Rav Reuven makes several important points.
1) that a takanah should be made that no one is allowed to get involved in a case when there's a reputable bais din presiding on a case, otherwise the koach of bais din gets diminished and causes anarchy.
Meaning that since the Baltimore Beis Din was already dealing with the case. The Kaminetsky Beis Din had no right to get involved and usurp its right to deal with the case. To prevent this from happening in the future a Takana needs to be made and agreed by the rabbonim not to take over cases that are already being dealt with by a competent beis din
2) that no letter should be signed without listening to both sides.
This again is a criticism of the high handed tactics of Rav Kaminetsky (that was endorsed by a letter by Rav Herschel Schachter) and the Kaminetsky Beis Din which issued a false seruv and demanded that Aharon give a get and called for demonstrations against Aharon -- without hearing his side of the story and furthermore directly contradicting the ruling of the Baltimore Beis Din that there was no requirement for Aharon to give a Get at that time
3) that in this case only the Baltimore bais din has the full picture.
This again is a direct criticism of the Kaminetsky and the Kaminetsky Beis Din - which only heard Tamar's side of the story. It is a refutation of the Greenblatt heter - which was based on a phony psychiatric report written by a therapist who did not speak to Aharon on the allegations of Tamar. It is also a criticism of the Kaminetskys who went heter shopping with a letter which contained false and distorted information which did not seek out Aharon's perspective on events - which they ran around the world to find poskim who would agree to it. Finally getting Rav Greenblatt and Rav Feurst to agree to the heter - even though neither consulted the Baltimore Beis Din but relied entirely on the lies and distortions provided by the Kaminetskys
========================================================
Questions regarding Rav Reuven Feinstein's proposal (by a number of readers)
1) Why is there a need of a Takana when what he is proposing is stated in the Shulchan Aruch?
שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות דיינים סימן יז סעיף ה
אסור לדיין לשמוע דברי בעל דין האחד שלא בפני בעל דין חבירו. הגה: ודוקא שיודע הדיין שיהיה דיין בדבר, אבל אם שמע טענת האחד ואחר כך נתרצה השני לדון לפניו, מותר להיות דיין בדבר (תשובת מהרי"ל קצ"ה). ולא יכתוב שום חכם פסק לאחד מבעלי הדינין בדרך א"כ, או שיכתוב לו דעתו בלא פסק, כל זמן שלא שמע דברי שניהם, שמא מתוך דבריו ילמדו לשקר; גם משום שאח"כ יטעון השני בדרך אחר ויצטרך לכתוב להיפך, ואיכא זילותא לחכם. (רשב"א וריב"ש סימן קע"ט /ה'/). וכן הבעל דין מוזהר על כך. ותלמיד שיש לו דין לפני רבו, לא יקדים לבא קודם בעל דינו, שלא יהא נראה כמקדים כדי לסדר טענותיו שלא בפני חבירו. ואם יש לו עת קבוע לבא ללמוד לפניו, ובא העת ההיא, מותר.
a. If a duly constituted BD ruled—it should be over. Of course that BD should be supported in every which way.
b. Acccording to what he writes anyone can now say—and if so, you can be sure that anyone will now say—if they on one party’s “side”—that the BD’s pesak “is a din me’uvas”!
c. It is illogical to call for any person who wants to help when there is already a pesak BD to first hear both sides— that is what the BD did! Why would this person do a better job than the BD? How will this person ensure that HE will “hear “all the facts” from “all the parties”...? And if he comes to a different conclusion—he should help defy the BD?
3. Let’s be clear---The problem with the false seruv in the Epstein case was that it was anything BUT a duly-constituted BD!! But if it is a duly constituted BD?Absolutely support the pesak—or you are part of the evil!
4. The basic issue is that if you refuse to mention that there is a current problem then you need to pretend that the system itself needs fixing instead of the particular incident
4. The basic issue is that if you refuse to mention that there is a current problem then you need to pretend that the system itself needs fixing instead of the particular incident
I agree that this is against the dealings of the Rabbis Kamenetsky, but for the same money, it can also be read as a criticism of all those who have spoken out against the hetter, as they are also intervening when there is a beis din involved in the case. In addition, I highly doubt that the critics have spoken to Tamar Epstein.
ReplyDeleteRav Reuven would surely have consulted with Rav Dovid, as they are very close to each other, prior to making such a monumental pronouncement. We can assume Rav Dovid is on-board with this. It is monumental due to its obvious, even if unstated, implications. This note was issued at this particular time for a reason. The message is quite clear.
