audio link compare what he says AND WHAT HE WROTE
Joseph Orlow replies to Eddie “Stealth? I told him my name. Deception? Aharon Friedman is my friend, the friend to which I refer. What's with the accusations anyway? Chutzpah? The calls were made under the guidance of my Rabbis.”
can we have a transcript in English?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, Joe Orlow was doing a sneaky thing, calling up an elderly Rav and then confronting him all by way of stealth and deception,. What chutzpah.
Isn't there laws in the US against recording phone conversations without consent/advice of both parties?
ReplyDeleteMost states have a one-party rule, where one-party consents and it's legal. Some states such as California need both parties to consent. If none of the parties are aware it's illegal.
ReplyDeleteIt is legal to record your own conversation - even if the other party is unaware that you are recording it. It is only illegal for you to record the conversation of two different people, when both of those people are unaware that you are recording, without special permission from court.
ReplyDelete“Rav Shmuel's letter to Rav Weiss compare what he says AND WHAT HE WROTE”
ReplyDeleteVery good what Joe Orlow did. We must look for contradictions.
The Schucan Aruch deals with a case of of a contradiction between an upper part of a note document and lower part.
שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות הלואה סימן מב סעיף ה
היה כתוב בו למעלה דבר אחד, ולמטה דבר אחר, ואפשר לקיים (שניהם), מקיימים אותם. אבל אם הם סותרים זה את זה, כגון שכתוב למעלה: מנה, ולמטה: מאתים, או איפכא, הולכים אחר התחתון, והוא שלא יהיה בשטה אחרונה, ואין כתוב בשטר: והכל שריר וקיים. הגה: מיהו לאפקועי מבעל השטר למדין ואפילו משיטה אחרונה. ואם נמחק סכום של מטה, הכל פסול, דאפשר שהיה כתוב בו למטה רק דינר אחד. ויש מי שאומר שאם למעלה היה פורט והולך, ולמטה כתוב סכום הכל כך וכך, ופיחת או הוסיף, בזה אנו אומרים ודאי טעה בחשבון, ואחר הפרט אנו הולכים; ונראין דבריו. בד"א שהולכים אחר התחתון, כשאין האחד תלוי בחבירו. אבל אם היה כתוב בו: מאה שהם מאתים, או מאתים שהם מאה, אינו גובה אלא מאה, שהוא הפחות שבשניהם, דיד בעל השטר על התחתונה.
The Schulcan places more weight on the lower part, surely, because it is later than the upper part. Perhaps we too should place more weight on the audio than on the letter since the audio was later? Perhaps we should place more weight on the letter since a hand written document has enormous weight in the Schulcan Aruch, more than a verbal statement. In the Schulcan Aruch where there are erasures on the note, the whole document is void. To me, the contradictions show that that Rabbi Kamenetsky is aware that his heter is horrible and that he is trying damage control etc.
Enough, I say, of asking Rabbi Kamenetsky and his supporters for explanations. Rabbi Kamenetsky sought for and held a phony/fake PhD psychology letter. That’s gross negligence. Susan handed Judge Pruse a phony/fake 1995 Rigler Order of Separation.
Elderly Rav perfectly capable of such heterim and siddur kiddushin.
ReplyDeleteStealth? I told him my name. Deception? Aharon Friedman is my friend, the friend to which I refer.
ReplyDeleteWhat's with the accusations anyway?
Chutzpah? The calls were made under the guidance of my Rabbis.
Joseph Orlow replies to Eddie “Stealth? I told him my name. Deception? Aharon Friedman is my friend, the friend to which I refer. What's with the accusations anyway? Chutzpah? The calls were made under the guidance of my Rabbis.”
ReplyDeleteI support completely Joseph Orlow. I remind Eddie and others that attack Joseph Orlow that Judge Freida Wolfson sentenced Mendel Epstein et al to jail saying they were vigilantes and not much different than Mafia criminals. ORA and Agunah International fight with bare knuckles against those they disagree with, eg:
(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."
so am I also a vigilante? I am not in new York, I am not Charles Bronson, and I don't have a revolver from the Korean war.
ReplyDeleteYour investigation is trying to trip him up, catching him unaware. When people called Rav Elyashiv to ask him questions, he would hang up if he didn't like the person or the question.
