tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post1728239064745395726..comments2024-03-28T02:08:17.990+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Forced Get: Rav Schachter's use of public humiliationDaas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-77828123563906433442012-05-10T21:25:46.230+03:002012-05-10T21:25:46.230+03:00"5) Finally it seems to me that he is endorsi..."5) Finally it seems to me that he is endorsing these tactics only because Mr Friedman is refusing to go before the B"D that has summoned him. When a person refuses the summons of the B"D the B"D has the ability and the right to place him into Nidui and to use whatever coercive methods that they deem necessary to compel him to appear"<br /><br />Rabbi Kamentesky denounced Friedman in a public letter in the spring of 2010, over a year before the third beis din (the beis din that issued a seruv) summoned Friedman.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-65697658750786737022012-04-03T03:11:25.145+03:002012-04-03T03:11:25.145+03:00Only if you establish that a Rav cannot disagree w...Only if you establish that a Rav cannot disagree with the Kol Kore!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-17527462049819573212012-04-02T19:37:16.708+03:002012-04-02T19:37:16.708+03:00The husband was moser her in secular court. The K...The husband was moser her in secular court. The Kol Kore says that a single Rav cannot give a heter to moser someone in secular court. So, as long as the B"D did not give a heter to do so, he is over for that. Full stop.<br /><br />As to the B"D's involvement that depends on who you listen to. On the hand the Baltimore B"D has said that they were never approached about the case, at least that is what they said to Tablet. Washington Jewish week said that the Beit Din ceased its involvment when secular courts took up the matter, again their involvment was initiated by Friedman. So whether it was that they were never approached, or they ceased when Friedman was moser his wife, you cannot put onto Epstein(actually if is the latter and I am more inclined to believe the Jewish Week, especially as it is the same story that Friedman's supporters are anouncing) the problem is solely on Friedman. <br />Relocating with the child is another matter, but many poskim rule that so long as the child is under six years of age, that determination is solely that of the mother.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-38193271075421306122012-04-02T19:06:18.206+03:002012-04-02T19:06:18.206+03:00Not according to the above Kol Kore. For various ...Not according to the above Kol Kore. For various reasons the person being moser is the one committing the aveirah.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-47506110500264186692012-04-02T18:25:36.553+03:002012-04-02T18:25:36.553+03:00The exact point is Rabbi Kamemetsky did not know a...The exact point is Rabbi Kamemetsky did not know all the relevant facts - only what his handlers told him. This would not be the first time that Rabbi Kameneyski wrote a letter without knowing all the facts. <br />When has it become normative practice for a mother to take an infant out of state without knowledge of the father? Epsteins "frum" lawyer then argued and got visitation rights to start friday evening after shabbos. Is this a women who should be getting our sympathy?YisSteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093789190439373227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-79108992905827801292012-04-02T18:15:28.329+03:002012-04-02T18:15:28.329+03:00The question would be on the Rav not on FriedmanThe question would be on the Rav not on FriedmanYisSteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093789190439373227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-6912936284536319132012-04-02T16:17:16.883+03:002012-04-02T16:17:16.883+03:00It is really getting quite tedious argiung with yo...<i>It is really getting quite tedious argiung with you</i> I could say the same.<br /><i>Every time you throw out a new argument instead of responding to the points brought up previously, and you keep selectively misquoting the sources.</i> You appear to have a reading comprehension problem.<br /><i>EH 77:2 does not say what you said it does.</i> Try again.<br /><i>Who are the "many poskim" who you quote, and since you are familiar with them, what is the primary source for mezonos after 12 months? (Again, predating the rabbanut).</i> The first 6 of the seven volumes of the Yaskil Avdei(and thus all the sources he brings) predate the Rabbinut. The last two(which I have not quoted) are the only ones published post 1948. I don't really know the problem you have with Rabbinut, but that alone should suffice. Yet you refuse to look it up. <br /><i>You also make the unbelievable claim that Freidman went to court first.