ReplyDeleteThe specific policy of the BDA is against this (reasonable) takanah. They (and their affiliate ORA) will not agree. In fact, they'll use it to get additional bu$ine$$.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Beis din involved in the heter
ReplyDeleteOne can't read into this letter that it is is referring to the Kaminetskys, as there have been numerous letters posted on this blog by Rabbonim who support the other side, and maybe it is referring to them, as well.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the letter is cryptic. When it says that even a reputable beis din can issue a din meuvas, which beis din does it refer to? The Baltimore beis din which admitted making errors? Then why does it then say that one should only follow the Baltimore BD?
Third, the only reason the Baltimore BD reexamined the case was gufa because the Kaminetskys were going to go ahead with the heter of mekach taus. Why on earth didn't they reexamine the facts the past 8 years? Can one blame the Kaminetskys when the case had been sitting cold all this time, with no progress? Why didnt the husband, and/or the beis din simply say, a get can be issued immediately if Tamar just shows up and negotiates custody satisfactorily.
There simply was no excuse for this unacceptable delay. The heter is a consequence of that delay. There was plenty of time to do things the normal way with a get.
Think about it. Tamar tells he family's rabbonim (the Kamientskys) that she can't get a get. The Baltimore beis din has not not heard from Aharon in 5+ years. Nothing is happening in that beis din. So the Kaminetskys form their own BD and issue a hazmana. No response. They then issue a seiruv. Now, true, as Reb Reuven points out it would be good to hear both sides. But Aharon has been silent in both Baltimore BD and in the Kaminestky BD. Baltimore BD makes no effort to contact Aharon. Tamar is stuck. So what would any Rav with seichel do? Take action on his own to get things moving.
There is no kashya on the Kaminetskys. The kashya is on the Baltimore BD and the husband, as to why there has been nothing heard from them all this time.
Now suppose Reb Reuvein's takana is in effect. nothing can be done without hearing from both parties, as is the simple halacha. But one party (the husband) has been incommunicado for years, and even the Baltimore BD has no info.
So what would have been gained? If you stonewall and go into hiding and make it impossible to schedule a hearing with both parties present, then a Rav has no other options other than to take more extreme measures.
Uv'chach, meyushavin heitev divrei Hakaminetskys, tehilah lakel yisborach, mefaneach ne'elamin.
Even if she wouldn't talk to anybody? I do know that she at least was able to talk to Rav Dovid Eidensohn, for he has mentioned that he has indeed spoken to her and forwarned her that the child would be a mamzer. ....also, perhaps, if people would have been a drop more too over cautious, she would have gotten away totally, I mean, a total escape. ..
ReplyDeleteas they are also intervening when there is a beis din involved in the case.
ReplyDeleteHuh? They are all dismissing those matirim who hijacked the Beis Din and the Beis Din process.
You need $eparate money to read faltch p$hat. All those in coming le'ezras H' bagiboirim were in support from/for the BBD as stated in the last sentence. Only they are in the know of all the details.
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion of Rabbi Feinstein's sounds good but the problem we will face is a lack of uniformity when it comes to deciding which Baisden is a competent one. Let's take Rabbi Gestetner as an example, he is very knowledgeable in the halachot of gittin, but much hated by the feminist establishment for his right-wing views. Therefore if his Bais Din has taken on a case that won't stop his enemies from denouncing him. Therefore rabbi Feinstein's plan won't work.
ReplyDeleteInteresting fiction - where did you get your "facts" from
ReplyDelete2) While Rav Reuven obviously means well his proposal, he ironically undermines the beis din system. It is a letter calling for total hefkerus!
ReplyDeleteLet's face it - if the Beis Din was reputable and respectful, why in the world would it need all sorts of signatures attached onto it in a private case? Obviously, the signatures are there to bolster the Beis Din that is not strong enough on its own. Let us take Mechon L'ehora as an example.
The unfortunate reality is that too many people find out about a specific Beis Din's corruption only after being burned. At that point they have no recourse. Every rabbi and asken with an eager pen can wait until they collect facts themselves before they automatically support a letter of which they don't know the details.
Good point.