ReplyDeleteMy motivation is stop a Mamzer from being born. My motivation is to prevent Tamar Epstein and Adam Fleischer from sinning.
ReplyDeleteMy motivation is to bring a Mes Mitzvah, a "dead Mitzvah", back to life.
There used to be a Torah transgression called "Ni'uf". It's written on the Tablets Moses brought down from Har Sinai.
Here's how the Mitzvah used to be: a woman and man transgressed the prohibition against Ni'uf if they had relations and the woman was married to another man.
Here is how it works now:
1. Woman, and/or her family, do(es) favors for the man considered to be the Gadol Hador in America.
2. Woman goes to a willing and amenable psychologist or psychiatrist and badmouths husband.
3. Said professional produces secret document stating that no woman would ever marry such a man. Despite the wife having known this is how the man was during months of courtship, and despite the wife living with the man for years and choosing to have a child with him, and despite the husband being more than willing to give a Get if the custody arrangements were more fair in his estimation, and despite the husband having the full backing of a Bais Din in which he and his wife signed a document agreeing to abide by the adjudication of this Bais Din.
4. Document from professional is presented by the Gadol to another Rav who is known for his absolute loyalty to the Gadol.
5. This Rav declares marriage null and void merely on the say so of the Gadol.
6. This Rav marries woman to another man.
New couple have life together. Mitzva suffers death.
So, I'm involved in M'chaye Ha'mesim. You seem to be involved in interpreting events to your own liking. Go for it, Eddie! If there is one thing we can agree on, it's that Rabbi Kamenetsky is a Gadol in teaching how it's a free-for-all world. So go right ahead and cast aspersions on my motives. You have on whom to rely.
But how cool it would be if you were a vigilante and did have a revolver.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of Shmuel II, Chapter 12, where Natan rebukes King David, after setting him up with a parable of the poor man’s lamb.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15872/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
The Poor Man’s Lamb.
http://etzion.org.il/en/81-chapter-12-poor-mans-lamb-part-i
I was thinking that myself, but maybe you have to be a"roeh" if you want to set up a "king".
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't you motives, when did I cast aspersion on your motives? It was your methods. So One guy thinks you are Nathan the prophet, and you think you are Eliyahu haNavi who can bring the dead back to life. Meanwhile I am accused of being a vigilante! So there is some serious delusional claims being made.
ReplyDeleteYou said, and I quote: "trying to trip him up, catch him unaware." I was trying to do everything the opposite: find out what actually took place and what his Halachic position is.
ReplyDeleteWhat good would come out of tripping Rabbi Kamenetsky up? What kind of person would try to catch him unaware?
You allege that I was angling for a "gotcha". That is an aspersion* cast, as we say, on a motive.
Methods reveal motives. If I ask someone for a dollar and he gives it to me, I'm trying to borrow money. If I stick my hand in his pocket and take a dollar, I'm robbing him. Both ways, I end up with a dollar. But the method I use will reflect my motivation.
I used a straightforward, up and up approach. I mischaracterized neither myself, nor the facts. I did not bully Rabbi Kamenetsky. I did not seek to involve him in a long, drawn out discussion in order to elicit information he'd rather hold close to the chest. I did not charm him by coming across as a super-friendly in order to evade his sneak radar.
You know how someone could try to trip him up? I'll tell you. Call him up. Say there's a daughter who needs a marriage annulled. Say the son-in-law is crazy. Oh, and by the way, I heard you have a wonderful Yeshiva. I have some money from the recent sale of real estate. Can your Yeshiva use $100,000? I have 10,000 in this one account right now. I'll write you a check and mail it to you. Can I ask a small something of you? Please do me the favor of calling me when the check clears. And I'll be in Philly next week. Maybe we can meet and talk in person then.
--
* an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something -- Google dictionary
I see it, that in this case, setting the bait, was essential for the fulfillment of of "Tochacha", which is a Mitzvah incumbent upon every single Jew.
ReplyDeleteEven a simple Jew to a great rabbi.
Even if the rabbi is his own personal rebbi.
