tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post2823440005218919960..comments2024-03-28T21:30:33.665+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Forced get: Rav Herzog - full lenient analysisDaas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-6081474691573780802012-05-07T13:24:23.693+03:002012-05-07T13:24:23.693+03:00Stan,
What possible connection do you see between...Stan,<br /><br />What possible connection do you see between the Briskman case and this one?<br /><br />Now while Hebrew books only has the first 18volumes of Piskei Din available online, and I don't have time to shlep to the national library to hunt up the case in the later volumes, it would appear that there is nothing in common between the two cases.<br /><br />In the Friedman-Epstein case you have a wife who decided she wanted out of the marriage. Who(possibly with the consent of her husband) moved back to her parent's home with her child, and whose husband went to Arkaot(with or without a valid heter depending on who you listen to), and no valid B"D has issued a ruling.<br /><br />The Briskman case, from what I have been able to find via google(again haven't seen the piskei din so I am not certain of all the details). The husband left the wife, the wife went to B"D to seek a proper divorce. A valid B"D(and several after) ruled in the wife's favor. The husband refuses the order of a valid B"D, and flees the country. A valid B"D ordered harchakot ect.<br /><br />Now let me head you off with your Brisker Rav quote, saying that Rabbinut is tamei. Even if you feel that way, and if Briskman felt that way, he was not without recourse. The 1955 Beit Din law allows either party to refuse to be judged by the Rabbinut B"D in favor of any of the Eida Batei Din that pre-existed the State(i.e. the Eida HaChareidit or Eida HaCharedit Sephardit if you lived in Jerusalem). At which point the respective Eda B"D would supply two Dayyanim who would themselves pick a third from the Rabbinut approved Dayyan list so that their ruling would be legally enforceable.<br /><br />Whether or not Briskman chose to do this is irrelevant. What it establishes is that he was judged by what he considered a valid B"D and he refused their ruling... <br /><br />That you consider taking a stand against that to be "pro-woman" is actually quite disturbing.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-74287217781964389502012-05-07T06:22:39.931+03:002012-05-07T06:22:39.931+03:00Oooh slander in the midst of the Sefirah.
Aron...Oooh slander in the midst of the Sefirah. <br /><br /><i> Aron going to court is just an excuse, something to grab on to to say "Look - he's wrong! who cares what she does next!"</i><br /><br />Actually it is a chance to point out the misogynistic hypocrisy of you and your sock puppets. You think that there are two Torahs(l'havdil) one for men, and one for women.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-32787516224669815172012-05-07T06:20:02.378+03:002012-05-07T06:20:02.378+03:00Well you see Bob, Binyamin/Stan/EmesL'Yaakov d...Well you see Bob, Binyamin/Stan/EmesL'Yaakov don't agree with you. They have said repeatedly that in such a case the woman would be a moseret.<br /><br />That is why I keep asking them to condemn Aharon Friedman. It has nothing to do with whether Aharon Friedman did anything right or wrong, it has to do with their own hypocrisy.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-15120179934630366592012-05-07T03:41:37.510+03:002012-05-07T03:41:37.510+03:00Yes, if the roles were reversed (Aharon had unilat...Yes, if the roles were reversed (Aharon had unilaterally relocated the child), Tamar would have been justified in filing an emergency court motion. Why would it be any different?Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-86950591210119497062012-05-07T02:27:58.087+03:002012-05-07T02:27:58.087+03:00DT in order to shut the putz tzadok up i urge you ...DT in order to shut the putz tzadok up i urge you to post my posting refuting his baloney about Friedman claiming that i support men who break halochoh.stannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-87418439028974940122012-05-07T00:20:44.918+03:002012-05-07T00:20:44.918+03:00Rabbi Tzadok,
If the roles were reversed (in othe...Rabbi Tzadok,<br /><br />If the roles were reversed (in other words, Aharon had unilaterally taken the child out-of-state and refused to come back or negotiate), than Tamar would have been justified in going to civil court for an emergency motion. Why would it be any different? <br /><br />If a man or woman goes to court because court would provide a better outcome than BD (or at least they think that to be the case), than that is wrong. The person is going to court to avoid BD.<br /><br />It is a different case where someone goes to court in a time sensitive situation (especially where the other party has acted unilaterally to create that situation) on an emergency motion to prevent them from completely losing any legal rights they might have, such that even if BD were to rule in that party's favor, the ruling would be a nullity because the party would have given up any rights they had in court. This is particularly true where the person later suspends the court process to being the matter to court, and especially so where such suspension is also extremely prejudicial in that even if the BD were to rule in that party's favor it would be much less likely that a court would uphold the BD's decision at a later date.