I was recently informed that Rav Greenblatt is currently working on a number of new cases which are equally shaky - but there are still no protests.
he obviously thinks that he wont be criticized again ! -
Saturday, April 28, 2018
anulling mariages
I was recently informed that Rav Greenblatt is currently working on a number of new cases which are equally shaky - but there are still no protests.
he obviously thinks that he wont be criticized again ! -
RDE, who was "the leading opponent" that you refer to above?
ReplyDelete“He replied that the backlash was so severe that no one would dare do such an irresponsible thing again”
ReplyDeleteThe ORA, Agunah International etc seek annulments. Rabbi Halevi found 19 halachic defects in that case http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2018/04/blog-post_16.html.
The backlash was so severe, properly so, because the fake/phony PhD psychology letter that Aaron is insane. The Schulachan Aruch rules leniencies for the captive wife, to permit her to her husband, or for woman whose husband died with no proof to permit her to remarry etc. Rabbi Greenblatt was happy with the fake/phony PhD psychology letter that Aaron is insane. We must never left up criticizing the fake/phony PhD psychology letter that Aaron is insane.
This is my letter I mailed today:
“…NYS Office of the Inspector General, Managing Inspector General for Bias Matters, Kay-Ann Porter Campbell, 25 Beaver Street, New York, New York 10004 USA, 646-386-3507 ig@nycourts.gov; … Dear Sir or Madam: …2. Exhibit A: Israel Divorce Hebrew 2/17/1993 was immensely pleasing to me. I became a free man. I could then start looking for my new wife, Yemima, whom I married May 9, 1993. God blessed us with 3 daughters: Hadassah, Tamar, and Sapphire Rivka. Susan and NYS courts could do nothing to undo Exhibit A and its implications, thank God. So I thought until Susan handed to Judge Prus the fake/phony Rigler 1995 Order of Separation on August 1, 2013. 3. Based on the fake/phony Rigler 1995 Order of Separation Susan got Judge Prus to rule Exhibit B: Judge Prus Ruling 9/25/2015. Lauren at the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct asked me if I seek a copy of a document. No, I don't seek the fake/phony Rigler 1995 Order of Separation. John P. Asiello wrote to me that the NYS Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to provide me with a copy of a court document. “New York's highest appellate court was established to articulate statewide principles of law in the context of deciding particular lawsuits.” Why should it interest New York's highest appellate court that NYS officials are blocking me from getting a copy of a critical document? Does Judge Prus have prerogative to keep me from getting a copy of a critical document Susan shows only to him. No. This should interest the NYS Court of Appeals, the NYS Office of the Inspector General, and the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct…”
The divorce process in Orthodox circles must be simplified and standardized! The only beneficiary's of the current system is Toenim and lawyers.There is a mediation firm out of Lakewood NJ known as GHDC LLC Godol Hsholom Dispute center. (Dontgotocourt@gmail.com) who is spearheading the effort.
ReplyDeleteSechel Hyosher says “The divorce process in Orthodox circles must be simplified and standardized!” No. The divorce process in Orthodox circles must follow the Schulcan Aruch, e.g.
ReplyDeleteשולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן יז סעיף ד
הכל נאמנים להעיד לה עדות זו, חוץ מחמש נשים שחזקתן שונאות זו את זו, שאין מעידות במיתת בעלה, שמא יתכוונו לאסרה עליו ועדיין הוא קיים. ואלו הן: חמותה, אפי' אינה עתה חמותה ובת חמותה, וצרתה, ויבמתה, ובת בעלה. וכן היא לא תעיד להם.
All are faithful to testify to this testimony, except for five women whose presumption שחזקתן they hate each other, who do not testify to the death of her husband, lest they intend to make her forbidden to and still he is alive. These are: her mother-in-law, even if no longer her mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law of her mother-in-law; And likewise she will not [be alloed to] testify to them.
Yevamoth 117a
Mishnah. All are regarded as trustworthy to give evidence [that her husband died] for her [any woman] excepting her mother-in-law. the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival, her sister-in-law [the wife of her husband's brother, who becomes her rival if levirate marriage is contracted] and her husband's daughter [all these are assumed to be, for one reason or another, hostile to her and are therefore suspected of giving false evidence (cf. supra n. 8 [She probably knows that her husband is alive and she has no intention of marrying again. All she aims at is the acquisition of the money.]) in the expectation that she will marry again and thereby become forever forbidden to their relative, her first husband.]. Wherein lies the difference between [the admissibility of] a letter of divorce and [that of the evidence of] death [i.e., why are the relatives mentioned accepted as qualified bearers of her letter of divorce, (v. Git, 23b) and not as eligible witnesses to testify to the death of her husband]? In that the written document [the letter of divorce] provides the proof [It is mainly the document itself that constitutes the validity of the divorce and not the eligibility of its bearer].”
Tamar’s mother is complicit in the physical assault of Aaron [per court records etc]. Tamar’s mother cannot bring evidence to a beit din that Aaron is insane, Aaron must divorce Tamar etc. Why? Because of the presumption that Tamar’s mother etc hates Aaron. The rulings of Yevamoth 117a are so wise!
I'm happy to discuss the initiative should you wish. Please email me at dontgotocourt@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteSechel hyosher says “I'm happy to discuss the initiative should you wish”
ReplyDeleteSorry, no.
A man and his wife fighting is like 2 dogs fighting, outsider should stay away or they’ll get bit “A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else’s quarrel Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears” (Proverbs 26:17). Esther Rabbah 4:1:
“Then the king consulted the sages learned in procedure. For it was the royal practice [to turn] to all who were versed in law and precedent” (Esther 1:13). Who were these? R. Simon said: These were the tribe of Issachar, as it says, “of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times, to determine how Israel should act; their chiefs were 200, and all their kinsmen followed them” (1 Chronicles 12:33). …. It is written, “The shrewd man saw trouble and took cover; The simple kept going and paid the penalty” (Proverbs 22:3). The shrewd man saw trouble and took cover: this is the tribe of Issachar. The simple kept going and paid the penalty: these are the seven princes of Persia and Media.”
The wicked Haman took Ahasuerus’ side and enlarged upon it: “Thereupon Memucan declared in the presence of the king and the ministers: Queen Vashti has committed an offense not only against Your Majesty but also against all the officials and against all the peoples in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:16 ).
The more society changes, the more things stay the same.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.torahmusings.com/2018/05/the-child-bride-of-tripoli/
Déjà vu
ReplyDeletehttp://m.bhol.co.il/article.aspx?id=133523&utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=link&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=article_in_bhol