FACTS:
● Ari and Chavi married in 2006 and separated
in 2018.
● Ari has been refusing to give Chavi a get, a
Jewish bill of divorce.
● Without a get, Chavi is unable to remarry and is
left an agunah, chained to a dead marriage.
● Vaad Hadin of New City issued a psak
against Ari, stating that he is a sarvan ladin
(recalcitrant to submit to beis din) and that he is
obligated to give Chavi a get
Meir Kin points out the flaws in the verdict issued by Avi Kahan, against Ari Satz, in relation to his divorce.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUAgogLuQuw
Most of what he asserts are questions are guesses - not actual facts. In fact he keeps citing the statement that those who are not experts in Gittin should not be involved - which I assume applies to Meir Kin also.
DeleteI don't have a horse in this race, but MK pointed out certain facts:
Delete1) The Beis Din did not have three Dayanim. Just 2 + a mental health professional. That is not a normal Bais din composition.
2) Kahan's Beis Din doesn’t allow for "toanim" to serve as counsel, but does allow attorneys. That is an aberration.
3) Kahan insists that Ari voluntarily come to his Bais Din. However the court transcript clearly shows the multiple statements made by Ari's to'en, Rabbi Klein, to Kahan about the coercion, about him not wanting to be at his bais Din.
Does his "proof" from a single statement of a one dayan that the beis din is corrupt have any significance?
DeleteDoes his"proof that since Rabbi Kahan agrees that there are corrupt beis din mean that his beis din is corrupt?
basically Kin is trying to smear the reputation of Rabbi Kahan based on a series of innuendoes and questions much as right wing conspiracy theories act. Tucker Carlson does this all the time
DeleteThe ruling of a beis din that social pressures can be applied is not a proof of corruption neither is giving permission to go to civil court.
The inclusion of a laymen in a beis din which has experts is also not proof of corruption
If you don't have a horse why are you defending only one side?
Delete"1) The Beis Din did not have three Dayanim. Just 2 + a mental health professional. That is not a normal Bais din composition."
DeleteDo you agree that makes it a corrupt beis din?
Does it invalidate the courts rulings?
https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2024/04/beis-din-can-have-layman-asjudge.html
I'm not defending Satz's actions, because I don't have enough facts about the case.
DeleteI'm not also accepting everything that Kin says. I just noted that he points out flaws in Kahan's handling of this particular case. I cited three factual examples. Do you have a response to them?
Kin isn't the protagonist in his opposition to Kahan. That would be Rabbi Gestetner, in his detailed articles against Kahan, which I linked elsewhere in my comments. Maybe you could make a posting of what Rabbi Gestetner has to say about Kahan & Jacobson Inc.
I wouldn't argue with the Shulchan Aruch's ruling that three laymen can serve as judges. Indeed, even three רועי בקר, unlearned herdsmen, can also serve as judges.
However that only applies when the litigants have accepted such laymen to be their judges.
In this particular case, there may have been a bait-and-switch, where one of the parties expected that there would be three learned, expert Dayanim present to adjudicate the case, and it turns out that there are not three experts in Halacha present.
Moreover, allegedly, the case was initially heard by Kahan alone, a דיין יחיד, which he certainly had no mandate to do.
who makes these claim? Is there evidence to support them?
DeleteIf you want proof that avi kahan completely lied in his ruling, all you need to do is watch the video I made offering the get for proof of what avi kahan said is true. Almost 3k people have watched it and not one person can bring this simple proof so she can get her get!!?? https://youtu.be/v0XXUvZeG88?si=Ut2gUg4-cP7v215d
ReplyDeleteYou sound like Ari Satz. Would you care to let the readers hear your side of the story, why you're refusing to give your wife a Get, despite having divorced her in civil court?
ReplyDeleteI am Ari satz. This story is very long but I never refused her the get. When she moved out, we agreed on a custody arrangement (mutually) and all I asked was to put custody behind us so the kids would be safe. She said she won’t sign any agreement until she makes sure she gets the money and assets she wants and if she doesn’t, she will take me to trial for everything. What did money and assets have to do what’s best for my kids?? Well, she got to use them as leverage for money. After over a year of refusing to sign every agreement they appointed someone to make a recommendation. The recommendation came back 50/50 custody and I said I would give her the get. She refused and opted for trial. There is so much more and it all spiraled down hill. She refused beis din, I agreed to go. Avi Kahans seruv is a lie. The rabbis and ora don’t care as long as it says give the get. Unfortunately, I can’t give into lies bc the get will be completely not kosher.
