Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Until the phony seruv of Rav Kaminetsky's beis din is removed - he and his beis din are in cherem

update: The correct term is nidoi - but I used the term cherem in the title as the general non-halachic term for ostracizing and thus the term is explained as being a form of cherem in the post below.

I confirmed with Aharon's law school classmate who spoke to R' Herschel Schachter and R' Sholom Kaminetsky in December 2010 (which I believe is before the Seruv was issued) that the two Rabbis were aware of the Baltimore Beis Din's involvement and they intentionally ignored the Beis Din's involvement". He said he is willing to discuss this with Rov who needs to know the information.


 Guest Post

Rabbis Aryeh Ralbag, Yisrael Belsky, Mordechai Wolmark, Shmuel Kamenetsky, Gavriel Stern and Hershel Schachter are in [nidui] [cherem] 

The issuance of a purported "seruv"[contempt] against Aharon Friedman was outrageous from the very beginning.  The Union of Orthodox Rabbis did not bother to issue even a single hazmana [summons} before purporting to issue the "seruv."  In addition, the parties had previously signed a shtar beirurin [binding arbitration agreement] with the Baltimore Beis Din.  Furthermore, as ,the Baltimore Beis Din recently noted even putting aside those two points, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis had no right to issue a "seruv" against Aharon because he lives in a different State than the location of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis.

It is hard to imagine that the signatories of the "seruv" were not very well aware of these points and deliberately signed the "seruv" knowing that the "seruv" was baseless.  If the signatories were not knowledgable about the rules for issuing a "seruv", they should have not been involved in issuing seruvim.

In any case, even if the signatories were not previously aware of these rules and had some excuse for nonetheless involving themselves in a matter concerning which they had woefully inadequate knowledge, it has been several days since the Baltimore BD issued its letter clarifying matters, so there can no longer be any confusion or the least bit of doubt about this matter. One who wrongfully issues a seruv, or signs in support of such seruv, himself has the status of being in [nidui][cherem] as pointed our by Rav Reuvain Feinstein's recent letter, and has been previously noted by others concerning this case.

 The refusal of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, Rabbi Ralbag and the other signatories to retract the "seruv" is well beyond outrageous and makes a mockery of halacha, beis din and the Jewish community.  They must immediately retract the "seruv" - or they have the status under halacha [Jewish Law] of being in [nidui] [cherem].

149 comments :

  1. Can someone explain how the Agudas HaRabbonim/The Union of Orthodox Rabbis changed control after Rav Moshe ZT"L lead it to its current set of dayanim?

    And do they still do anything other than beis din cases, as they used to in Rav Moshe's time?

    ReplyDelete
  2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wait_for_the_other_shoe_to_drop


    This has not been, and not going to be, "pleasant" to watch, and very unpleasant for those concerned!

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://ip-50-63-248-10.ip.secureserver.net/Dayanim.asp

    "Beth Din of America

    Partial Listing of Dayanim

    The following is a partial list of the
    people who have recently served as dayanim for the
    Beth Din of America:

    Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz

    Rabbi Mordechai Willig

    Rabbi Michael Broyde, Esq.

    Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq.

    Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq.



    Rabbi Kenneth Auman

    Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

    Rabbi Adam Berner, Esq.

    Rabbi Donny Besser, Esq.

    Rabbi Dovid Cohen, Esq. (YI of the West Side)

    Mr. Gavriel Fagin

    Rabbi Michael Hecht

    Rabbi Chaim Jachter

    Rabbi Avrohom Kivelevitz

    Rabbi Aaron Levine, z”l

    Mr. Leon Metzger

    Dr. David Pelcovitz

    Yossi Prager, Esq.

    Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, Esq.

    Rabbi Dani Rapp

    Rabbi Hershel Schachter

    Keith Scharfman, Esq.

    Rabbi Ezra Schwartz

    Rabbi Gavriel Stern

    Rabbi Shlomo Wahrman

    Rabbi Ronald Warburg"

    ReplyDelete
  4. This looks like real thorough Passover cleaning by the time we're done with this fiasco , we will have really cleaned out the closet from all their skeletons . Wow

    ReplyDelete
  5. There have been enough hasro'os for this Beis Din Chotsuf consisting of clowns, Child molesters, Jail fillers, adulterers, Mikve Peepers, Ham Sandwich beaters, Seruvim for non-existent husbands, Performing Get Meusse, matir eishes ish lashuk, mamzerim manufacturers, Kidnappers, Electric Prodders, Sadists, Document falsifiers, bludgeoning people with Baseball bats, ordering directives to Kill, matir domon shel yisroel, Yordim lechayov demonstrators, MECHALLELEI HASHEM BORABIM, MOTZI SHEM RA, Bogus Chiyuvei Get with secret Dayonim, Merim Yad beToras Moshe, Matir Assurim, Anshei Sdom vaAmorah, Ra laShamayim vera laBriyos, It is time to Decree MI LASHEM ELAY!
    There should be a consensus by the Gedoilei Uposkei haDor to put this organization in CHEREM with all it's cohorts, to asser their hechsherim, not to do business or have any maga umassa with them, umaklo yagid lo, till they withdraw their so called Siruv. They are to be put into Orrur veShamta as prescribed in SA, leherim keren haTorah. velo yishama od shever beYisroel. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am only responding because of the tone of the post - stating that all these rabbonim are deserving of niduy is a big statement.
    I'm not sure where you got the info that no summons were issued - they clearly stated that they requested of him that he appear before them and did subpoena him to B"D several times.
    As for locale, although we NOW know that TE was in fact the one who left B"D, yet until recently it was assumed that BOTH parties were no longer interested in continuing arbitration with the Baltimore B"D. As is clear from the Baltimore B"D letter even they had thought that AF had willingly left B"D. If that is the case any B"D that would have spoken with the Baltimore B"D may have gotten the same misinformation - that BOTH TE and AF left the Baltimore B"D.
    Going along with this misinformation would mean that by default, jurisdiction should now fall in the city where they reside ie. Silver Springs. Halachically one cannot force a party to go to B"D outside their city - unless of course there is none in the city. Was there a qualified B"D in Silver Springs at the time - I would assume both TE and AF felt not, otherwise why would they run to Baltimore to begin with. If so isn't it entirely possible that that is why a B"D outside Silver Springs was contacted by TE after leaving Baltimore B"D? And based on the misinformation the Baltimore B"D had, this new B"D may have been acting based on the misinformation presented by the Baltic ore B"D.
    Before you judge these Rabbonim for what they did and scream that they are in niduy (BTW cherem is only after they are in niduy and do not wish to be taken out we then put them in cherem) perhaps think about how much misinformation may have been generated about this case by NUMEROUS parties, and specifically the B"D that was originally involved.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, Rabbi Eidensohn, the very first order of business for you is to remove the post about Chaim Yisroel Belsky which you posted two days ago. He is in nidui. Those that criticized #Honesty for asking why you posted the information should now have חרטה for doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Politically IncorrectJanuary 27, 2016 at 5:57 AM

    Sorry and confused, according to this (and other stuff) why are we davening for R' Belsky?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Politically IncorrectJanuary 27, 2016 at 6:00 AM

    It seems like the Cherem here is from the Shulchan Aruch as opposed to a Bais Din that actively put them in cherem...in any case, who will follow this suggestion?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Has this generation of rabbis lost their minds!? I know several of these signers personally and I am dismayed that because of a spoiled brat they threw away the Torah of their fathers! Even with all its faults for them to undermine the Baltimore Bais Din was reprehensible,
    They do the bidding of the young punk Jeremy Stern who revels in the publicity of "championing for agunot" while he tramples on the Shulchan Aruch. He and his trained monkeys have done more harm to women who are truly in the clutches of spiteful men withholding gittin. The information stated by the Baltimore Bais Din proved Aaron Friedman was not in that category! I am sickened by the corruption and cowardice of these former "gedolim". I begged 4 of these men to help stop the affliction a widow. For that mizvah d'oraisa they were stone silent!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Guest Post I would say that your premise is wrong the fact that only one person from the Baltimore Beis Din signed on it, Rabbi Shuchatowitz and the otherswho signed the original letter did not would be making a sham of the BBD by declaring anyone in cherim. Rabbi Shuchatowitz tried to wrong a right but that to say the BBD meant to put anyone in Cherim is wishful thinking by many of the bloggers here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This post is ridiculous. I don't know why it was even put up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is not Rabbi Kaminestky's beis din. This is the Agudas Harabonim, of which Reb Moshe Feinstein was head, during his lifetime, I believe.