ReplyDeleteThe husband HAS been yelling for the past 7 years that he'll give a Get once custody was negotiated satisfactorily in the Baltimore Beis Din.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that your exposure of the incorrect Epstein heter was called for. The difficulty is, when next should this be done? In secular law, the doctrine of res judicata is favored. A final judgment, even if incorrect, brings finality and stability. A collateral attack on a final judgment should be rare, and done only when egregious circumstances exist.
ReplyDelete1. We are Jews following Jewish law rather than secular law.
ReplyDelete2. The final judgement can only come from the only court that has ever had jurisdiction and tried this case. Namely, that court is the Baltimore Beis Din.
3. No other court has even pretended to have rendered any final judgement on this case.
Then why did the Baltimore BD just come out with a mea culpa letter?
ReplyDeleteYou need to read through the documentation and cite a source for each of your assertions. For each assertion either: 1) cite the source. If there is no source, but you have probable reason to believe this way, please explain -with the exact source bringing about the probable reasoning. If none of the aforementioned exist, please state clearly that this is what you have concocted yourself. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBecause until now whatever was being done was being done privately rather than publicly. And it had been stalemated for many years with the wife refusing to engage or proceed with the beis din. So there was nothing the beis din could do. Now that the case blew up in the public arena with the heter, eishes ish and her publicly living in adultery, the beis din felt compelled to issue a public statement on the facts in the case. Once they prepared to do so, they reevaluated the case from head to toe and realized they made an error in the case.
ReplyDeleteA strong argument could be made that the beis din should have issued their mea cupla much earlier.
Seriously? We're now going to worry about what secular law has to say on the matter of Ivus HaDin? You can't possibly be serious, can you?
ReplyDeleteIs there really finality and stability when AF's life was destroyed and TF's soon to be baby will be branded a mamzer chas v'shalom by large segments of society? Would you want to be that little baby? Would you want to be AF who has no real access to his own daughter?
And let it be said that the same exposure should be afforded to any other cases of this sort of corruption, bar none. May no one ever get away with this type of behavior regardless of which gedolim he/she has access to. It's a falsification of the Torah and hurts us all.
Rav Reuven would surely have consulted with Rav Dovid
ReplyDeleteNot at all מוכח.
There might be, except the members are lying low. We know that Rabbi Fuerst was involved. I've heard that there is another, but haven't heard the name. R' Greenblatt, plust Rabbi Fuerst, plus one more equal a beis din.
ReplyDeleteGood point, the real creators of the hetter are not rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetsky but aren friedman and the Baltimore Beis din
ReplyDeleteWill he be releasing a list of "reputable" Battei Din?
ReplyDeleteWould Zabla Battei Din be included?
Would the Flohr/Kaufman Beis of Monsey be on the list?
What if one of the parties only "agreed" because he/she was tricked into it or intimidated into signing, not being aware of conflicts of interest or the "Din Torah's" already having been rigged outright , which is the Flohr/Kauffman specialty?
What if someone can bring evidence that the Beis Din process she/he signed on to was a sham, violating all standards of process and fairness? Is Rav Reuvain prepared to intervene -- or at least to listen to the evidence?
Aharon Friedman and the Baltimore Bais Din?!? Maybe it was Tamar? This reminds me of the Islamic cleric (the one behind the attempted Ground Zero Mosque) who claimed, "Osama bin Laden was made in the USA".......
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly my point. I am not favoring either Tamar, who wanted a get badly, or Aharon, who wanted to see his daughter, badly, and may have been devastated when she was taken from him.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that the silence of the Baltimore beis din and the husband totally made a travesty of this case. Even if one grants that Tamar's position was entirely wrong, but the handling of the matter by the Baltimore BD which let things sit for years, and the apparent stonewalling by the husband as far as the public could tell, was what led to this travesty.
If I am 100% right that I am owed a million dollars by ploni, but can't be bothered to bring witnesses or documents and show up in beis din, I have nobody to blame but myself for the financial loss.
Another issue is that the secular court knew that Tamar had relocated the child, but still awarded custody to her. Even if Aharon was cooperating with beis din, may a husband tell a beis din that he will refuse a get until custody is to his liking? So it is not clear that all rabbonim would agree on this point, even if he was cooperating. But if he was not cooperating at all, or the public was led to believe that he was not cooperating, but merely stonewalling, then his case becomes that much weaker. And this was obviously what motivated the Kaminetskys to get involved.