</i><br /><br />It says here<br />http://www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com/<br />and the owner of this blog linked to it here:<br />http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-aharon-friedman-hasnt-given-get-to.html<br /><br /><i><b>Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PA would transfer jurisdiction over the matter to PA, unless the case was filed in MD court. In addition, Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PA would be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. Aharon received a psak [Jewish Law ruling] to bring an emergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that Aharon would bring the matter to Beis Din after the emergency motion, before any further proceedings in Court. <br />Aharon brought an emergency custody motion in late July 2008, at which point Tamar had not allowed C to spend any time whatsoever with Aharon on Shabbos [the Jewish Sabbath] or Yom Tov [Jewish Holidays] for almost three months.</b></i> So on the psak of a single Rav Friedman took Epstein to court instead of having a B"D issue a summons. This is contrary to the ruling in the above Kol Kore.<br /><i>You keep mentioning child support, which is another perversion, but quite irrelevant here. Why do you keep bringing it in?</i> Perversion? Since when is a father not required to provide food and clothing for his children(who are minors)? Can you provide a valid source for this?Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-91025296943085422972012-04-02T16:13:33.924+03:002012-04-02T16:13:33.924+03:00Again you have no concept of what went on in this ...Again you have no concept of what went on in this case. Both parties were in the Baltimore B"D when Epstein walked out. Your comments show how you don't have the slightest understanding of the factsYisSteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093789190439373227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-58065986520949022222012-04-02T16:05:47.753+03:002012-04-02T16:05:47.753+03:00You have no idea of what you are talking about. T...You have no idea of what you are talking about. The case was in the Baltimore B"D for months. Epstein walked out in the middle. Why would you talk without knowing any facts ay all?YisSteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093789190439373227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-74475388303794057392012-04-02T14:29:59.606+03:002012-04-02T14:29:59.606+03:00It is really getting quite tedious argiung with yo...It is really getting quite tedious argiung with you, Rabbi Michael Tzadok. Every time you throw out a new argument instead of responding to the points brought up previously, and you keep selectively misquoting the sources.<br /><br />EH 77:2 does not say what you said it does. Who are the "many poskim" who you quote, and since you are familiar with them, what is the primary source for mezonos after 12 months? (Again, predating the rabbanut). <br /><br />You also make the unbelievable claim that Freidman went to court first. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing that, so why would he? Many women like to tell this story, as farfetched as it is. You say this is the available information, but I have not seen this claim made in all the discussion on this topic. Link, please.<br /><br />You keep mentioning child support, which is another perversion, but quite irrelevant here. Why do you keep bringing it in?Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258379827161517927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-68106100489929350982012-04-02T14:11:30.520+03:002012-04-02T14:11:30.520+03:00It is really getting tedious to argue with you, Ra...It is really getting tedious to argue with you, Rabbi Michael Tzadok. You keep selectively misquoting the sources and ignoring all arguments. Every time you throw out a new argument without responding towhat we asked you before.<br /><br />EH 77:2 does not say what you said, and please link to one of the "many poskim" you quote (you can find them on hebrewbooks). (As I wrote above, I am sure that some people said this, you can find someone to rely on for anything.)<br /><br />You write that according to all accounts, Friedman was the one who initiated court proceedings. I did not see any such account. Please provide a link. This is also an obviously farfetched story because he has everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing that. I know that many women tell this crazy story and lots of people like to believe them, but it almost never happens. Again, please at least provide a relevant link.<br /><br />You also keep mentioning child support, which is another perversion, but not relevant - why do you keep bringing it up?Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258379827161517927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-86355110603090963902012-04-02T12:07:09.928+03:002012-04-02T12:07:09.928+03:00factsApr 1, 2012 12:29 PM