    It is preposterous to claim these rabbonim are in cherem. These are some of the greatest talmidei chachamim of the generation. They don't know halachos of jurisdiction of a beis din?

    Come on now. This brand new narrative of the last few threads that Tamar was the one who refused to go to beis din is not holding an awful lot of water at this point. If Aharon had legitimate claims, mai ulma d'hai bei dina mehai? What was magic about the Baltimore beis din that would give him a more satisfactory custody deal? And he could at least have responded to the hazmanos from this beis din respectfully, and given a reason why he believes they don't have jurisdiction. But he was engaged in stonewalling, which was the original narrative all along, before the recent reinvention of history.

    ReplyDelete
  14. to say the BBD meant to put anyone in Cherim is wishful thinking

    It is not the BBD or anyone else putting them in cherem; it is them themselves, through the halacha that the issuer of a false siruv is automatically in cherem. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ki ha$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ochad YEA'VER,
    vi$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$alef.
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Rules.
    Ke$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ef Metaher mamzerim.
    Money make$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ the world go round.
    You can even buy $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$onei Bet$a.
    You can go Bei$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Din $hoping.
    You can lie, forge, ORA-ing around people, and what not.
    You can even kill Ham $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$andwiches in absentia.
    Oich mir a Bei$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Din. Oich mir rabonim.
    Rodfei $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$halmoinim. Kulom Merat$chim.
    Korach vaado$$$$$$$$$$$$$$oi.Beikvosei dimeshichei.........

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mai ulma? Because it has been overuled by Botei Dinim shegodol mimeno bechochmo uvminyan. Even if this BD killed one estranged Ham Sandwich in absentia, it is a BD Katlanis, never mind if it killed wrongfully. It is one too many. Why else do you think they all ended up in Prison for.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This whole package deal starting from adam, is a Mekach taus. Only a Nidui vecherem veshamta.... can be mafkia. Ulehokia le'einei hashemesh. The Torah World had Spoken!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The beauty of the self-executing נידוי.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There were no Hazmanos from this Bais Din. That contributes - or is the proof - that this Seiiruv was a fraud and Shelo Kadin. And the words of the Shulchan Aruk that describes a Seiruv Shelo Kadin apply.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who exactly is putting them in nidui/cherem? And this means what exactly, no one (who goes by the nidui) can eat anything with their heksher (for example)?

    ReplyDelete
  21. According to your own supposition, the spoiled little rich girl contacted another BD instead of returning to the BBD. That second BD had no right to take the case. They were obligated to tell her to return to the BD that she KNEW was waiting for her.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Why are brining in the BDA? This is not from the BDA. But the BDA are also holy tzadikim - they issue sieruvim to non existent gentile FBI agents - which just shows how this feministic group of "rabbis" even attempts to contact the husband, let alone hear his side

    ReplyDelete
  23. Read the post - this so called kangaroo "beis din" did NOT send any hazmonos before issuing their seiruv. The burden is on them - if they did let them show the postal confirmation that they attempted to contact him.
    Now let us examine the so called 'rabbonim who signed on this

    kaminetsky - as has been proven many times on this blog he has tremendous bias and years of financial gain from one of the litigants and should never have been involved in this case, certainly not acting as a dayan. At the beginning of the Baltimore BD process he tried to integer and intimidate the BD to favor one of the litigants. That itself is beyond the worst form of rishous possible. Enough said!

    Schecter - all he can say is that he is signing because others have signed - pretty pathetic! Elsewhere he states that he is signing on because the holy sage, kaminetsky signed. But when kaminetsky mattered A aishes ish - why isn't schecter agreeing with the holy sage? Instead he hides in the corner and whispers he doesn't agree with the heter!! But does he still believe in the holy sage and the seiruv!?!

    Belsky (nebuch, he should have a refuah shelamah) fierly supported the husband until one day turned on the dime and signed on the seiruv. He then sent a pathetic apologetic message to the husband that he could just not withstand the pressure from the kaminetsky camp.

    Walmork - and his Talmud muvak, Mr Mendel Epstein, yemachshmo vezichro - may they rot together in federal prison forever and ever

    Ralbag. - the man the FBI/prosecutor gave immunity to testify and rat out others to save his own skin? Or should be just call him the Netherlands rabbi or the Hebrew national franks guy?

    I'll repeat - anyone and everyone whom has harmed the husband in any way what so ever (demonstrations, threats, harassment, mailings, phone calls) will certainly pay dearly, if not in this world, in the world to come)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Why did people jump to follow the bogus seruv against a layman yet when BELSKY and RALBAG signed a seruv 4 years earlier against a Young Israel "rabbi", that seruv (shown here, annotations in color) was completely ignored or undermined through FRAUD, FORGERY and PERJURY?

    ReplyDelete
  25. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJanuary 27, 2016 at 3:53 PM

    This seiruv stinks to high heaven! Notice how some of the rabbis dont belong to this Bais Din, namely Rabbis Schechter, Kamenetsky and Wolmark. This is the same trick as the Meir Kin seiruc deceitfully produced by Nochum Sauer, Avrohom Union from LA and got Herschel Schachter from Ny to join. They couldnt get anyone else from LA? This seiruv is posted at ORAS website:
    http://media.wix.com/ugd/e5498d_72fd26fb11de316bb9867ca6ea1ce00e.pdf
    Another interesting point. WATCH OUT FAKE RABBIS WHO USE THEIR POWER TO HUMILIATE MEN IN PUBLIC! This Seiruv contains names of people who ironically suffered retribution from shomayim in this year. WOLMARK,RALBAG, EPSTEIN, AND KAMENETSKY. Those of you that think that all that happened is coincidence, youre mistaken. It is precisely this year that many rabbis involved in "forced Gittin" have been dealt a heavy blow in their lives. My hope is that they should repent, retract their harsh words, and finally bring down ORA too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. But the letter says they did send hazmanos, and they were ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Something to think about for those who claim 'get on demand is not the jewish way'.
    Though it has not been accepted halacha for 'recent' history; even the shulchan oruch seems to rule against it, before that it was.
    The rambam, the one who wrote the 13 ani ma'amims that the religious world accept as dogma, held that you could force a husband to divorce if his wife considered him repulsive. And his stance was nothing new since the geonim had also held with that for hundreds of years.

    You may preach all you want about how you think that 'get on demand' is down to modern lack of morality and is not the torah way but historically not are you only simply wrong but you are accusing the geonim and the rambam of not understanding how the torah wants us to live.