And although I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't one need to sign a legally-binding arbitration agreement with a beis din ahead of time? And wouldn't that be filed with the court, along with the beis din's decision or psak? So where are those papers? How was the court allowed to rule on their own about custody, if there was an advance arbitration agreement, instead? And if Aharon signed it and not Tamar, can't the beis din at least produce the one signature?
So instead of blaming the Kaminetskys, why not conduct a thorough investigation and make a timeline and diagnose exactly at which point things went off the rails.
But, nonetheless, probable. ....
ReplyDelete@kishkeyum On a technical point, do you get a Disqus email with every response to thread's you posted on (or an email for every response to one of your comments) on this DT blog? Otherwise how do you keep track of when someone responded to your post(s)? I seem to be unable to get emails from Disqus posts to this DaasTorah blog other than posts from the Moderator (RDE), for some odd reason - as I do get them from Disqus posts I make on other blogs.
ReplyDeleteBarry you are losing contact with reality. You are simply ignoring the facts as have been established and are making up a scenario to your liking. What is it that you don't understand about the violations of halacha and decency which led to this "heter"?
ReplyDeleteThe husband was NOT silence. He was demanding all along that his wife come to beis din and agree to beis din adjudicating custody.
ReplyDeleteLegally the secular court will not honor an arbitration agreement -- EVEN IF both parties signed and agreed to it in advance -- on the issue of custody. Nevertheless, as Jews both parties are obligated to use beis din for custody and not use secular court for custody.
Both the husband and wife had agreed in advance to use the Baltimore Beis Din to adjudicate their dispute. The husband continued to attempt the BBD adjudication process, while the wife withdrew from beis din and refused to return or to otherwise negotiate custody outside of secular court.
לכבוד הרב הגאון הגדול רב העניך זאלץ שליט"א מחבר ספר רודף ונרדף
ReplyDeleteתחזקנה ידיכם על עבודתך הקודש נגד מהרסי הדת קמינצקי, אב ובנו שעקרו חומת קדושת המשפחה בכלל ישראל, תיכתב לדור אחרון פעולתך הכבירה לשם שמים יחד עם רבך הגאון רבי שמואל מיללער
Same here. But if you click on your name and hit view profile you can see all your posts and any responses.
ReplyDeleteThree separate rabbonim does not a beis din make.
ReplyDelete1. One of the problems with batei din is that they run away from enforcement.
ReplyDeleteWhen the baltimore bet din saw TE/F is not willing to follow their (as yet) unwritten psak, they did what every other bet din does: they dropped the case.
They only revisited the case when the eishet ish matter came up.
2. Financial matters of a divorce can be legally arbitrated. Custody issues cannot be arbitrated. And any bet din or other arbitration of child custody matters are completely worthless in civil court. (Though some judges, at their discretion, will order custody similar to a bet din; since the case was decided elsewhere, even though not enforceable.)
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI'll try to be short. There are many batei din that execute a shtar berurin, and then things go off the rails because of either party, or both. When that happens, the only recourse is to go to civil court, since the arbitration isn't going anywhere.
It's already been established that this TE-AF arbitration in BD went nowhere. You need both parties to be there...so I'm not clear what you think AF could have produced if he's the only one that shows up to BD. Nor am I clear what you think BBD (or any BD) can do if one party doesn't show up. Seruv? And then what? Is it possible that some litigants davka don't want a seruv published, if only to spare their children future embarrassment?
Finally, it's also been established that the entire quest for a BD was a ploy to establish facts on the ground re: child custody. IOW, this was rotten to the core from the outset. But, it worked for one party: venue was established in PA, and custody remained in PA. All because some rabbis told AF that he should play the game the right way and do it in BD. But he was (apparently) the only one who was looking to play by the rules.
There are men on this blog who have lived through this very situation. Maybe you aren't one of them. But you're trying to understand this without having the background of how ugly and evil some parties can be during a divorce. Torah? Halacha? That means nothing to such people in their quest to stick it to their former spouses. And the rabbis, sadly, are no match for their machinations. At the end of the day, most BD in situations like this are left with nothing other than to tell the parties to go to court, which is what should have happened here לכתחילה, from the very moment TE moved the kid over a hundred miles away from the father.
As a litigator, you know that reopening a closed case is extremely difficult (even with new information). Years later -- forget about it.
ReplyDeleteA bet din however, will almost always reopen a case, even years later, provided the request is not frivolous (and they have to look at it to see if it is frivolous.) This has always been bet din policy.