Michael tzadok another t...<i>factsApr 1, 2012 12:29 PM<br />Michael tzadok another tzedoki keeps on distorting halochoh. There is absolutely no halachik requirement to give a ki hu ze to a moredes, no support, no kesuvah, no nothing. And if she is in arko'oys, she is responsible not only for his legal fees and any awards she received that are k'neged the Torah, but cannot receive a get. </i><br /><br />Is that the best you can come up with?<br /><br />As far as distorting halakha. I am <b>in no way</b> supporting, promoting or in any other way agreeing with ORA or Rav Shachter. However since Rav Kamenetsky has seen fit to involve himself, a Rav who is Musmach from Rav Kotler and a well respected Rosh Yeshiva, who was made a fixed Dayyan on the Badatz of Philadelphia by Rav Brisman(who is himself musmach from Rav Shach, with whom he had a close relationship, and his own saintly father, who was musmach from the Chafetz Chaim) I am confident that in this case(Friedman and Epstein) that the halakha is very much in Epstein's favor.<br /><br />In fact the Kol Kore that you yourself point to, is pretty damning to Friedman. Friedman, according to all accounts, was the one who initiated court proceedings, supposedly on the psak of a Rav and not a B"D, that is in direct contradiction to the first three points brought on that Kol Kore. That would give him the din of a moser(according to that Kol Kore), and all who aid him are also acting contrary to halakha(see point 7).<br /><br />As to your other points. What qualifies as abuse? Whatever a reliable B"D rules is abuse. If the husband beats his wife, if he forces himself upon her against her will, if he wants to commit other aveirot with her. A B"D has the right to rule that any of these are abuse, and that the man is not a fit husband.<br /><br />As far as a moredet or a maos ali being entitled to support if her husband will not grant her a get, you have the halakah in EhE 77:2, which says that she is to be cut off from all support for 12mos, after which time her husband must deposit a Get with the B"D. If the husband refuses to do so(after the 12 mos have elapsed) many poskim(see the Yaskil Avdei above for sources, a sefer itself which bears a haskama with the signatures of all of the dayyanim of the Eida) rule that the husband would then have to begin supporting his wife again until such time as he gives the Get. Nor does it eliminate him from his halakhic responsibility to support his children.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-81010542171464516452012-04-02T10:48:38.445+03:002012-04-02T10:48:38.445+03:00On another note. Going by the above listed Kol Ko...On another note. Going by the above listed Kol Kore, Friedman was in violation of several points for going to secular court. The Kol Kore says that one cannot go to a secular court based on the psak of a singular Rav but only based on the ruling of the B"D. <br />The B"D that some claim was involved did not issue such a psak and as reported dropped the case when Friedman instituted court proceedings.<br />The Kol Kore then would seem to insinuate that Friedman has the Din of a moser. It may well be that for that reason alone Rav Kamenetsky saw fit to issue the various statements he has.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-88952146875852583112012-04-02T10:39:16.076+03:002012-04-02T10:39:16.076+03:00You are again making up halachos. The 12 month rul...You are again making up halachos. The 12 month rule is that if the wife refuses a get she can be forces to take one after twelve months, there is no such rule the other way. <br />Likewise your statement that after 12 months he must pay support is not true. If you feel it is, please post a source which predates the rabbanut.<br /><br />The rabbanut has corrupted halacha beyond recognition in this area, and created far more mamzerim than Shachter ever will. I have no respect for anyone who sat there. Since we were on the subject, its worth mentioning that the rabbanut ignores this 12-month rule, together with many others. (just one more example, the rule that you need three judges is not something they are particular about.)Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258379827161517927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-37675146142372079522012-04-02T10:24:56.947+03:002012-04-02T10:24:56.947+03:00A couple of points:
1) How do you know that Rav K...A couple of points:<br /><br />1) How do you know that Rav Kamenetsky was aware that Mr. Friedman had a psak from his Rav to go to a secular court?<br /><br />2) How do you know that Mr. Friedman actually had such a psak(I have seen no proof only his word). <br /><br />3) Most poskim hold that the child is the sole custody of the mother until age 6(see above Yaskil Avdei for full list of sources). <br /><br />4) Considering that that letter was written <b>before</b> any of the B"D proceedings that lead to the seruv, that is indeed problematic.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-91260209344019749842012-04-02T10:13:23.574+03:002012-04-02T10:13:23.574+03:00The B"D there denies that the case ever came ...The B"D there denies that the case ever came before them. They have done so several times publicly. The only B"D which has ever stated any actual involvement in the case is the one that issued the seruv.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-22540463604334325252012-04-02T09:08:31.203+03:002012-04-02T09:08:31.203+03:00Rabbi Eidensohn, I suggest you go lifnim mishuras ...Rabbi Eidensohn, I suggest you go lifnim mishuras hadin of your posek and simply quick edit posts which denigrate Gedolim by dropping titles and using horrible names. Just change those to "Rav so and so" it's not hard.<br /><br />How do you feel about that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-995489275935975522012-04-02T08:56:56.275+03:002012-04-02T08:56:56.275+03:00Stan, your unbridled hate is contemptible. I don&#...Stan, your unbridled hate is contemptible. I don't know who this Posek is (and I do NOT understand why he is nameless? R' Eidensohn?) However, the more you post with this mode of vituperative spiffllication, the less I and I dare say others will pay any attention to what you have to write.<br /><br />What is your name "Stan"?<br /><br />Why do YOU hide?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-71496014412387991232012-04-02T08:07:41.587+03:002012-04-02T08:07:41.587+03:00Also note that the Kol Kore says that a person mus...Also note that the Kol Kore says that a person must come when summoned to a B"D and if he refuses three summons they issue a seruv and he is treated accordingly.<br /><br />Again I have no actual knowledge of how ORA or Rav Shachter normally behave, and thus the reason for the controversy. However, you do have a seruv from a B"D with Rav Kamenetsky's signature on it and that means something.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-32888225100779349332012-04-02T08:04:50.665+03:002012-04-02T08:04:50.665+03:00The Yaskil Avdei is a non-mainstream later authori...The Yaskil Avdei is a non-mainstream later authority? Rav Ovadia Yosef is a non-mainstream later authority? That's news. I don't think you will find a Dayyan in E"Y that doesn't know the rulings of both, especially since they are necessary learning for the Rabbinut Dayyanut exams.<br /><br />Admittedly I have been quoting later sources, especially those(like the Yaskil Avdei) that received wide support(at least I assume that when the Dayyanim of the Badatz Eda HaChareidit all sign a haskama saying that they reviewed his Teshuvot and give them their support, that is fairly mainstream). <br /><br />Yes I have been arguing from recent sources, because recent sources are the ones who actually deal with the issues at hand. For instance Jews being able to enter into civil marriage or having a non-Jewish government at all involved in their marriages is a relatively new development. Thus so is the necessity for a civil divorce. So too are the various Batei Din that require a civil divorce <b>before</b> they will begin Get proceedings.<br />So to say that just because a husband and a wife went to civil court to dissolve their civil marriage does not make, in today's world, a woman a moredet. Rather it is simply standard operation procedure in many locales. <br />The Even HaEzer piece is specifically discussing a woman who refuses to go to mikvah. Fine -the sources I have quoted deal with that as well. The husband is still required to give her a Get after 12mos, and if he does not he is required to provide for her support(after those 12mos). <br />Honestly I know nothing of what is standard practice for ORA, the only thing I am familiar with the Epstein-Friedman case at hand. In which case Epstein has a B"D that is signing for her that her husband is refusing to appear before a B"D. Thus it is permitted to treat him accordingly.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-66873709201249839632012-04-02T04:31:06.959+03:002012-04-02T04:31:06.959+03:00If someone can tell how Rabbi Kamenetsky’s views a...If someone can tell how Rabbi Kamenetsky’s views are any different the Rabbi Schachter/ORA I’d like to hear it. Here is a link to one of the letters that Rabbi Kamenetsky wrote in December 2010 http://getora.org/PDF/Letter%20from%20RSK-%20December%208.pdf . In it he states that because all issues have been settled in court (he states that Aharon Friedman was the plaintiff – which I’m sure Rabbi Kamenetsky is aware that Mr. Friedman was the plaintiff after he received permission from his Rav to go to court to for an emergency court date to try to get back his daughter after his ex-wife took their daughter out of state without his knowledge – I have yet to hear any Rabbi speak out against kidnaping children). The letter goes on to endorse the rallies that were held later that month outside Aharon Friedman’s apartment in Silver Spring as well outside his mother’s home in Brooklyn. When