    It is obvious that at different times, different approaches to divorce were necessary based on social issues and they are all in line with the torah. At some point the gedolim decided that 'get on demand' was not appropriate in their time but what a chutzpa to try and issue a cherem on rabbonim who think that it is again necessary. The blindness of people who claim they are religious yet are so ignorant of the living halachic process is disastrous.
    Do not claim that this cherem is based on bouncing around beis dins; that probably happens all the time and no one cares.

    This is about people who don't want women to be able to divorce even when their marriages are over because through their misguided zealotry they are repulsed by anything which may be construed as 'feminism or women's rights'. They, through their ignorance of jewish and halachic history, have decided that they know the true torah way and don't care how much hate and divisiveness they are causing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. No need to be upset. This is widely known as a *Boomerang* called in Talmud as *ADARABAH*. It is hasgacha protis of Divine Intervention and Divine Retribution that afflicts those involved in such crooked proceedings. This goes to the ORA footsoldiers just as well, heima vesholcheihem. I am sure many can attest to that. Tse uvdok.

    Have you seen the worldwide reaction of the TRUE Gedoilei HaDor and Gedoilei HaPoskim, The ARRUR VESHAMTA, and the SHARYA'S? It states VEHOELOKIM YEVAKESH ES HANIRDAF, VENETSACH YISROEL LO YESHAKER!!!

    ps. this is in reinforcement to your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Very well said, only to add that NEKOM *LE'EINENU* NIKMAS DAM AVODECHO HASHOFUCH, *CHAYEY SHAA* ALSO COUNTS! *BAZEH, U'VEBO*

    Wait, we are not done yet, after the smoke has cleared from this FIASCO, the Mamzeirimlach Parsha wil be put on the Operating Table. And it ain't gonna be Pretty. Vayivku al Mishpechoysom, will be a B'CHIYA leDoros to come. As the Great Mendele of Bnei Odom Yoshvei Choshech has spoken, "And he will know". I am sure he does [ BAZEH ] by now.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If you read the original letter from the Silver Spring Vaad it would indicate that AF did respond to them that the Baltimore BD had jurisdiction. The original Vaad letter in fact states that they are not getting involved because the Baltimore BD had jurisdiction.
    What is your assertion that AF was engaged in stonewalling based on? Whose narrative was that? There has been no reinvention of history - if you have been following this blog for a while you would know that the arguments being made have been consistent all along.
    Its only taken 5 years for the truth to start comeing out. As Winston Churchill said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on". I might add that now that the truth has gotten it's pants on it seems that people now realize about the emporers clothes.

    ReplyDelete
  31. “Rabbis Aryeh Ralbag, Yisrael Belsky, Mordechai Wolmark, Shmuel Kamenetsky, Gavriel Stern and Hershel Schachter are in [nidui] [cherem]. The issuance of a purported "seruv"[contempt] against Aharon Friedman was outrageous from the very beginning. “

    Wow. I love this. Why? The parallel to Susan. I’m trying at the NYS Court of Appeals motion number 2016-125 to overturn the outrageous from the very beginning March 23, 2015 contempt order against me. The Appellate Division 2nd Dept docket number 2015-04424 on June 2, 2015 says “Appeal by Gerald Aranoff from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 23, 2015. On the Court’s own motion, it is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed…” I’m trying to cancel $25,000 fines of Judges Rigler and Garson. I’m trying to get back my house and pension. I’m also trying to get back my good name as Susan was the rebellious wife and liar. Now, why should the Appellate Division “On the Court’s own motion, it is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed…” They’re on Susan’s side just as Rabbis Aryeh Ralbag, Yisrael Belsky, Mordechai Wolmark, Shmuel Kamenetsky, Gavriel Stern and Hershel Schachter are on Tamar’s side.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Doubt very highly there is any BD bigger than Rabbi Belsky, anywhere in the world. I will give the blog owner a yasher koach for at least honestly posting info from the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lo rainu einah raya.

    ReplyDelete
  34. FedupwithcorruprabbisJanuary 27, 2016 at 6:39 PM

    David, sorry but get on demand is wrong not only halchacally but morally too as it is 1 more tool in the feminist arsenal to activate when her mood so wishes. It is unfair to the man to lose his Home, children, life because his wife just wants out.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This beis din lacked any jurisdiction 1) because they were from a different city and the halacha is that a person needn't ever respond to (let alone accept) a beis din from outside his city and more importantly because 2) another beis din already had jurisdiction of the case, accepted by both sides, and another beis din was prohibited from getting involved in the case.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The BBD said clearly there was no reason to even respond even if they did.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't think theyll ever tell you theyre in violation of ANYTHING. They just think that THEYRE on the right side of justice, and the BBD is on the wrong side. The argument can be extended to R'A. Shechter in the 80s, where he was a mesarev ladin by R'Moshe & he is certainly be'niddui now, but so what? He thinks he's on the right side, and everyone else is on the wrong side!

    Another point: When RHS says 'I was told by RSK & I can trust him, k'var hura chochem etc.', he's talking about his own judgement as well. he's part of the avlah & the ivvus hadin.

    Be'ikvisa D'mishicha, Chutzpah Yasgah.... P'nei HadorK'pnei Hakelev.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Very hard to believe the Rabbis signed onto a lie that there were no hazmomos. It says clearly that there was "final warning" (which I think in halacha is the 3rd and final hazmono) sent -- is this not true and a plain lie ?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I find it very hard to believe the Rabbis above signed onto a document thats a plain lie . It says clearly that there was "final warning" (which I think in halacha is the 3rd and final hazmono) sent before this siruv -- is this not true ? Who is lying here -- you (that there was no hazmonos) or the document signed by the Rabbis (which says clearly there were hazmomos sent)?

    ReplyDelete
  40. What an idiotic response - they clearly write in their ksav seiruv that they sent him hazmanos - but because you didnt see them they are lying. Please share how you and the original poster reach your conclusion that hazmanos were never issued. Did you ask for proof from the members of the BD and they denied to show you?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Aharon Friedman told me. The burden of proof is on the beis din to prove that they sent them

    ReplyDelete
  42. If you understand that the beis din knew that the Baltimore Beis din was involved and thus they had no right to intervene besides the fact that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky was calling for demonstrations to pressure Aharon - despite the Baltimore Beis Din said he had no obligation at that point and you understand that the seruv demands that Aharon give a get - though know authoritzed beis din that heard both sides held that way - it is not much more to state lies in the document

    ReplyDelete
  43. Burden of proof is on the Beis Din that they sent them. Given their other egreious sins of commission it is not hard to accept that they also are claiming something that didn't happen

    ReplyDelete
  44. Let them post those three or X amount of hazmones, just like they did with the copy of supposed seruv.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The husband, Aharon, had no obligation to even respond to the UOR hazmana, according to halacha. According to halacha, if a Beis Din from outside your city summons you, you have the complete halachic right to ignore it and never respond. Only a Beis Din within your own city has the right to summon you.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The husband, Aharon, had no obligation to even respond to the UOR hazmana, according to halacha. According to halacha, if a Beis Din from outside your city summons you, you have the complete halachic right to ignore it and never respond. Only a Beis Din within your own city has the right to summon you

    ReplyDelete
  47. Rav Belsky is not renown for being a dayan. There are very many great dayanim talmidei chachomim that are better known that Rav Belsky as far as dayanus and butei dinim.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The husband, Aharon, had no obligation to even respond to the UOR hazmana, according to halacha. According to halacha, if a Beis Din from outside your city summons you, you have the complete halachic right to ignore it and never respond. Only a Beis Din within your own city has the right to summon you..