(There is one exception -- once a get is given, a case cannot be reopened, since that would lead to a married woman becoming an eishet ish if the get is retroactively ruled invalid.)
I can't say for certain that I get an email for every comment, but I certainly get for a lot of them. Problem is, I check that account maybe once every few days, so it doesn't help that much, and sometimes I lose track of conversations. That's what happened with the long discussion we had on that other thread. I forgot about it for a week or so, and then I checked the email account and was reminded.
ReplyDeleteI don't claim to be an expert, but from what I understand, not even probable.
ReplyDeleteI also come across not so recent responses to my comments and wonder why I didn't have them emailed. ....
ReplyDeleteExcept that the most common reason people want their case in Beit Din reopened is because they can prove the first one was prejudicial to the extent it violated all standards of halacha. Only place to go is another Beit Din -- but no one will take it.
ReplyDeleteYou know of how many times that has happened with Monsey's Kaufman/Flohr Beis Din, for example, with pne person after another being pressured/suckered into going there and not finding out it was a scam until it was too late?
Regarding Elliot Pasik's comment below, the problem is that Batei Din in the US have no oversight and that even when caught in outright fraud, there is very little anyone other than the powerful and wealthy person can do about it. (And, knowing this, the powerful and wealthy are usually not the ones that the Battei Din usually scam.)
ReplyDeleteThe most common reason people want their case in Beit Din reopened is because they can prove the first one was prejudicial to the extent it violated all standards of halacha. Only place to go is another Beit Din -- but no one will take it.
You know of how many times that has happened with Monsey's Kaufman/Flohr Beis Din, for example, with one person after another being pressured/suckered into signing their shtar beirurim and not finding out it was a scam until it was too late?
I'm not even in Monsey, but I know of several cases with that Beis Din. Unfortunately, no one will take them on.
Looking at the profile I see all my comments but no responses or even an indication of there was a response. You also only get emails for RDE's comments?
ReplyDeleteWhich comments do you get emails with? All or only RDE's comments?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the person simply refuse the pressure to sign the shtar beirurim and simply ask another, reputable, beis din to try the case? Or demand Zabla, as is any litigants halachic right.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, I am perfectly willing to accept that gedolim may pasken on matters not to my liking, and I am also not afraid to argue based on sevara, or with rayos, with even huge talmidei chachamim.
ReplyDeleteBut what I am not prepared to accept so easily is that the Kaminetskys who are considered to be big talmidei chachamim would deliberately act in an unethical manner, and try to manufacture a heter solely to avoid Tamar having to go to beis din. According to this latest narrative, during the entire 8 years, all they had to tell Tamar was you can easily obtain your get by negotiating a slightly better pshara with Aharon regarding custody.
To say that the Kaminetskys would not only try to stiff Aharon out of seeing his child, but also utilize an absolutely last-resort heter, when there was a simple solution available the whole time simply strains the imagination.
And furthermore, all the organizations, shuls, and many rabbonim were demonstrating against Aharon, when they should have been demonstrating against Tamar according to this new narrative. So to do a complete rewrite of history all of the sudden, that everybody somehow got the facts wrong this whole time, and that she was the one who refused to go to beis din, further compounds the problem.
What is RDF's position on how to handle this fiasco?
ReplyDeleteTamar was stubborn about not compromising on the child custody arrangement. A compromise would've required her to move with child back to Maryland. She adamantly refused thus sinking her chance of receiving a Get.
ReplyDeleteI should have qualified my comment to the same original bet din, not going to another betdin. (Thus going from baltimore to . . .philadelphia . . . Is a whole other story.)
ReplyDeleteActually, the . . .philadelphia bet din . . . Is not even a bet din, since they never 'invited' the adversary. It was completely improper. R reuven mentions that.
He is smart enough not to get involved in specific cases. After all, he is saying its baltimore's call. (Though he does mention the eishet ish matter is wrong.)
ReplyDeleteAdd to that trying not to criticize a rav he has to work with, whether or not he wants to.
Can you please elaborate of what you heard from the Grapevine upon the visit to RDF by mmm... RKS
ReplyDeleteYes
ReplyDeleteAt lea$t you are $tarting to under$tand why the Torah is unequivocal:
ReplyDeleteכי השוחד יעור פקחים ויסלף דברי צדיקים
Real world: you have a bunch of naive pulpit rabbis out there, who don't understand the real ramifications of a corrupt BD. They are usually the ones that are telling people - admittedly, בתמימות לב - that Halacha requires them to go to BD. But they don't give them any tools to understand how the process is designed to work, and how it really works.