Delete“Ari Satz” Interesting. Today’s daf hayomi Baba Metzia 51a
ReplyDelete“It has been stated: If one says to his neighbour, I agree to this sale on condition that you have no claim of overreaching against me Rab said: He [nevertheless] has a claim of overreaching against him. Whereas Samuel said: He has no claim of overreaching against him. Shall we say that Rab ruled in accordance with R. Meir, and Samuel in accordance with R. Judah? For it has been taught: If one says to a woman, Behold thou art betrothed [lit., sanctified] unto me on condition that thou hast no claims upon me of sustenance, raiment and conjugal rights she is betrothed, but the condition is null: this is R. Meir's view.”
Allow me my latest letter to TIAA and to Susan I did while waiting for a ruling from NYS Court of Appeals. Susan is Agunah Internation and probably against Ari Satz:
Dear TIAA and Susan:
Part of Susanct1991,pdf my file contains 1) Renee Haut notarized September 25, 1991 2) Irwin notarized September 25, 1991 3) Susan Aranoff notarized September 25, 1991.
1. Renee Haut notarized September 25, 1991 \P 4: On Saturday, July 6, 1991, SUSAN AND GERALD ARANOFF visited my husband, Irwin, and me at our home in Brooklyn. During that visit, defendant stated that he was leaving for Israel in two days, was going to settle there and he did not intend ever to return.
2. Irwin Haut notarized September 25, 1991 \P 4: On Saturday, July 6, 1991, SUSAN AND GERALD ARANOFF visited my wife, Renee, and me at our home in Brooklyn. During that visit, defendant stated that he was leaving for Israel in two days, was going to settle there and he did not intend ever to return.
3. Susan Aranoff notarized September 25, 1991 page 6: I did make certain comments to the defendant which he could have chosen to interpret as indicating that I and our children might visit the Defendant in Israel in August 1991.
4. Susan Aranoff notarized September 25, 1991 page 9: Defendant misrepresents the facts to this court when he states that I participated in discussions about which neighborhood in Jerusalem would be most suitable for our family.
5. Susan Aranoff notarized September 25, 1991 page 13: The monthly 4000 shekels which Defendant claims he will be paid through his alleged employment is approximately one third of his former annual earnings here.
6. Susan Aranoff notarized September 25, 1991 page 14: Defendant exaggerates the amount of income generated by the trust set up by my father for the children
Wow Susan September 25, 1991 brought an abandonment charge against me with two witnesses, Renee and Irwin Haut. Renee and Irwin Haut heard on July 6, 1991 that on July 8, 1991 I was going to Israel and I was expecting Susan to come to Israel. Susan acknowledges that she participated in discussions on which neighborhood to rent a large 3-bedroom apartment. Yes 4,000 NIS monthly after tax salary in 1991 is a substantial income in Israel especially with schooling costs for children free and other benefits in Israel and not in America etc. On September 25, 1991 I lived alone in Ramat Eshkol. Some children did visit me. I remember listening on the phone Susan telling Rachel to get out get away and Rachel saying but I want to see my father etc. The Jerusalem College of Technology build for me a large office for me to meet students and do my research, with built-in bookcases and computer and telephone connections.
Sincerely,\\/s/Gerald Aranoff\\ Gerald Aranoff\\ April 17, 2024
Shalom Gerald, nice to see you, kol tuv
DeleteAri, which Beis Din did you agree to go to, and why did your wife refuse to go there? Better yet, please send the blog owner a copy of a letter from your Beis Din, saying that you're prepared to have your case heard by them, and therefore are not Halachically considered "mesarev le'din". His email: yadmoshe@gmail.com
DeleteBeis din CAN'T violate right to counsel
ReplyDeletehttps://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/11/beis-din-can-violate-right-to-counsel.html
[Does not allowing a Rabbinical to'en in a Beis Din, violate the CPLR's arbitration procedural requirements?]
A Brooklyn judge has thrown out a rabbinical court's arbitration award, finding that the court's refusal to allow the claimant to select his own counsel violated New York law, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant participated in the proceeding without objection.
The decision constitutes the first time a New York court has addressed in a written opinion the issue of whether an arbitration panel can require that attorneys appearing before them must receive their approval.
It is also a rare reversal of an arbitration award, in which even mistakes of fact and misapplications of the law are insufficient grounds for reversal.
Here, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Martin Schneier ruled that the rabbinical tribunal's disqualification without explanation of plaintiff Joseph Kahan's attorney, coupled with the panel's insistence on designating Kahan's counsel, violated the CPLR's arbitration procedural requirements. [...]