    ReplyDelete
  49. Actually he retreated when R' Elyashiv z"l ordered so. Can you Fathom the weight of these heavy duty Caliber Gedoilei UPoskei haDor from all over the world along with the B52's hayoshvim al haMODIN? Aryeh shoag mi lo yiro?
    In any case, when we found out of this whole Kip & Caboodle in cahoots, forging documents, serving non-existing hazmonos, and doing anything and everything wrong that could just be done wrong, lying through their teeth, the scale outweighs him and them by lightyears ahead. Haterem teda ki ovdo Mitsrayim? From hence on, they can only go South. Did you forget that the OU removed him from their list of guests?

    ReplyDelete
  50. My rebbe, Reb Shlomo Wahrman ZL, was the gadol hador. about 12 sefarim of lomdus on all shas. And a huge mensch. Kol raz lo anis lei.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Now please, let's even assume the hazmanos were never issued, or got lost in the mail, or the dog ate them. It can happen. But nevertheless, the seiruv seems to have safely arrived. And it seems to have done such a good job of arriving, that the entire world knew about it years ago. What does a person acting in good faith do upon receipt of such a letter? He would immediately respond to the beis din saying, for some reason I never received the hazmanos? What were they in reference to? What do I need to do to rectify the situation and have the seiruv removed? Or, please note that this matter is being handled by XYZ beis din, and is in progress. Thank you for your concern.

    None of that happened, unless anybody knows otherwise. Clearly, he was stonewalling. (Again, for the umpteenth time, I am not judging the merits of his position, whether he deserved more custody. Just saying he handled it the wrong way, and thus caused himself numerous problems.) By doing that, he set into motion the sequence of events that led to the heter.

    ReplyDelete
  52. There is no way to legislate morality , these rabbis are corrupt it's not the rules which need to be tightening in my humble opinion I think r 'reuvein idea of making a takana is just his elegant way of pointing out all the corruption which has been done . These rabbis have to stop demanding respect and act respectable and they will receive what is due to them. how can they lie to the public and still expect to get respect?.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Politically IncorrectJanuary 27, 2016 at 10:36 PM

    Susan has long been out voted, together with mine, her absence was appreciated. No one gave them permission to come...

    ReplyDelete
  54. Politically IncorrectJanuary 27, 2016 at 10:38 PM

    Unfortunately, long before this saga, I have often heard of bogus siruvim issued by botei di.....

    ReplyDelete
  55. The chidren also have a say, they do not want to be brought into this world to have a mother take their father away. Why didn't she say that upfront that she is of this school, Get on demand. She also has no business to bring children into this world with this kind of philosophy. Why does she get married to begin with. How many of these get demanders get married just to have children for security and then run for their lives? According to Talmud in Masechet kidushin, Veohavto lereacho Kamocha, she is not allowed to get married.

    ReplyDelete
  56. there were NO hazmanas whatsoever

    ReplyDelete
  57. When is the letter from all the Roshei Yeshivas against the heter getting published?

    ReplyDelete
  58. There is a quote from the Satmar rebbi, if one can say a lie, he can also write a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It is true as much as the seruvim served for the non-existing husbands. Ask the feds, and they will tell you all about it. Yechi haSting.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Don't forget Belsky- having some tzoris. Not that we know Cheshbonai Shamayim, but sometimes we are zocheh to see small details.
    The ultra-reshaim like Fuerst aren't zocheh to get their punishment in this world

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm sure the geonim, the rambam, rashi, rashbam, s'mag, rabad and tosafot will be happy to know that they are all immoral feminists.
    The rosh who disagrees, and must be the source for the shulchan oruch's ruling against this, states explicitly why he disagrees. To avoid cases where she just fancies someone else. However, he also concludes "...However in this case her brother related to me her reason for rebelling and you as the judge in this matter must ascertain whether or not there is any substance to her claims. But if his intent is to leave her an agunah then it is proper that you rely on his custom and force him to give a get."

    It seems pretty clear that if she really dislikes him, and this is not just because of a flight of fancy, there is room, even according to him to force a divorce and all the more so if they have reached the stage where she is going to become an aguna.

    That is Torah morality. As the rambam says, "she is not a captive who has to stay with someone she hates."

    People seem to have an obsession with 'anti feminism'. Not everything they say is evil and automatically assuming it is shows a great deal of stupidity and short sightedness. Judge issues on their own merits.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Rest assured, the blog owner namely R' Doniel E. is a very straight shooter. Look at the Polls up to your right. That's why this blog went up twofold in such a short time. from an average of 35K to 75K and up per week and going strong. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Halacha is based on cherry picking sources that agree with you. The overwhelming majority of poskim rejects the view of the Rambam and that position has been maintained for hundreds of years

    besides that this is not a case of the wife claiming her husband disgusted her but rather that she thought she could do better. No force is permitted is such cases

    ReplyDelete
  64. please reread the halacha. When you are dealing with major figures who are violating elementary halacha there are very few if any steps to fight back - contrary to your wishful thinking. You fiction of "stonewalling" does not explain or excuse what has happened nor does it accurately describe what Aharon did. But you keep repeating this nonsense as if someone repetiation makes it more true. The documentation I have provided on this subject overwhelmingly indicates what happened - except for you and Rabbi Bechhofer

    ReplyDelete
  65. Have any of these poskim actually used the Rambam as a source for their positon? I recall RHS never used it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Are we to understand that Rav Moshe Sternbach or a similarly eminent authority condoned a posting that Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky and Rav Herchel Schechter are in Cheirem?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I have had this debate with many toanim/dayanim before. Even if the nitva has a valid basis for not responding to a hazmana, it is worthwhile having a rav respond (either in writing or by picking up the phone) asserting that the nitva will not respond because he is not required according to halacha to do so. First of all, if you receive a hazmana and don't respond you are guaranteed to receive a siruv (I can't say what the fact were here, but typically until a nitva responds the bet din doesn't know anything other than what the tovea says and the process of going from hazmana to siruv is often very administrative in nature). Even if the siruv should be ignored according to halacha part of the damage has already be done. Secondly, many batei dinim will not issue a siruv if they receive a communication from a rav explaining why they are not responding (i have been involved in many scenarios where this is in fact how things played out). Third, even if they will issue a siruv in spite of the notice, having responded will potentially put the nitva in a better procedural position by being able to show that he responded respectfully and put the bet din on notice that he was responding due to a halachic reason. In short, while ultimately halacha controls, there is more to managing the process than just halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Politically IncorrectJanuary 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM

    This is problematic especially if they are making money doing it. Also, too often, there are connections (and too often they themselves do not realize it. ....)

    ReplyDelete
  69. Politically IncorrectJanuary 28, 2016 at 12:44 AM

    Unbelievable and also energetic ahavas Yisroel for someone you never met....unbelievable and also energetic sinas chinom, um, Dan l'kaf chov for someone you've never met. .....

    .......sure you don't have an agenda here......perhaps just an ideology at stake?

    ReplyDelete
  70. 1) The husband, Aharon, had no obligation to even respond to the UOR hazmana, according to halacha. According to halacha, if a Beis Din from outside your city summons you, you have the complete halachic right to ignore it and never respond. Only a Beis Din within your own city has the right to summon you.

    2) The husband DID tell the UOR beis din that he does not accept their jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction of the case is already in the hands of the Baltimore Beis Din.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Just reading a simple black and white piece of paper that is posted here.