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-58683494558438054172012-05-07T00:08:45.573+03:002012-05-07T00:08:45.573+03:00Bob, why do you assume you know what Tzadok is say...Bob, why do you assume you know what Tzadok is saying? You must have missed his warning here http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/halachic-impact-of-psychologicalsocial.html?showComment=1335266853139#c4658913602805969766 not to make such rash assumptions.<br /><br />Tzadok is not looking for anything else than an excuse to defend his position. (I have no idea what that position is, but he is pretty hard put to defend it.) Aron going to court is just an excuse, something to grab on to to say "Look - he's wrong! who cares what she does next!". It is a very common attitude towards divorce issues, where people find one mistake the man made, and justify everything the wife does based on that. <br /><br />So tzadok needs to go all out on this issue. He doesn't care about child abductions. He has no interest in anything except for having that excuse to blame aharon. And you are trying to take that away from him with a rational explanation.Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03968756160388984974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-64243595384213569122012-05-06T23:55:17.657+03:002012-05-06T23:55:17.657+03:00We all do stuff that we don't want to just to ...We all do stuff that we don't want to just to get money, so in that sense everyone is like a prostitute.Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03968756160388984974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-17968778741046423532012-05-06T23:09:28.045+03:002012-05-06T23:09:28.045+03:00What is repellent are your laughable attempts to w...What is repellent are your laughable attempts to wiggle out of falsehoods, that is what is repellent.<br /><br />DT has a long history of siding with women e.g. in the Briskman case (search it if you don't believe me) and the the only reason he is posting differently now is because it would appear that he is fighting for his brother's kovod.<br /><br />that is why he somehow tries to wiggle out by calling the ban on schlachter old, allows a sickening attack on rav abraham which is baseless yet claims belsky and bechoffer are talmidei chachomim when they openly advocate the violation of halochoh.<br /><br />I have no problem with attacks based on sources but not vicious attacks which are baseless e.g. your claims that I never answered you about friedman in arko'oys.<br /><br />lastly he will probably publish this to prove how wrong I am and how open minded he is.<br /><br />I am abusive but all the rshoim of getora are not...stannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-10977441927004098712012-05-06T22:40:18.164+03:002012-05-06T22:40:18.164+03:00Simple question.
If the roles were reversed and ...Simple question. <br />If the roles were reversed and Aharon took off with the kid and it was Tamar who was filing, would you be equally agreeable to it?<br /><br />If yes, my fight is not with you. If no. Then you like Stan/Binyamin/EmesL'Yaakov are a hypocrite and a misogynist who is in violation of the commandment to have one law for all the people.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-4610067228063121902012-05-06T22:22:27.848+03:002012-05-06T22:22:27.848+03:00Bob,
Simple question. If the roles were reversed...Bob,<br /><br />Simple question. If the roles were reversed and it was Friedman that took off with the child, would you be as adamant about Epstein's right to take this to secular court?Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-20908617823356025782012-05-06T22:18:34.231+03:002012-05-06T22:18:34.231+03:00Bob,
The psak was against Jewish law. It is as s...Bob,<br /><br />The psak was against Jewish law. It is as simple as that. If you are willing to allow women to go to court against men without a valid psak, then we really have nothing more to discuss. <br /><br />However, if you are like Stan/Binyamim/Emes L'Yaakov... and the rest of the sock puppets, and hold that a woman cannot under any circumstances, even with a valid claim. Then this is hypocrisy pure and simple.<br /><br />Personally I would be strict both ways. That is where I hold on Arkaot. Either side going without a valid heter from a B"D is assur. Full stop.<br /><br />I understand that at least for Aharon Friedman, you feel that the halakha of the Shulhan Arukh should not be applied to him. Would you feel the same way if it were a woman doing it?<br /><br />Just in case you do not understand my problem with Binyamin/Stan/EmesL'Yaakov et al, it is that from the time this discussion got started have been screaming about the evil of women going to arkaot(secular court) even for a valid claim(such as you say is Aharon Friedman's). However, they are not upset with Aharon Friedman.