ReplyDeleteAnd, if one side has a Mendel Epstein type of person advising them, the other spouse is walking into a snake pit, and doesn't even know it. Without a doubt, AF fits this scenario precisely.
Hagodas eidus shelo b'fnei baal din.
ReplyDeleteNever accepted by AF.
Never wrote AF their "psak". etc. etc etc
From what Rav Reuven Feinstein, shlita, wrote it is clear that if a Bais Din errs, as the one Rabbi Willig did in the case Elie Hiller vs. Baruch Lanner, you don't undermine the Bais Din. Rabbi Yosef Blau was a member of that Bais Din but was credited with helping bring Mr. Baruch Lanner to justice because he knew something was wrong despite their original verdict.
ReplyDeleteIf hypothetically Tamar Epstein had been wronged by the Baltimore Bais Din (BBD), then the Kaminetzkys should have brought pressure on the BBD to summon the litigants and get the matter settled. Gangsters like ORA had no business getting involved at all. I know from first-hand experience the BBD shleps. That's why it took over 15 years to build the Yitzchak Wallerstein Mikvah in Silver Spring.
I checked yesterday. It seems random. Some I get notifications for, others not.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I was commenting on the relationship between them, and whether R' Reuvein runs his statements by R' Dovid first.
ReplyDeleteWho says they were separate. They might have spoken on the phone. I don't know, but I would bet they did.
ReplyDeleteBut if the person knew to refuse the pressure to sign a shtar with a questionable beis din and insisted on either choosing another (reputable) beis din or Zabla, no one can force him to sign the shtar with the problematic beis din, correct? The only issue is knowledge and knowing not to sign too quickly.
ReplyDeleteThanks. That was very helpful. It doesn't explain the lack of email notification for new comments other than the moderators (RDE), but that function is very useful and I had overlooked it.
ReplyDeleteCan a beis din halachicly convene if both parties aren't present together at the same time with dayanim?
ReplyDeleteSee the reply from @Honesty which is right on.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Rav Sholom's fishing expedition threw out a wide net that pulled in a few isolated fish. Rav Nota in his letter seemed to indicate that he understood he was merely agreeing with scores of other morei hora'ah who had already signed on. No way he would have gone this alone so as to get unceremoniously thrown under the bus. It seems to me that nobody had a clue who else was involved.
On the other hand, if I'm wrong and there is a formal psak let's see it.
Instead of comparing this situation to anything in Islam why not keep it strictly with in the realm of Jewish law and tradition? It has been pointed out many times that tradition and any legal means outside of the Jewish realm are not valid so this discussion should only pertain to Jewish thought and legalities.
ReplyDeletea little red "1" inside the speech bubble
ReplyDeleteI was slightly inaccurate in that description. In actuality, the speech bubble becomes red and the number inside it is white.
Go to your profile. Click on "Notifications". On the left side, click on "Settings". Click on "Email Notifications". Check off the third option: "Receive an email when someone replies to your comments". That should send you an email when anyone responds to you - not only the moderator. It won't send you an email about comments that are not in response to you, though.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why they cannot convene. The psak, though, would not be valid.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, and my point is that you are dealing with people who are already in severe emotional distress. The one person they've looked up to for a long time is often their rabbi.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, too many rabbis understand too well the issur of archaism, but cannot provide any info for their congregants to navigate the shark infested, cesspool corrupted waters of BD.
I think a distinction should be added: ad hoc batei din should be banned from issuing seruvim or enforcing shtarei berurim.
ReplyDeleteAd hoc maening three rabbonim get together and issue a psak, not from a recognized, regular bet din. An organization that writes gitten, but does not deal in regular dinei torah, is not a bet din. Two people who have a dispute and discuss it with the rav informally is not a bet din. A rav who does marriage counseling is not a bdt din. In chassidishe communities, this might be a problem. In internal yeshivish communities, it would also be a problem.
All (real) batei din shlep. That's what makes it a bet din. Hate to say it, but true. Have to incentivize the dayanim.
ReplyDeleteIt seems some of everybody else's. For example, as of now, I did not get an email from Disqus for this comment...