    ReplyDelete
  72. And from the geonim till after the rambam they held that a woman could demand a get. Things change.
    The important thing is a)hundreds of year halacha and many rishonim did allow get on demand. b) that even the Rosh in his reasoning why he disagreed left it open for a woman who wasn't just running off on a fancy and in a case where the eggs were already broken, said it was "proper" for a get to be forced. There is another Rosh quoted by the rema that tells of an incident where the rosh himself himself said "...we will rely on those authorities who ruled that we may force the husband of a moredet to divorce her..."

    How do you know how many countless divorces decided behind closed doors were forced by rabbonim based in this over the past centuries.

    Concerning this specific case - I don't know or care. I was commenting against the people who seem to think that torah morality says a woman needs to stay married to someone she hates.

    ReplyDelete
  73. If 2) is true, (and this was over 5 years ago, according to the date on this letter), then how on earth did the Balt BD not know that all this time. It was only this month, when they decided to check into why proceedings were halted. Come on, people are playing games here. Nobody has been able to account for why there has been zero progress towards a get, despite the involvement of many distinguished rabbonim. Case has been cold for over 5 years. If Balt BD was working with husband on negotiating, they would have known and publicized it, and sent hazmana to wife.

    People are running around in circles.

    ReplyDelete
  74. the rosh himself did. And the rema.
    תשובות הרא"ש כלל ל"ה
    רמ"א באה"ע סימן ע"ז ס"ג

    ReplyDelete
  75. But I say he didn't tell you. Now prove that he did. Same logic.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Now, let's assume a hypothetical case where there were no children involved, and all the hazmanas were sent from proper beis din with return receipt from post office. Wife wants out because she claims husband has personality disorder. He won't give get for 8 years. Is heter now justified? Yes or No?

    If no, then why are you potchkying about hazmanas and batei din? You still hold she must remain stuck.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Women have just as much right to happy lives as children do.
    According to Veohavta lereacho Kamocha her children should want their mother to be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Don't hold your breath. RAS and Co. can't do squat against another member of the Moetzes as others here already claimed. Best possible outcome is that numerous Rabbonim/RY will follow the either Reb Feivel Cohen's or Reb Ruvain Feinstein's approach. Only problem with that is that there are an equal amount of Rabbonim/RY willing to defend RSK and Co. Unless it the heter is brought to a B"D that all agree upon to decide there I doubt if it will be resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  79. haven't heard Tamar claim that Aharon has a personality disorder. Please tell me when and where she made such a declaration?

    ReplyDelete
  80. I don't have to prove anything to you. This beis din is making a claim that is denied by Aharon Friedman. The beis din at this point does not have a chazkas kashrus. There is no reason to believe anything they say without clear proof.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Sorry Barry - you keep making claims but about what you think must be - but continue to ignore the facts that have been established

    ReplyDelete
  82. David - you are simply ignoring what the rishonim say about the relevance of the view of the Gaonim.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Barry you've gone completely deaf and stuffed your ears with cotton and put blindfolds on your eyes and continue to utterly ignore the response you get to your question. And then you continue to repost your same answered question over and over again on every thread on this subject.

    For the umpteenth time, the wife Tamar dropped out of beis din and refused to further participate in their proceedings. That and that alone is why the case stalled for seven years. She refused to participate in anything that might result in the child needing to live in the current vicinity of the father.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yes, she must remain stuck as long as she illegitimately keeps her husband stuck in his inability to be near his child, sure to get continued actions. She's hold her own key to freedom in her pocketbook.

    ReplyDelete
  85. If you were aware of the Halachik literature you would know that the Geonim and Rambam have no source in Shas. The Rishonim posit that it was a Takanah that relied on Mitzvah Lishmoa Divrei Chachomim. They Takanah didn't last and therefore it is Batul. Therefore the Rabbonim nowadays would have to unite en masse to make a Takanah again, which no self-respecting Rov would ever do, as he knows that he's not the Gaonim.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Please research the matter by searching on this blog. The other B"D was contacted; it is all documented on the blog, you just need to look.

    ReplyDelete
  87. * They do not want to be brought into this world*...

    The Talmud in Masechet kidushin states, if she finds any fault with a man she should not marry him to* BEGIN * with, because of veohavta leracho kamocho. So don't marry him and bring children into this world, and you won't have to break anyone's heart, and no children will have to grow up yesoimim bli Av. Everyone will live happily ever after. Yes, and in this order! The women can be as happy as their heart desires, together with their rights.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Tamar didn't have to claim Aharon has a personality disorder when she was in B"D over the get. It is only relevant to the issue of mekach ta'us, which is not for Tamar to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Barry the point is how corrupt the whole situation is, you can't claim these people really think that they are doing the right thing when they'll do anything to get their way , fraud deception misuse of power and a total embarrassment to Torah law. Barry if this was a secular court they would all be be debarred and sitting in jail by now, these are not honorable men who we are meant to trust and take the word for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Piece of paper? ? Which newspaper are you reading what's the date on top ?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Yes very hard to believe because all while till it finally sunk in, yes this this story is a real game changer for most of us we will change the way we look at the establishment . Sad .

    ReplyDelete
  92. nonsense. Of course she needs to mention that his mental health is a reason she wants the divorce

    ReplyDelete
  93. please state the text that indicates that they are in favor of get on demand. Saying there was a time period where as an emergency measure men were forced to give a get - what does that have to do with the present situation? Difficult to extrapolate from a crisis 1000 years ago to the present

    ReplyDelete
  94. Your citation of Rambam on forcing a GET is the typical halachic voodoo of the "Orthodox" feminists. The Rambam ZT"L in Hilchos Ishus 14:8 also states in regard to a Jewish wife who is repulsed by her husband: "einah noteles b'shel baal klum" (She is not entitled to anything that belongs to her husband. She should remove even the shoe on her foot...).

    A wife abandoning Bais Din, litigating in non-Jewish courts, and removing the children to another state is only in compliance with the Rambam in the alternate Universe of the "Orthodox" feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Really sorry, but your version simply doesn't hold water. Husband is ready and waiting in beis din for all these years and wife is refusing to go. Unless Reb Shmuel and the other rabbonim totally lost their minds, CV, instead of creating a special heter, they would simply advise Tamar to negotiate with husband. This is not a delicate halachic matter that one could disagree with Reb Shmuel's psak. This would be a question of sanity. But nobody has suggested that Reb Shmuel lost his mind. Ella mai, the husband was stonewalling, as Rabbi Belsky's seiruv above indicates.

    Second, it would be in the husbands's interest to resolve matter, as well. He himself can't remarry without giving his wife a get. So, if he is in compliance with Balt BD, why hasn't he been sending his wife hazmanos, all this time, if she is the recalcitrant one?

    Third, if he has been involved with Balt BD the entire time, would Balt BD have had to make a special investigation, and then announce after 5 years, Oh, by the way, we found some old court documents that seem to say husband was not the one who initiated secular court proceedings? Rather, they would know first-hand because they had been in constant contact with husband all this time. and they certainly would have told the Kaminetzkys, Rav Nota, Reb Shmuel Fuerst and all the others that they are handling case. Not to mention that they would have told all the signatories on the above seiruv that they are handling it. Rav Schechter wrote above that anybody who can help Tamar obtain get should do so. Don't you think Balt BD would call Rav Schechter and tell him, don't worry, we have husband here with us, and everything is under control.

    So the facts simply don't support your assertion that the entire time husband has been in compliance with any beis din, and that Tamar was the one who refused to go. It simply strains the imagination. I agree that husband has a valid claim that perhaps he deserves better custody arrangements, but there is no evidence that he was willing to sit down and negotiate and give a get afterwards. Rather, he appears to have been stonewalling, based on all the documents that have been produced.