“Ari Satz” Interesting. Today’s daf hayomi Baba Metzia 55a
ReplyDelete“It has been taught in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi: [If one declared,] This cow is a substitute for this cow of hekdesh [E.g., where the originally consecrated cow was dedicated for temple repairs, no redemption being possible in the case of a clean animal dedicated as an offering; cf. Lev. XXVI, 10; v. Tosaf.] this garment be instead of this other garment of hekdesh, his consecrated object is redeemed, whilst hekdesh has the upper hand [If hekdesh is redeemed by an object of far less value than itself, the redemption is valid and the consecrated article loses its sanctity; nevertheless, the treasurers collect its full value. On the other hand, if the object substituted is worth more, there is no refund. So here too, if the second cow or garment is worth less than the original, the deficiency must be made good, whilst if it exceeds it, hekdesh gains. This is the meaning of ‘hekdesh has the upper hand. In this clause, no actual value is ascribed to the substitute.]. [Even if he declares,] This cow, which is worth five sela's be a substitute for this other cow of hekdesh, or this garment, worth five sela's, be instead of this other garment of hekdesh, his consecrated object is redeemed [Though he ascribes a certain value to the substitute, which it lacks. I might have thought that his declaration is therefore invalid, since it contains a misstatement. We are therefore taught otherwise.] For the first hekdesh he must add a fifth, but not for the second [Should he desire to redeem the substitute, which is now sanctified in its turn, no addition is required. This agrees with R. Joshua b. Levi.].”
Beautiful. The Gamara last 3 pages discusses redemptions (annulling cancelling) of Hekdesh, stealings, Terumah, Maaser Sheni, Bikkurim, where there is Torah penalty of a fifth, but only for the first and no penalty for a fifth for the second except for stealing. The thief must a fifth to the fifth (Baba Mitzia 54b). My theory
ויקרא פרשת קדושים פרק יט פסוק יא
לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ:
רש"י
לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו - אם גנבת, סופך לכחש, סופך לשקר, סופך להשבע לשקר:
Stealing is far different from all these cases of seeking redemption of a second time from Hekdesh, Maaser Sheni, Terumah etc. I’m seeking back in NYS courts 55% of my TIAA pension Susan stole from me, may Susan be well and happy. Follow Israel Reader?
Gerald, learning Daf Yomi is a very commendable, but this isn't a Daf Yomi blog, and your comment detracts from this page's discussion.
ReplyDelete“Ari Satz” Interesting. Today’s daf hayomi Baba Metzia 55b
ReplyDelete“The author of this [Mishnah] is R. Meir, who maintained: The Sages did set up protective measures for their enactments as for those of the Torah. For it has been taught: If one brought a divorce from countries overseas and delivered it to her [the wife] without declaring, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence, he [her next husband] must divorce her [too], and their offspring is a bastard: this is R. Meir's view”
Wow. “he [her next husband] must divorce her [too], and their offspring is a bastard” !! What do you say Israel Reader? Who are you?
I say that your comment wasn't relevant to the discussion.
Delete“Ari Satz...She said she won’t sign any agreement until she makes sure she gets the money and assets she wants and if she doesn’t, she will take me to trial for everything. What did money and assets have to do what’s best for my kids?? Well, she got to use them as leverage for money. ” Interesting. Today’s daf hayomi Baba Metzia 61b
ReplyDelete“And Raba said likewise: Hitherto it is interest in the Biblical sense, but from here onward in the Rabbinical sense. So far [i.e., usury as defined in the first clause], He [sc. the wicked] shall prepare it, and the just shall put it on [Job XXVII, 17: i.e., if a man received interest, his heirs (the just) are under no obligation to return it, but may put it to their own use.].”
Beautiful. Job 27:God at all times? 11I will teach you concerning the hand of God; That which is with the Almighty will I not conceal. 12Behold, all ye yourselves have seen it; Why then are ye become altogether vain? 13This is the portion of a wicked man with God, And the heritage of oppressors, which they receive from the Almighty. 14If his children be multiplied, it is for the sword; And his offspring shall not have bread enough. 15Those that remain of him shall be buried by pestilence, And his widows shall make no lamentation. 16Though he heap up silver as the dust, And prepare raiment as the clay; 17He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, And the innocent shall divide the silver.
Update on me? I’m still waiting to hear from NYS Ct of Appeals. Any thoughts on ruling Harvey Weinstein? “The People &c., Respondent, v. Harvey Weinstein, Appellant. Order reversed and a new trial ordered. Opinion by Judge Rivera. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Barros and Clark concur. Judge Singas dissents in an opinion, in which Judges Garcia and Cannataro concur. Judge Cannataro dissents in a separate dissenting opinion, in which Judges Garcia and Singas concur. Judges Troutman and Halligan took no part.”