Bava Metzia (31a)
תוכיח, אין לי אלא הרב לתלמיד, תלמיד לרב מנין, תלמוד לומר "הוכח תוכיח", מכל מקום
aspersion
ReplyDeleteəˈspəːʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: aspersion; plural noun: aspersions
an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something."I don't think anyone is casting aspersions on you"
synonyms:vilification, disparagement, denigration, defamation, defamation of character, abuse, vituperation, condemnation, criticism, censure, castigation, denunciation, flak, deprecation, opprobrium, obloquy, derogation, slander, revilement, reviling, calumny, calumniation, slurs, smears, execration, excoriation, lambasting, upbraiding, bad press, character assassination, attack, invective, libel, insults, slights, curses; More
informalmud-slinging, bad-mouthing, tongue-lashing;
informalstick, verbal, slagging off, slagging;
archaiccontumely;
rareanimadversion, objurgation
"he claimed he could prove the aspersions groundless"
vilify, disparage, denigrate, defame, run down, impugn, revile, berate, belittle, abuse, insult, slight, attack, speak badly of, speak ill of, speak evil of, pour scorn on, criticize, censure, condemn, decry, denounce, pillory, lambaste;
fulminate against, rail against, inveigh against, malign, slander, libel, conduct a smear campaign against, spread lies about, blacken the name/reputation of, sully the reputation of, give someone a bad name, bring into disrepute, discredit, stigmatize, traduce, calumniate, slur;
informalbad-mouth, do a hatchet job on, take to pieces, pull apart, throw mud at, drag through the mud, slate, have a go at, hit out at, jump on, lay into, tear into, knock, slam, pan, bash, hammer, roast, skewer, bad-mouth, throw brickbats at;
informalrubbish, slag off;
informalpummel, dump on;
informalbag, monster;
archaiccontemn;
rarederogate, vituperate, asperse, vilipend
"I don't think anyone is casting aspersions on you"
Origin
late Middle English (denoting the sprinkling of water, especially at baptism): from Latin aspersio(n- ), from aspergere (see asperse).
Translate aspersion to
Use over time for: aspersion
Sorry Joe, I was not vilifying you, and there is a lot of vilification here, when people disagree. i just said i didn't like your methods. I am not going around attacking you, why are you so sensitive on this matter?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, what is so terrible, if I suggest you things differently? I am not forcing you to do anything.
I would agree with your tactics if you have a secular dispute with a taxi driver, lawyer, garbage man, or law professor. I just suggested that with someone who is considered one of the Gedolim and greatest RY in America, that it should be a level or 2 more respectful.
As i said, if I approached for example, one of the Gedolim of the Eda Hachareidis, and entrapped him with one of my objections, it might be a bit disrespectful.
Ok. You clarified it. You're jealous on behalf of the honor due the Rav. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteso now you are casting aspersions on my motives?
ReplyDeleteI am not saying you shouldn't challenge him, i just said formulate it a bit differently.
Just stating the facts.
ReplyDeleteThe upshot of sycophantic subservient obsequious fawning followers is that it increases the risk of getting opaque oblique leaders who give ambiguous obscure unfathomable responses to simple straightforward inquiries.
Your motives I would guess come from the best places and are pure to the extreme. You strike me as someone who was taught and trained, or took up on at your own initiative, the path of honoring Torah scholars and defending their honor. You believe you are keeping the Torah by doing so.
What is missing is "action".
If you think I'm lacking in my social graces, then you go and call Rabbi Kamenetsky and do it right according to your lofty standards. I will help you, and be your water carrier. What can I do for you? Do you need Rabbi Kamenetsky's phone numbers?
Joe, this Eddie seems to be an ORA sympathizer from all his past comments. Instead of looking at the crux of the matter, he appears more concerned about "sensitivities" towards RSK. Well the halocho clearly states that " In a place of chilul Hashem , we dont worry about the kovod of a person, but instead worry about The Torah's kovod. The Ora sympathizers have the same analogy and modus operandi as the Democrats in the news. They are experts in diversion. Instead of debating the core facts, they become accusatory to shield their twisted ways. Joe Orlow was correct to approach RSK in the exact manner as Noson Hanovi approached Dovid Hamelech, in the same way Hashem approached Bilaam., otherwise you wont get the truth. Joe Orlow is fulfilling the mitzva in the Torah of "Dont stand by your brothers blood when its being spilled" and should be commended for his efforts. There are plenty of letters circulating in Israel now about the latest annullment of Oded Guez's wife to illustrate a growing "laxity" amongst rabbis in their handling of divorces
ReplyDeleteEddie has a very different motivation.