    In order to avoid confronting what the seiruv above says in simple black and white, you have resorted to all kinds of contortions, claiming all these rabbonim are in cherem, and trying to dismiss it on an unproven technicality that there were no hazmanos sent, despite that document says they were sent. You are trying to wish away any inconvenient facts.

    So the bottom line seems to be that husband was very upset about not seeing his child enough, but did not go about addressing this problem the proper way by negotiating in a beis din with his wife. He instead cut off from the process.

    ReplyDelete
  96. If you were aware of how halacha worked you wouldn't make such a comment. The geonim and rishonim didn't need a source in shas to pasken halacha. They used their mesora of the structure of halacha to decide what was appropriate for their times. In fact, that is the main difference between rishonim and acharonim; we reached a time when we could no longer say that our gedolim knew enough to be able to pasken on their own and from now on they had to find an earlier rabbi to rely on.

    The rambam didn't say anything about a takana, neither did any of the other many rishonim who agree with him such as rashi. The reasons for the halacha that had been in use for centuries was given. The rosh says why he disagrees with the reasoning in general but himself allows it, and even ruled by it, when the claims are legitimate. He doesn't throw it out because it is just a takana with no source. He ruled against it because he had that power as a rishon and thought it appropriate.
    Besides, if you want a source in the gemara, just assume that the list of reasons given why a wife would find her husband repulsive are just examples relevant to that time and can be extended.

    Again, it is not for me to decide if the current psak should be changed. I was saying that min hatorah it is fine for a woman to demand a get if she can't stand her husband.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I repeat myself that i am not talking about a specific present situation. My comments were aimed at the hostile comments which claim that women should just shut up and suffer because that is the torah way.
    I don't agree that there was a time period with an emergency measure. The poskim then just decided on the halacha and then later, others such as the rosh disagreed (with, as have been recorded, exceptions).
    Why is it so hard for people to accept that rishonim argue and both way are acceptable min hatorah? Whether we should change practical halacha today is something else.

    ReplyDelete
  98. You don't know what you are talking about. Please check elementary history. The explanation of it being an emergency situation is in the rishonim. You don't believe them?!

    ReplyDelete
  99. your description is serious in error and shows a major lack of awareness of the literature

    ReplyDelete
  100. What's the difference? Personality disorder is not grounds for a get. That's what I keep saying. All rabbonim who matter have said that even if 100% true, the hetter is still no good.

    ReplyDelete
  101. C'mon Barry, I don't believe you're really that thick. I think you can comprehend the point that's been made over and over to you without rewording your question and asking it all over again.

    In a nutshell, what the dispute boiled down to was where the child should live. The husband wants the child to live in the town where the couple were married and resided and had their child. The wife wants the child to live in another State. The husband is and was willing to have the beis din decide this dispute while the wife having gotten a favorable ruling to her vantage point from the non-Jewish court wanted to keep it as it is without risking having to move back to Silver Spring.

    So she refused to come back to beis din.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Politically IncorrectJanuary 28, 2016 at 10:15 PM

    David, your first 2 paragraphs reminisce me to something I heard from Reb Elya Svei zt"l. He was bothered that some people criticized Rav Shach zt"l when he came out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe's notion of learning 3 perakim Rambam a day. One of the reasons he said why such antagonism was appropriate, was that when unlearned people take to Rambam, they will end up paskening from it and understandably arrive at erroneous conclusions....

    As far as your 3rd paragraph is concerned, halacha has a far more complex and sophisticated approach than just conforming it to 'modern times'...

    ReplyDelete
  103. Politically IncorrectJanuary 28, 2016 at 10:32 PM

    Seriously, why are we davening for R' Belsky?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Politically IncorrectJanuary 28, 2016 at 11:13 PM

    Obviously, you need to read all of the papers- before and after. .also keep in mind that before Aharon Friedman was helpless, so the Baltimore Bais Din said that writing a letter or speaking out would be pointless (I.e., we are scaredy cat to fight the bigger cats, unlike now, with so many letters of very prominent and powerful rabbonim, with a gross injustice exposed in issur aishes ish, indirectly exposing the injustice done to him.....

    ReplyDelete
  105. Politically IncorrectJanuary 29, 2016 at 1:15 AM

    "C'mon Barry, I don't believe you're really that thick. "

    Actually, it was dawning upon me that maybe we are so thick, if we didn't catch on until now

    ReplyDelete
  106. The gaping hole in your theory is how all the rabbonim went along with her. Rav Belsky and Rav Schechter didnt know enough to tell her to stop misbehaving and go to a beis din like a big girl? And furthermore, an earlier thread quoted Rav Schechter as saying he had some qualms about the heter because of the type of evaluations made of the husband. According to you, he should have said much stronger that the heter is not valid because she is a mesareves din who needs to go to beis din.

    So the metzius that everybody was working with all along was that the husband was the mesarev here.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Barry I think this case has seriously disturbed your mental balance. You keep ignoring the facts and build up a fantasy world to protect your belief in these rabbis. But the evidence is too clear and abundant that they have betrayed you.

    ReplyDelete
  108. The entire beis din went along with the husband, not the wife. You purport to know better than the dayanim who heard the case?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Torah came from Sinai. It was then transmitted to us primarily through Shas. Something not in Shas would then not be in the Torah, although it could still be a Takanah.

    ReplyDelete
  110. You missed the whole point. Rav Shternbuch explained, im ken ein ledovor sof. The next thing you know, these so called rabonim ARE potchkening with all kind of schwindlerei, chicanery, beatings, false hazmonas, false seruvim, eishes ish, mamzerim, even beating up and bludgeoning nonexistent men to death if you have the big bucks. The sting proved everything that has being going on all the way to the top. They even have an army of YIMACH SHEMAM VEZICHROM SHARY'A foot soldiers doing character assassinations, and taking away the bread and butter from their mouths. A guy like this needs to be hung dry in towns square by the Authorities. They must be brought down to their knees, they don't rule, we the people rule. Stop funding these terrorists YMS.

    ReplyDelete
  111. See, if you would say that these distinguished rabbonim made a mistake in the metzius, and thought he was the mesarev, when it was really her, we could arrive at some understanding. Although I would still have an argument that if he was cooperating, the Balt BD would have immediately notified these rabbonim that they were mistaken about the metzius. (And the fact that even Balt BD was confused for years shows he was obviously not cooperating in a very open and obvious way, if at all.)

    But instead, you have now clearly indicated that your entire case is based on the character assasination of not only the Kaminetzkys and Rav Nota, but also of Rav Schechter and Rav Belsky. That despite fully knowing the metzius, they deliberately helped a mesareves din avoid beis din at the expense of an innocent husband. They also lied about sending fictitious hazmanos.

    I learned by Rav Belsky for part of a summer at Camp Agudah, and clearly he was no lightweight. I estimate that even if he did no learning all day, except for an hour of daf yomi, he must have finished shas at least 5 times by now. There were also rumors he got a 1600 on his SAT. He was also not known to be a big feminist, to the best of my knowledge. There were no partnership minyanim at Camp Agudah, and I don't believe at Torah Vadaas either.