ReplyDeleteToday, I happen to have heard from a former Philly talmid that Reb Dovid wasn't for this heter. ...I find it difficult that he doesn't hold of Reb Ruvain's letter. ..
ReplyDeleteSecular court cases shlep out for years and years, also. And then some more years worth of appeals.
ReplyDeleteI've always had that setting checked off (and still do), yet only receive the moderator's comments (both the moderators replies to me as well as the moderators other comments), but do not receive anyone else's comments via email. (I do receive all notifications via email on other Disqus blogs I participate in. Oddly this issue is only affecting this blog.)
ReplyDeleteA Zabla Beis Din, though, was agreed upon in advance by both litigants and thus does have authority to issue a seruv if necessary and enforce the agreed upon shtar.
ReplyDeleteGood point, as you see takanah will never happen, let the fittest survive, remember its all about evolution
ReplyDeleteOk, let me help you out if I may. Blaming the victim in Jewish Law is Vehirshiu es haTsadik, veHitsdiki es hoRosho deduced from "Vehoyo im bin hakos es horosho". A typical example is Eliezer Eved Avrohom in Sdom Va'Amorah, the Judge made Eliezer pay damages for one that hit him in the cranium and drew blood. here is another, Tuviya choto, *vezingad minged*. I hope this helps. If you are still in need of some more, you get just for the asking :->
ReplyDeleteIn my work, i often travel to other cities. I often go to the rav between / after mincha / maariv, and ask him if he has a toain to recommend.
ReplyDelete1. Some say no. Some say go without a toain (to those, i say the other side has a toain.) These rabbonim are actually completely lost.
2. Some ask what the dispute is about? They either want to get in on the action, or they actually are amateur toanim. Which might be good or bad.
3. Some say call me next week, i'll ask my father in law, or my RY. Those are the swartest of the bunch.
Ok, thanks for your excellent explanation. Maybe you can help me out with this one. Upon looking in the comments column, how exactly can you zero in to it without having to go through 250 other commments without sifting through one by one? This Q is when the comment was not directed to you, and no alert red soap bubble with a pregnant white digit inside. When you have multiple threads with hundreds of comments in each it becomes even more cumbersome, you need something like a heat seeking missile targeting them.
ReplyDeleteFor better or worse, that is not the halacha. The parties can agree to have their disputes tried by three shepards, if they so choose.
ReplyDeleteThe heter is a fraud, so why would you be shocked if everything else done by the Ks in this case was also a fraud?
ReplyDelete"So to do a complete rewrite of history. ....all of a sudden" -that you are beginning to understand what was consistently discussed repetitiously.....that's how it goes. .
ReplyDeleteNot from Adam. They first must have both baalei dinim in front of them together, listen first to what they have to say in front of each other. When they decide they had heard enough, they can tell them "eini zokuk lochem", and they go about their business to haggle it out. They then give their final Psak. A beis din must be Tloso kechode havina, that is three in one session, not that one is in Yerushalayim, the second in Aspamya, and the third in Horei Arorot via Hookup.
ReplyDeleteIn addition you must have three neutral Dayonim without prejudice, like a Goral that has equal possibilities and potential to choose which way to decide without prior knowledge. The reason of having an odd number of dayonim (as opposed to even number) e.g. 3/23/70 or anything odd in between, so as to be able to make a final count of ROV having always a Majority, otherwise it is called a *BD SHOKUL* = equal in balance. Only then can be Achrei rabim *lehatos*. If you rig up and stack the Deck such as in this Fiasco, preselecting only those Dayonim that agree of KULAM chayovim, then it is => POTUR , this is MALICE, RISHUS, SILUF, SARUACH MEIKRO. There has been NO Shakle vetarye, NOSSE VENOSSEN to hammer out and melabin the halacha lefi emes la'amito. It is therefore a Beis Din SHEKER, CHOTSUF, Megale ponim baTorah shelo keHALACHA of yoshvei kronos and moshav leitsim R'L'.
It is important to understand that the reason of a BD having 23 dayonim and if all came up with the same result of such as kulom chayovim, then it is Potur, because they have not been meayen badin sufficiently, it is impossible that not one Dayan should find any zchus. Therefore, you must start out with a clean slate, and chosing dayonim without prejudice, which has not been the case here.
I appreciate your point, and believe a wholesale reform of the system is necessary.
ReplyDeleteIt is abundantly clear that the system has been hijacked in many cases by corrupt litigants and their equally perverse toanim. Also, there is no oversight and no checks and balances.