ReplyDelete1) He likes to stir the pot with people's emotions and a cause bit of action in the comment section.
2) Eddies does not come from a position of respect or deference to rabbis.
In fact, he comes from a place of "innovation in halacha" where everything you feel like doing becomes permitted, yet somehow with some concocted "innovation" in halacha.
What was done in this case of adultery was it was "kashered" with "innovation". At the third annual "'Agunah' Summit" at Fordham university last week, the Tamar Epstein case was mentioned several times as motivation and 'proof' that other things can be done to destroy marriages.
Good luck Joe, end of.
ReplyDeleteGerald - can you type a "free" translation into English of the letter, as i cannot see it clearly on my screen
ReplyDeletethank you
Honesty (is such a lonely word).
ReplyDelete1) "He likes to stir the pot" that's not untrue, but i would rather say i want to turn something around a few times to make sense of it and find why it contradicts something else.
2) Eddie[s] does not come from a position of respect or deference to rabbis:
that is a bit rich - what was my little critique of Joe Orlow's call to Rav SK? If my view was no respect for Rabbonim, then why was I critiquing Joe? I should have given him a mi shebeirach for catching out the old man! In fact, Joe is accusing me of precisely the opposite traits that you are accusing me of! What a joy -
I am at once "someone who was taught and trained, or took up at your own initiative,
the path of honoring Torah scholars and defending their honor. You believe you are keeping the Torah by doing so." and at the same time do "not come from a position of respect or deference to rabbis".
If i am somewhere in the middle of these 2 accusations, then I would be very happy - it is the perfect balance.
I have nothing to do with any Agunah summit , at fordham or anywhere else.
Honest, Is hardly ever heard, but mostly what i need from you...
Eddie wants me to translate that letter Rabbi Kamenetsky signed
ReplyDeleteThursday Parshat Vayetsa 5776
…Rabbi Nota Greenberg…Rabbi Dovid Feinstein…
No. I want Eddie to explain Ezekiel 33:23-26
“The word of the Lord came to me: O mortal, those who live in these ruins in the land of Israel argue, Abraham was but one man, yet he was granted possession of the land. We are many; surely, the land has been given as a possession to us. Therefore say to them: Thus said the Lord God: You eat with the blood, you raise your eyes to your fetishes, and you shed blood—yet you expect to possess the land! You have relied on your sword, you have committed abominations, you have all defiled other men’s wives—yet you expect to possess the land!”
I say “you have all defiled other men’s wives” because you supported Rabbi Kamenetsky’s heter. In the midrash: “Phineas shirked his responsibility, and no man should do so. Whenever a man has the opportunity to intervene in a quarrel and does not intervene, or has an opportunity to bring Israel back to the right way and does not take advantage of the opportunity, the blood spilt in Israel is spilt by him”
Eddie, are you an ORA and an Agunah International supporter?
Is chutzpah a negative attribute in classical Hebrew/Yiddish?
ReplyDeletechutzpah
ˈxʊtspə,ˈhʊtspə/
noun
informal
noun: chutzpah
extreme self-confidence or audacity (usually used approvingly)."love him or hate him, you have to admire Cohen's chutzpah"
I was using the modern variation, I think Chutzpah is a good thing!
A) I never supported the heter / it's a lie.
ReplyDeleteB) no connection with ora or the other one.
C) if I were looking for a shiddich would not consider a Tamar for my son or myself. R'l.
I love Yechezkel, but I can't give a peirush on my smartphone.
D) I don't fully support rsk, and I don't fully oppose Rav shternbuch, but his Halacha is too stern for me to follow.
I think I'm going to call Rabbi Kamenetsky again. There are two numbers on the letterhead above. This last call, I reached him at the Yeshiva. This time, I'll aim for the study.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm going to take a page from Eddie's playbook. I will address the Rosh Yeshiva with deference. I will then introduce the subject matter.
And then I have two questions for him:
(1) Since the Rav does not take a position in regard to Tamar Epstein's status, does he also not take a position in regard to Aharon Friedman's status?