    Are you absolutely sure you want to frame your case in this way? I for one don't buy it. Whatever happened I can't say for sure, but that all these top-tier rabbonim would go against halacha defies the imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  112. You have summarized the issue very well. I also would not like to believe the evidence and create fictional events to justify what has happened - but the truth prevents me from doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I have no doubt the news this morning of Rav Belsky's passing will have the hand-wringers crying why are these tragedies happening to klal yisrael? As Rav Aryeh Shulman of TelszStone points out, in every tragedy there is a message from Shomayim. As my brother in Passaic told me his Rosh Yeshiva said, each individual knows what that message is for them. It is up to them to each of us act upon it.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Perhaps Rav Belsky is today's Yair ben Menashe? (Sefer Yehoshua, Perek 7)

    ReplyDelete
  115. I also knew Rav Belsky, zt"l, from Camp Agudah and my Uncle Simcha knew him all the way back from when they were children in Torah Vodaath. He was no lightweight but neither was he able to take opposition his colleagues when it was warranted. And I personally saw how he could be manipulated. So while he was a gadol in Torah knowledge, he was often used by those with agendas that were less than savory.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Politically IncorrectJanuary 29, 2016 at 6:26 PM

    This morning, I approached someone as I know as a talmid chochom, and asked him what he thinks of the "heter". He says that it's not for us, we have nothing to do with it. He then added that I should cry on the petirah of such an Odom gadol who just passed away. I stood there tongue tied and frustrated. Very Hard for me to even type. ..

    Yes, I have so much banging on my mind, but I feel a hunch whenever I see a soul walk by that I have no one to talk to. ...if you know what I mean. .....

    ReplyDelete
  117. Oh for heavens sake.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Reb Moe, if you are referring to the recent retraction from the Balt BD, it says that they were the ones who wrote a letter many years earlier stating that the husband was at fault. They now want to correct the record based not on their own knowledge, but on basis of some old court records they just discovered.

    So all this time they themselves didn't really know what was going on, which calls into question the degree of cooperation and contact they had with husband all these years.

    One therefore can't blame all the other rabbanim for going by the first letter of the Balt BD. It is also highly probable that Balt BD decided to further investigate matter only now, because of the impending heter.

    Therefore most likely scenario is that husband ceased contact with Balt BD, or Balt BD ceased contact with husband due to some error. But at any rate, it was not discovered until a bunch of well-meaning rabbanim had felt that no progress had been made for too long, and that they had no choice but to take more drastic action to get things moving. This prompted Balt BD to reopen investigation. But was too late at that point.

    The alternate scenario, that the entire time all these distinguished rabbanim knew it was wife who refused to go to BD, while husband was ready and willing on a moment's notice and constantly urging BD to convene, and that these rabbanim decided to deliberately circumvent the halacha and get process and have wife avoid BD, does not seem likely to me.

    You are free to believe whichever version you like.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I just dug up and reread this earlier thread:

    http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/11/baltimore-beis-din-tamar-epstein-is.html?m=1

    Basically, that letter from Balt BD seems to confirm what I wrote, that they had no contact with husband for all these years. However, I was thinking things over, and considering the recent apology letter to Aharon, and feel that perhaps there is a missing piece. Perhaps Aharon became very upset with Balt BD, because they did not understand his pain at having his child taken from him, and that they did not advocate strongly enough for him at that point. Rather, they treated it as a simple case of a recalcitrant husband who withholds get out of spite, and set in motion steps to get him to comply, without allowing him to express his grievances. At that point he may have gotten so upset with them, that he cut off contact. This explains their recent heartfelt apology letter.

    I feel terrible for the husband, and in all my posts was only seeking to establish the emes, and also to understand what recourse is available to women, in general, who may be in a difficult marriage and the husband refuses a get. It would seem that mekach taus should be theoretically available. However, without knowing either party, it is impossible to know the details of what trasnpired in this particular case. Certainly the husband has legitimate grievances. Hopefully, a beis din will hear both sides and give a fair ruling, followed by a get.

    So all I can say is that this is a tragedy for all sides, especially the child, as are all divorces. And I really wish that they could have made shalom at that time and avoided the whole situation. I have no personal ill-will against either side, nor to any of the rabbonim who tried to handle it, each in his own way, according to the best of his understanding.

    May we only have simchas in klal yisroel and in the entire world.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Are you deaf, dumb and blind? That BBD said at that time BOTH parties were at fault but IT WAS TAMAR WHO HAD THE OBLIGATION AT THAT TIME TO RETURN TO THE BAIS DIN! SHE HAD NO RIGHT TO GO ELSEWHERE! I suggest you read this 2012 article by Rabbi Josh Yuter ( http://joshyuter.com/2012/03/30/judaism/blame-rabbis-for-agunot-but-for-the-right-reasons/ ) even though I have no doubt you will try to twist what he wrote regarding the Epsteins.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Sorry you are feeling alone and misunderstood....
    However I would tend to agree with the talmid chacham you approached...
    I don't think a bunch of internet bloggers are going to have any impact on what the outcome will be...
    I'm still trying to figure out why this saga or any other saga has to be so public...
    I'm not an oora supporter either since they don't follow halacha, and often make matters worse, just like most marriage counselors.

    But how is this whole blog any better? Why does the whole world need to know every detail?

    Don't we all have more personal things to focus on? Or is everyone here related to the Friedman side?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Today’s headline in jpost:

    “Israel: French threat to recognize ‘Palestine’ if talks fail encourages deadlock” Has parallel to

    (internet 2012):

    “Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the bullets have been fired."

    Outsiders on Tamar’s side against her husband Aaron encourage Tamar for deadlock, not to negotiate with Aaron. Why should Tamar compromise on the smallest detail, if she knows that she’ll get her get for sure? Why should Tamar apologize for anything? The outsiders giving even small blame to Aaron helps Tamar enormously.

    Other women looking at this case will learn that they, too, can be completely intransient and stubborn and will emerge with a get and a good name. The truth is “The wisest of women builds her house, But folly tears it down with its own hands” (Proverbs 14:1).

    ReplyDelete
  123. Oy, this particular combination of the Bais Din has clearly gone to pot, look at what has happened since they all signed on to it:


    Rabbi Belsky has died, nebech.



    Rabbi Wolmark is going to jail, nebech.


    Rabbi Ralbag was booted from being "chief rabbi" of Holland, nebech.


    Rabbi Kaminetsky had drawn the open ire of the major Poskim and his son has been tarred and feathered, nebech.


    Rabbi Schachter is still at YU, nebech,



    and



    Rabbi Stern doesn't even count!


    What's left?


    Nothing really, what are these people waiting for, total annihilation? Wake Up, those of you who are not dead,m in jail, fired or out to lunch!!!

    ReplyDelete
  124. If you have been following this saga the answer to your question is obvious. Without public disclosure nothing would have been accomplished.

    This has repeated itself in the many cases dealt Tropper, Hirsch, Dodelson-Weiss, Kolko,Stein-Weis, child abuse etc etc

    ReplyDelete
  125. I read your very long and interesting article. It does not reveal anything more, though, of the actual facts than I had already written in my post below. (Although I don't know if my post had appeared until you had written this.) It is clear that neither party had any contact with Balt BD all these years. Your article also mentions that there was a complex series of events that led Agudas Harabbonim to get involved, but he has no documentation to prove. That is certainly a missing piece.

    Bottom line is that there was a big black hole for quite a few years where no progress was made. To make it seem like husband was in contact with BD, and wife was seeking to avoid is without basis. Balt BD had lost contact with both parties, as they made clear in Nov 2015 letter. Rabbi Yuter also wonders, as I do and wrote in earlier posts, why Balt BD didn't act to send out their own hazmanos to get things moving.

    There are many mysteries here, which defy any explanation. Why no action from Balt BD, why the shift to another BD? Nobody really knows what went on. But divorce is always a tragedy, and fighting over a child is very painful.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Because being nice doesn't seem to penetrate.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Yes. For "heavens sake" is quite apropos.