<br /><br />My problem with that is this, they say that we should strictly enforce the Shulhan Arukh when it is women who have the claim, but not when it is men. That is not Torah. Torah says that there is to be <b>one law</b> for all the people. Torah makes no distinction about the severity of mesirah or arkaot if it is a man or a woman. They do.<br /><br />Now if you will admit that Tamar would have had as much right to go to secular court if Aharon had run off with the child... then really we have nothing to discuss. Because while I may not agree with your position, and may be willing to debate it on an esoteric level, you will at least be consistent and honest.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-88414024243522662392012-05-06T21:59:37.156+03:002012-05-06T21:59:37.156+03:00One parent's unilaterally relocating a child (...One parent's unilaterally relocating a child (although not technically illegal) is deemed to be an abduction that is reprehensible and unjustifiable. But if the second parent does not quickly go to court, the second parent is deemed to have acquiesced in the relocation. Friedman's going to beis din instead of court would have meant that even if the BD had ruled in his favor, the court would never have upheld such decision because of the delay in bringing the case to court. As it were Friedman cancelled the pendete lite trial and postponed court adjudication to bring the case to bd only because that was required by the psak he had received - and the court ultimately ruled that the child should stay in PA because Friedman had agreed to postpone civil adjudication to being the case to BD - showing that the psak was too strict, not too lenient.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-40802618703122612882012-05-06T21:55:14.933+03:002012-05-06T21:55:14.933+03:00Epstein does not claim that she had Friedman's...Epstein does not claim that she had Friedman's consent to relocate the child. She first lied about this in court (at an emergency motion at which Friedman coudldn't prove otherwise), But Epstein later admitted to the court that she had unilaterally taken the child out-of-state.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-37308465317995248002012-05-06T21:52:07.920+03:002012-05-06T21:52:07.920+03:00Rabbi Tzadok,
Friedman canceled (not postponed) th...Rabbi Tzadok,<br />Friedman canceled (not postponed) the October 2008 pendete lite trial, and postponed the final trial until June 2009. This was highly prejudicial to Friedman because while if the case were to be heard in civil court at a later date, it was much more likely that the court would rule that the child stay in PA because so much time had elapsed after Epstein had abducted the child. This is not mere speculation, but what ultimately happened. The court ruled in June 2009 that the child stay in PA because Epstein had kept the child there for so long.<br /><br />The procedural summary does not claim what you state it does. The BD did not order Friedman to dismiss the case until June 2009 (even though you claim that the BD should have ordered Friedman to dismiss the case in January 2009, as soon as the parties told the Beis Din that the case was pending in court). <br />When Beis Din ordered Friedman to dismiss the case before it went to trial, it was contingent on Epstein agreeing not to bring the case in PA (regardless of whether you think the BD should have done this - perhaps the BD realized that if the case were dismissed from the MD courts, Epstein could have filed the case in PA). Friedman agreed (even though it was highly prejudicial to him) and Epstein refused. In any case, the court would not have dismissed the case based on a motion from just one of the parties.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-45764313668243917492012-05-06T21:50:08.930+03:002012-05-06T21:50:08.930+03:00The Chazon Ish is followed by the wide Ashkenazic...The Chazon Ish is followed by the wide Ashkenazic Torah world. Rav Ovadiaa Yosef is only followed by the Sephardic world, which is less than 20% of the Jewish world.morenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-32983676998128536542012-05-06T21:44:26.230+03:002012-05-06T21:44:26.230+03:00Rabbi Tzadok,
You are also neglecting the fact tha...Rabbi Tzadok,<br />You are also neglecting the fact that Friedman agreed to dismiss the the October 2008 pendete lite trial at which it was likely the child would be returned in order to bring the case to BD.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-88612937364006156582012-05-06T21:43:35.157+03:002012-05-06T21:43:35.157+03:00"All of Aharon's going to court was pre-e..."All of Aharon's going to court was pre-emptive, "<br /><br />This is not the case. Epstein's relocation of the child out-of-State was highly prejudicial and was the first step in the legal process.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-33547720263070433222012-05-06T21:42:25.764+03:002012-05-06T21:42:25.764+03:00"So going with my spouse, yes I would immedia..."So going with my spouse, yes I would immediately go to B"D and demand the child be returned, where I would explain the need to utilize the secular court system should the spouse fail to immediately comply with the order of the B"D."<br /><br />You would have first gone to BD even though if BD had ruled in your favor (and told you to go to court if your spouse did not listen to BD), you would have lost in court because of the delay caused by your going to BD?Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-27790938623590695032012-05-06T21:40:07.464+03:002012-05-06T21:40:07.464+03:00"Friedman never dismissed the case. If he had..."Friedman never dismissed the case. If he had dismissed the case there never would have been a trial." <br /><br />Friedman agreed to postpone the case as per the Beis Din's orders that Friedman postpone OR dismiss the case.<br />Friedman also agreed to the BD's orders that both parties agree to dismiss the case and agree not to bring the case in PA. This was prejudicial to Friedman, not Epstein. Nonetheless, Friedman agreed and Epstein refused.<br />At that point Friedman could have not have unilaterally dismissed the case, and the BD did not order Friedman to do so absent Epstein's agreement not to being the case in a PA court.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-84393253062860392962012-05-06T21:35:49.901+03:002012-05-06T21:35:49.901+03:00Wow Stan you really don't like it when someone...Wow Stan you really don't like it when someone gives it back to you the way you give it out do you? <br /><br />While I am saddened that someone sunk to your level, especially during the Sefirah, I hope that you will learn from this just how repellent you are.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-27931355070428051152012-05-06T21:09:47.378+03:002012-05-06T21:09:47.378+03:00Bob,
Friedman never dismissed the case. If he ha...Bob,<br /><br />Friedman never dismissed the case. If he had dismissed the case there never would have been a trial. <br /><br /><i> Do you dispute that this was the basis for the court's decision?</i><br />I really don't care what was the basis for the court's decision. Aharon whent to Arkaot in violation of the clear halakha for the Shulan Arukh. Any damage he suffered from that, as the Rema rules in C"M 26:1 is entirely his fault.<br /><br />He should have gone to a B"D first and demanded his child back. He didn't. He went straight to court.<br /><br /><i>If your child was abducted what would you do? Would you bring the case to the civil authorities or go to BD?</i><br />I assume you mean by my spouse in a divorce proceeding, because if it were by a stranger, I wouldn't bother with the civil authorities to be entirely honest, I have friends that specialize in returning kidnapping victims that I would call first.<br />So going with my spouse, yes I would immediately go to B"D and demand the child be returned, where I would explain the need to utilize the secular court system should the spouse fail to immediately comply with the order of the B"D.<br />All of Aharon's going to court was pre-emptive, without a proper heter or a ruling from a B"D. There is no excuse for that. Pure and simple. That you make one simply shows the hypocrisy and misogyny that infects this discussion.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-84811814965642878142012-05-06T21:02:50.973+03:002012-05-06T21:02:50.973+03:00Bob,
I'm sorry but the procedural summary sho...Bob,<br /><br />I'm sorry but the procedural summary shows that that is just not the case. He continually postponed the trial(i.e. cancelling the dates) but he never dismissed the case.<br /><br />What Friedman should have done was approach the B"D immediately demanding his child back, and get a ruling from them before proceeding straight to court. He didn't. So he was in violation of the halakha.<br /><br />I understand that the misogynistic side of this argument wants to make excuse and exception for following halakha, but that is hypocritical at best.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-26983820763537121792012-05-06T20:56:59.675+03:002012-05-06T20:56:59.675+03:00Bob,
Good question and one without an easy answer...Bob,<br /><br />Good question and one without an easy answer. For instance can a parent relocate a child from LA to San Fran wihtout parental permission? That is further(380mi) than Merion Station is from Baltimore(95mi), and with the express train between the two, the commute is about a half hr, you would need a jet to get from LA to San Fran that fast. Personally I am not sure State borders should make as much difference as distance(you can move from the East Side of Kansas City to the West Side and cross a state border).<br /><br />It is not entirely clear whether Tamar Epstein had consent or not. She(and those around her) claim that she did. Aharon Friedman(and those around him) claim that she didn't. <br /><br />Now if you want my honest opinion, I don't agree with a parent relocating a child to a different city, without consent of the other parent. However, legally I have no basis for that.<br /><br />What I don't support at all is going to secular court without the permsission of a B"D, and then staying there against the orders of the B"D.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-60086607019094278332012-05-06T20:40:57.229+03:002012-05-06T20:40:57.229+03:00mizrochnik show me where rav chaim brisker, his fa...mizrochnik show me where rav chaim brisker, his father, the ohr sameach, the rogetzover goan, reb chaim ozer et al held like any of these invented psakim?stannoreply@blogger.com