I am still concerned about the overlap between secular court and BD. I do not believe BD should touch a case where the parties are in court. When they mix in to a court situation, they are just adding fuel to a bad situation.
The BDA, for example, has no problem issuing seruvim to individuals, even when there's an existing court battle going on. IMO, no BD has any business mixing in to that mess if it's being heard in court. If sanctions are appropriate on a communal level, that should be separate and apart from a BD designed to hear matrimonial issues.
If I'm understanding your suggestion properly, if one party kneged halacha went to non-Jewish court, the other party would have no recourse in beis din over that fact.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know there is no way to do that. However, what might help somewhat is collapsing the comments that you don't care about. For example, if you only care about the main topic and don't want to have to sift through all the comments about getting alerts, you can go to Moe Ginsburg's first comment about alerts and click the minus sign on the right side. This will make it, and the 15 subsequent comments on the topic, disappear. You can do the same thing for any subtopic that you don't care about.
ReplyDeletenot divorces. not child custody. definitely not child support.
ReplyDeletereal estate development always drags out. (the empire state building was built in 53 weeks in the 1930s. "freedom tower" took over ten years, and I'm not even sure its finished.)
I agree wholesale reform is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think a zablah bet din cannot issue a seruv.
three shepards can only issue a seruv a la RSK and company. three shepards is an ad hoc bet din.
another thing never done, is issuing a seruv for non compliance with a psak. the Baltimore bet din purposely never issued a psak regarding custody / visitation, precisely because they knew it wouldnt be complied with, and they are loath to issue a seruv regarding compliance. like every other bet din in America.
If there's a toain(im) involved, I believe that the odds of a simple solution being reached are already remote.
ReplyDeleteThese toanim have less checks and balances than BD (and BD already has none!). They usually all know each other, they will never provide you with any real invoices for any 'work' they claim to have done, and they usually give you advice that stokes the fire, rather than tames it.
While you might think category 3 is better, the fact is that most rabbonim go by word of mouth, and without standards, that's pretty dicey to rely on. The RY that provides a name doesn't have his neck in a noose....that's your neck in there, and he'll be nowhere around if it goes bad based on his recommendation.
Moe,
ReplyDeleteIf you've been hauled into court, you already have no recourse but to play out the string in court. If you want to later open a new case against your ex for what happened in court, I suppose you can do so. Realistically, however, I think the success of such an endeavor is dubious. Besides which, most people on both sides have been cleaned out pretty solidly by the court process, financially and emotionally. Who now wants to go through this whole thing again in BD? When does someone decide it's time to get on with life?
But for BD to start injecting themselves in the middle of a court battle? IMO, no way.
Even if they all sat together - since they 1) heard the case prior to the yeshivas "beis din" and since 2) they had already made up their mind before hand - their status as a "Beis DIn" never happened.
ReplyDelete....take it from a man who knows. ...
ReplyDeleteBut not in non-Jewish court.
ReplyDeleteThese parameters? Minolon?
ReplyDeleteAnd the 'established' botei din are not corrupt? I have some experience. ..
Thanks again. Maybe if we can suggest such as a colored soap bubble that you can click in front of each comment once something read, it then grays out. You then can go straight to those latest new comments. R' Doniel, is this something feasable? It can be of a great Tikkun Olam. If so, you lol can coin it ehud's bubble, or any other bubble.
ReplyDeleteI meant category three is smartest for himself, not (necessarily) smartest for the advice seeker.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't bring in Jewish sources, since Torah sources work with darchai Noam. Islam, however, does not, so I found it more compatible with the approach he unfortunately seems to be working with and since non Jewish thought apparently seems to be influencing him anyway, I believe I answered in turn. .....
ReplyDelete@Alex BTW, OOC I meant to ask you as well if you receive an email with every new comment posted on any thread you participated in on this blog or if you too only receive something more limited?
ReplyDeleteI deselected email notifications. If someone responds to something I said I get the disqus notification at the top of the page. For other new comments I just skim through to see if there are any that interest me.
ReplyDeleteShepards are not baki betiv gittin veKidushin.
ReplyDeleteFoolish ,Lame &Total Incompetence
ReplyDeleteSo here, you are arguing that RNG was misled and lied to by the K's.
ReplyDeleteBut your later position exonerates RSK and puts the blame squarely on RNG. At present the "wanted" poster shows RSk Jr.