still be without a get had she not gone public. Right or wrong, the Weiss/Feinstein family could not stand the pressure and became more willing to compromise.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Kishkeyum - you are clearly wrong. What you suspect or what your gut tells you is simply not supported by the facts

    Dodelson tried to destroy her husband and his family. What she ended up was pretty much what her husband offerered her in the beginning. The tremendous chillul hashem provided her with no benefit and clearly caused much harm.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Not so. In the beginning, he demanded 50% custody. A week here, a week there. That's what a lot of the fight was about. Later on, the Weisses demanded a very large sum to pay the legal costs they incurred. They received far less.


    Not that I believe it was worth the chlul Hashem. But that she received no benefit, I do not believe is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The fact that Dodelson paid Weiss' legal costs, whatever percent, is a tacit admission by them of their wrongness in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Not at all. They accepted they had to pay something to receive the get; Weiss called it "legal costs" for their self-respect, but Dodelson considered it something else entirely; namely, extortion. This I know for a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @Kishkeyum - you admit that you don't know but that you suspect. In any negotiotiations what is asked for gets modified.

    In order to in any way justify the horrible chilul Hashem, you would have to bring proof that Weiss did in fact modify his position because of the media campaign against him and not because it wasn't worth losing more time because that is what he could realistically get. I haven't seen any evidence that the final position was influenced by the media campaign.

    It is just as rational to say that because the media campaign back fired and made Dodelson look bad - they agreed to terms that they would not have if they had employed Shira Dicker's approach.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I have no proof (which I think would be impossible to come by), but I do know some of the people involved on both sides fairly well, and that was my impression of what was going on. You are of course free to reject it, but that's my view.


    [For the record, I am not saying that it justifies the chilul Hashem. Just that it may have had an effect.]

    ReplyDelete
  78. Dodelson modified her position in the final settlement and gave Weiss a lot more than she was offering him before she began her media slut campaign. Of course Weiss didn't get everything he asked for before the media campaign began. He and no one ever expected all his negotiating points to have been met and that Dodelson would acquiesce to all his requests.


    But the fact is that in the end Dodelson gave up a lot of ground in the final settlement. Aside for paying a substantial portion of Weiss' legal costs, that he believed owed to him due to her wrongful secular legal campaign in his view, she also granted him substantially more custody rights than she offered him before her legal and media assault began. And that substantial change in her position was sufficient for Weiss to agree to the settlement.


    It was not her media campaign that allowed Weiss to accept the settlement but rather her having substantially offered much of what he requested, which was a change from her earlier offer, that allowed Weiss to accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. That's certainly one valid opinion. However, knowing some of the people involved, I don't think it's correct.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Which part do you doubt? Dodelson certainly became more flexible in the end and modified her position prior to the settlement giving Weiss much more of what he requested (both on the legal expenses and on the custody arrangement) than she was offering earlier. Do you doubt that and seriously think Weiss didn't get anything more than she offered initially and he merely agreed to settle because she prostituted the case in front of the media? I don't think any reasonable observer will make such a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I doubt that the public furor had nothing to do with Weiss's agreement to give a get at this time. I believe that without it, the get would have been greatly delayed, b/c he and his family would not have felt the pressure to compromise. I also doubt that he would have settled for what he did at that point without the public pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @kishkeyum All you are offering for evidence is what you belief. I disagree with your beliefs. If you don't have anything stronger - then let's stop repeating ourselves.

    ReplyDelete

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