questioned about the Halachic validity of having a protest outside Mr. Friedman’s mothers home Rabbi Kamenetsky responded by saying that “his mother must support him so it is Muter”. At the same time there was an article in the Washington Jewish Week on December 22, 2010 http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=14039 which stated “Complicating matters, however, is that no beit din, or religious court, has ordered Friedman to issue Epstein a get. Initially, the case was being handled by the Baltimore beit din, a proceeding that was apparently halted when the secular courts took up the matter. Eventually, jurisdiction was handed over from Baltimore to the Vaad Harabanim of Greater Washington, also known as Vaad, which made clear in a recent community letter that, currently, "there is no bet din order for Mr. Friedman to give a get." Authority, the Vaad said in its letter, was recently handed back to Baltimore after the beit din there "reasserted its jurisdiction." 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. Since the court has yet officially to order a get, Shuchatowitz said, it's "a bit premature" to be holding rallies and other events meant "to pressure [Friedman] because he's not been given his day in court." After all, "you can't disobey something you've not been told to do." <br /><br />In short the Baltimore B”D (which is the B”D that both parties agreed to go to) stated that they were waiting for Ms. Epstein to come to court to request a Get and you have Rabbi Kamenetsky/ORA stating that since there is a civil divorce Ms. Epstein is an Agunah, Mr. Friedman is mechuyav to give a get without a B”D and one can humiliate Mr. Friedman as well as his relatives. Does anyone else not find Rabbi Kamenetsky’s position troubling?YisSteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093789190439373227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-24483083029619341432012-04-02T04:17:42.843+03:002012-04-02T04:17:42.843+03:00One important fact that most above commenters have...One important fact that most above commenters have wrong is that Mr. Friedman, DID in fact appear in front of beis din. He appeared in front of the beis din that he and Epstein agreed to go to. They presented thier cases and just before they were about to isssue their ruling, EPSTEIN refused to follow the beis din's instructions and WALKED OUT on the beis din. She then went to multiple batei diinim whom refused to take the case for obvious reasons, until she ended up by the infamous Ralbag. So -- did Friedman not appear before beis din? or did Friedman do everything he was supposed to do and Epstein has absolutely NO claim to a get. This is leaving aside all else that Epstein did wrong, like taking their child to another state and defaming Friedman and his family in the worst possible way. Epstein is really ruining it for the real agunah's out there!Shoshanahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-6395133883988467632012-04-02T03:05:46.290+03:002012-04-02T03:05:46.290+03:00Emes L"Yaakov we should not forget that it is...Emes L"Yaakov we should not forget that it is a psik reisha that being in arko'oys involves mesirah and this is what the shulchan oruch choshen mishpot shin peh ches (possibly ramoh) I think off hand says Yordim leGeheinom le'dorei doros ve'ainom oylim.<br /><br />Sorry daas Torah you may think I amgetting personal for no reason but if you had seen the devastation caused by some of these rashanta mordos onm the lives of their husbands and the children, the bankrupcy caused by figting these liars in courts just to get visitation, the years lost, you would not criticize me at all for what Schlachter and the corrupt brooklyn mafiosa of ralbag, belsky, mendel Epstein, etc have caused. I am not exaggerating one bit.factsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-50123950613888315832012-04-02T01:54:32.090+03:002012-04-02T01:54:32.090+03:00Daas Torah,
I believe the Kol Koreh referred to b...Daas Torah,<br /><br />I believe the Kol Koreh referred to by "facts" above is located at <br />http://www.mishpattsedek.com/KolKoreh-70Rabbis.htm<br /><br />One version is a large type version, the other one should be the same letter with rabbinic seals.<br /><br />This is actually a very important document, as it is signed by many rabbanim, and it certainly proves that women who have litigated in ARCHAOS cannot demand a GET based on "MAUS ALI", as ORA claims.<br /><br />"Women who summon their husbands to a non-Jewish court, it is forbidden to marry them, for they are considered wicked ("reshaim") who descend to Gehenom and forfeit their share in Olam Haba, and therefore they should remain unmarried for the rest of their lives."EmesLeYaakovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-90317153820316175562012-04-02T01:49:19.736+03:002012-04-02T01:49:19.736+03:00yadmoshe@gmail.comyadmoshe@gmail.comDaas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.com