(2) Is it not true that Rav Nota gave the Heter to Tamar based on the say-so of the Rosh Yeshiva?
At least, that's the plan. Tip of the hat to Eddie!
Rav Chaim of Volozhin in his Ruach HaChaim (is included in some editions of Nefesh Hachaim) writes that the Gra taught it is sometimes assur for a Talmid to accept what a rav tells him if he doesn't agree or understand, and must argue it until he gets resolution - sometimes the truth is with the student.
ReplyDeleteHonesty says: “What was done in this case of adultery was it was "kashered" with "innovation". At the third annual "'Agunah' Summit" at Fordham university last week, the Tamar Epstein case was mentioned several times as motivation and 'proof' that other things can be done to destroy marriages.”
ReplyDeleteExcellent, Honesty, thanks. Allow me to show you my IG, NYS ct, etc letter today. I mention Rabbi Kamenetsky etc.
“1.I submit this letter on my behalf, acting pro se. I request leave to contact the Court, the clerk's office and chamber's staff for the purpose of closing this case, particularly quashing the fraudulent QDRO awarding 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan. The best proof that the court ordered QDRO is fraudulent is that it has no end in violation of ERISA.
2.I attach Exhibit A: Susan's lawyer letter 3/24/1993 and Pesce cc Kaye letter 9/13/1996. Susan's lawyer, Popkin, admitted in court papers 3/24/1993 “My client has advised me that she received a “Get” from your client several weeks ago and has since received the certificate (p'tur) of receiving that Get. It is my understanding that because one or both parties are Cohens, the Get is final and irrevocable. They can never remarry, whether or not the separation action is determined becomes immaterial.”
3.Susan and her lawyer Myla Serlin handed Judge Prus on August 1, 2013 a fake/phony Rigler March 7, 1995 Order of Separation. Note that Susan's lawyer Popkin writes on 3/24/1993: ”whether or not the separation action is determined becomes immaterial.” Susan signed documents and made testimony in Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag's rabbinical court along with her long-time friend, Rivkah Haut whose husband, Irwin Haut filed suit against me as he is a lawyer. That rabbinical court did the American side of the “Get” in accordance with “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; she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man” (Deuteronomy 24:1-2). For Susan this was a complete loss. Susan never had any thought of marrying another man. We don't know exactly why Susan wanted the “Get.” She never told me. Rabbi Asher in the Jerusalem rabbinical court advised me to send Susan the “Get” to see if she would accept it before witnesses, as required by Jewish law, in Rabbi Ralbag's rabbinical court.
4.Tamar Epstein Friedman agreed with her husband Aaron Freidman to go to the Baltimore rabbinical court. The Baltimore rabbinical court took Aaron's side. This infuriated Tamar Epstein and her supporters including Susan. At the agunah summit at Fordham University last week, the Tamar Epstein case was mentioned several times as proof of alternate ways to destroy a marriage, other than with a “Get.” The key to Tamar Epstein's alternate way to remarry without a “Get” was a fake/phony PhD psychology letter that Aaron is insane. Rabbi Kamenetsky approved Tamar remarrying without a “Get.”
5.I remind the court that Judge Frieda Wolfson jailed Mendel Epstein et al saying they were vigilantes not much different than Mafia criminals. Rabbi Ralbag ran a kangaroo rabbinical court. Judge Freida Wolfson gave Rabbi Ralbag immunity for his testimony, critical for the convictions of Mendel Epstein et al.
6.Judge Kaye, Judge Prus, Judge Rigler, Clerk Larry Rothbart knew very well of Susan's loss in the rabbinical court. Susan lost because she got no money awarded. They tried to help her get money. I was never interested in money. I'm not interested in money today. With the fraudulent QDRO having no end in sight, it's official that I'm a deadbeat dad who didn't pay child support, Heaven forbid. The lie will go on as long as the QDRO is not quashed.”
Make sure to mention the statement of the Baltimore Beis Din (you know, the mutually agreed upon Beis Din) which clarified their stance in early 2016 (I believe) that AF did nothing wrong and is under no obligation to give a get.
ReplyDeleteAnd many businesses have their employees sign a consent using the one party rule.
ReplyDelete