    ReplyDelete
  128. The Baltimore Bais Din HAS filled in some of those "mysteries" with their recent letter AND they stated on December 22, 2010 in the Washington Jewish Week:
    ”Currently, the Epstein-Friedman case remains open but dormant, as
    “neither party has approached” the Baltimore beit din, requesting that
    it reconvene, according to Rabbi Mordechai Shuchatowitz, a rabbi on the
    court. “Right now,” he said, “the ball is in [Epstein’s] court”
    because, as the party seeking the get, she is responsible for
    reinitiating proceedings." Why can't you accept that statement, “the ball is in [Epstein’s] court”, that was documented 5 years ago?

    ReplyDelete
  129. What were they apologizing for, exactly, just now?

    ReplyDelete
  130. You can read, can't you? Or do you just like to argue?
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/baltimore-beis-din-apologizes-for-many.html

    ReplyDelete
  131. Apropos to almost every one of your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  132. The implication was that they had been responsible for the demonstrations against him, and other public shaming, and that's why they were apologizing. That is far worse than the benign statement "the case is dormant and the ball is in wife's court to reinitiate proceedings, since she wants get". Even if beis din thought originally both had requested change of venue, and now found it was only wife, how does that translate to any harm for husband? Where did they say to shame him? Why are they apologizing for something they didn't have anything to do with? So it is clear that there is a piece of puzzle missing. How was he allowed to be shamed when she never restarted proceedings to try to obtain a get? And why do they feel responsible for the shaming, when it did occur? She did not do what she was supposed to do, and even if she had, where did they authorize shaming that they need to apologize for?

    So clearly there is a multi-year gap in which the events are unclear, and pieces of the puzzle are missing. Another mystery is why the Agudas Harabanim got involved when all she had to do was reopen dormant case in Balt BD? I don't accept that Rabbi Belsky ZL, who was my camp rebbe, perhaps the gadol hador, as well, was a wicked man who was pulling crazy tricks to have her avoid them. Atu brishii askinan? And ein adam choteh vlo lo. Same for Rabbi Schechter.

    ReplyDelete
  133. There is a very obvious factor that you are missing but in your multiple posts I think you might actually figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Rabbi Belsky had initially been supporting the husband, Aharon, in the Get dispute, even while Rabbi Kaminetzky had already been supporting the wife Tamar. Rabbi Belsky later changed his position midstream.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Why keep people in suspense?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Politically IncorrectFebruary 1, 2016 at 3:17 AM

    If not exactly, then I'm afraid, almost exactly. ..

    ReplyDelete
  137. Politically IncorrectFebruary 1, 2016 at 2:17 PM

    Follow the comments. .....is repetitive refusal, or perhaps endless and adamant refusal to have facts flippantly denied in your face,( pretty obviously due to stubborn leftist or feminist views, although may be denied) a cause for frustration? Most posters here (myself included) have no joy in offending people. They are pretty much not offensive to other commentors. Perhaps they would want the record to reflect that this point has been gone over again and again? .......

    On a further note, one might add, that a prime issue of discussion here is the lack of fortitude for some leaders carrying the Torah mantle to acknowledge their mistakes and here we have someone defending them also by not admitting to his erroneous outlook by continuous twisting of not just halacha, which one can have an ignorant misconception that can be interpreted in any abstract manner of one's choosing, but an endless repetition of misrepresented facts that simply did not occur like that, save in his mind because he so desires, so he can still look at it in the light of his ideology that is not necessarily true, but rather comfortable to him.

    If that would be all, it would not be of such concern. But, to project this unto others here as if it is truth and that the issues raised ate negated, can be legitimate cause for frustration. ....

    ReplyDelete
  138. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 19, 2019 at 11:58 PM

    who is the writer, to claim that Rav Belsky ztl, and Rav Shachter shlita are in nidoi?

    ReplyDelete
  139. Only the Agudah is to Blame m

    ReplyDelete
  140. in yener velt Nisht poshut

    ReplyDelete
  141. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 20, 2019 at 1:21 AM

    in something world is not simple?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Thanks, DT, for these old posts. See
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24037
    “Shall we stand idly by while our sister is treated like a prostitute? It is a question that stands for all time. The question is still here, it awaits an answer from each generation. Shall we stand idly by as women are raped-- even as we judge Shimon and Levi harshly for engaging in "overkill"? Do we stand idly by as women are forced into prostitution by dire poverty and abuse, or, like Dina, are kidnapped, forced into marriages against their will, trafficked to foreign countries and chained to brothel walls?¬¬”
    I read the old posts which I’m in. Phyliss Chesler asks Shall we stand idly by while our sister is treated like a prostitute? My comment there is: “So powerful, so moving, so deep, so well researched---a must read and a must study closely for everyone.”
    The ORA, Agunah International, and Rabbis: Ralbag, Belsky, Wolmark, Stern, Kamenestky, and Schachter are not following the plain meaning: “A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house” (Deuteronomy (24:1). They may think they follow seder nashim (Yevamouth, kethuboth, Nedarim, Sotah, Gittin, and Kiddushin).
    Torah thought from Rabbi Be’eri:
    “So Joseph gained possession of all the farm land of Egypt for Pharaoh, every Egyptian having sold his field because the famine was too much for them; thus the land passed over to Pharaoh.: (Genesis 47:20).
    Joseph wisely insisted that “every Egyptian having sold his field” because, otherwise, they could try to nullify the sales for various reasons, but not if every owner personally sells his field. In the K-G garbage heter Tamar personally agreed to marry Aaron, so she cannot cancel the marriage agreement.
    Is it fair for ORA, Agunah International, and their supporters to treat get refusers as Phyliss Chesler treats rapists ?
    “If Dina really loved Shechem, why would Shechem need to "talk to her heart," (v'yidabayer al lev hanaarah")? Shechem only did so after he "took" (va'yikach otah), slept with, (yishkav otah) and tormented or humbled (vaya-aneyhaa) her. Only after all this did Shechem's "soul cleave" to her (va'tidbak nafsho), and "he loved the young girl" (va'yeahav et hanara). Where else do we hear the phrase: "He talked to her heart?" In Shoftim, at a time when Israel has no king, we have another example of a man who is described with the exact same words. A concubine (pilegesh) has run away from her master/husband. Perhaps he has abused her. Maybe she just missed her father at home. In any event, this master/husband of the unnamed pilegesh also "yadabayer al lebah," he sweet talks her to leave her father's home in Bethlehem, in the territory of Yehudah.”
    ORA, Agunah International, and their supporters don’t allow that some get refusers they fight are truly just trying to “talk to her heart” and that no one should condemn them. “So Moses, at the Lord’s bidding, instructed the Israelites, saying: The plea of the Josephite tribe is just. This is what the Lord has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad: They may marry anyone they wish, provided they marry into a clan of their father’s tribe.” (Numbers 36:5-6). Everyone praises the righteous daughters of Zelophehad. My theory is that the erev rav were the trouble makers. There were Egyptian women that lied and said: I’m religious. I light candles Friday, I observe 7 clean days etc. These Egyptian women were following Balaam advice that lead to “The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur; he was the tribal head of an ancestral house in Midian.” (Numbers 25:15).

    ReplyDelete
  143. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJune 23, 2019 at 8:31 PM

    whats new. most batei din are corrupted and issue false seiruvim against innocent men

    ReplyDelete
  144. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 23, 2019 at 11:25 PM

    what is your scope of "corrupt rabbis" that you refer to? Are you only discussing seruvim, or do you recognize other areas too? What if they are corrupt in other ways like Messrs. Berland, Sheinberg, Tal et al?

    ReplyDelete

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