Weiss-Dodelson: The end is in sight for Gital to receive her Get

Update and revised:  See- "What is holding up the Get?"
I have been hearing from insiders - on both sides of this horrific fight - that the differences between Gital and Avraham Meir are now small and bridgeable. In other words the end is in sight. Hopefully in the very near future we can all put down the clubs and keyboards and celebrate the end to this horrible affair.

What is preventing the agreement now seems to be that both sides view themselves as The Victim - which is only partially true.  There is only one victim. That is the individual who at present doesn't even know about the battle that has been going on around him - that is their son. No matter how they divide custody and time - he is going to be torn between the two parents that he loves. Hopefully his parents will understand that they have to commit themselves to work together as his parents for their son's sake and act as if they are friends.

In addition one insider told me to that it is very important to mention on my blog that the figure of $350,000 is false. There has been too much yelling and screaming of about this large sum of money and the false claim that Avraham Meir is an extortionist who only cares about money. While it is true that both sides have spent at least that amount in the legal battles and the Weiss would have liked to be compensated in full for the crushing legal expenses - the Weiss's are willing to give the Get without being paid that amount.  What they are demanding is only compensation for being forced to go to court initially to regain partial custody of the baby when Gital ran off with the child. That is considerably less than $350,000.

Finally we all realize at this point that the system is seriously in need of repair. There are too many examples of what can be described as corruption and insensitivity. Halacha is not being observed or being observed selectively. It is clear that some significant changes must be introduced to not only prevent women from being trapped in bad marriages - but also husbands. But the changes need to be universally accepted as operating within the bounds of halacha. This fight has raised the awareness of all of us as to how urgent the problem is. Hopefully this won't be forgotten after Gital has her Get. It is also important to note that if this was not Gital Dodelson (Kotler) versus Avraham Meir Weiss (Feinstein) - nobody would have paid attention. There are significant issues of marriage and divorce which need to be addressed - but why was there been a media circus only in this case?

Update: In response to the assertion that the giving of the Get will be proof that the only reason she received it is the interviews in the NY Post and others media - it simply isn't true. The final settlement will probably be not significantly different than that proposed by Rabbi Greenwald and accepted by Avraham Meir before the media blitz. In other words, Gital's leaving the negotiating table for her media blitz against Avraham Meir - has gained her nothing! Even her supporters such as Rabbi Malkiel Kotler are disgusted by the NY Post article and Newsweek interviews - and especially by her joking comment that maybe she should live together with a guy for five years before marriage. Others were horrified by her statement "I am looking for a stepfather for my son." Rabbi Greenwald mentioned to someone that negotiations in this affair have been much harder than those that he conducted to get Sharansky's freedom.

Rabbi Greenwald - who has had a long and distinguished career in negotiating disputes -  has also noted that in dealing with important people he will often ask that neither side go public with the details of negotiations. Playing to the media severely detracts from the ability to negotiate honestly and make the painful but necessary concessions. Unfortunately he apparently didn't think it was necessary to ask for it here.

It is critical to understand that if in fact Gital had bludgeoned Avraham Meir into submission by the roar of the outraged masses - the resulting Get would be posul. One of the reasons for my extensive coverage of this dispute - is to ensure that when Avraham Meir gives the Get - it will be of his own free will and not because he has a gun to his head. So a knock-out victory by Gital would be devastating to her,  because she would never be able to marry without the concern for mamzerus.

For those of you who think Gital has the right to receive a Get on demand - that simple is not the Torah position. The Torah has a more nuanced position involving the concern for the stability of the family and the well being of children. In particular our Sages have noted that a readily available Get - produces the undesirable consequence that the couple is less likely to work hard to make the marriage work.

Gital definitely has won the support of secular and Modern Jews who view this case primarily as one of human dignity and the freedom of the individual to be happy. But she has lost the support of  Yeshiva Jew view this as a severe chilul hashem and attack on halacha. Even for many of the rabbis who apparently supported her cause - it was primarily for political reasons - and they cringe when you mention "NY Post".

In sum, for those of you who are asking for a scorecard as to who won this fight - the simple answer is no one.

Oxytocin might be neurobiolgical basis for monogamy

LA Times       Come for the romance, stay for the oxytocin. That’s the neurobiological bottom line on monogamy, according to a new study. 

 

Men spritzed with oxytocin, a hormone from the pituitary gland, showed a renewed attraction for the faces of their romantic partners, but not for equally attractive strangers, according to a study published online Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

And the men weren’t just saying so. Their brains were hyped up in areas associated with reward and motivation, according to the study.

“Monogamy is actually quite costly for humans, so there must be some form of benefit,” said Rene Hurlemann, a psychiatrist at the University of Bonn in Germany who led the study. “We’d expect humans, especially males, would disseminate their genes. That would be a very strong evolutionary force driving male behavior. But what drives males to stay in a monogamous relationship?”

The answer may lie in a steady diet of oxytocin that triggers dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward, motivation and addiction, according to the study.

 

In humans, overtures of social support, hugs, massages and sexual intercourse all release oxytocin. And oxytocin, in turn, has been shown to induce pro-social behavior –- we tend to trust each other and feel more attached to others in response to the chemical. [...]

6 school employees charged in Steubenville rape case - for not reporting the abuse & obstructing justice

CNN   A grand jury investigating the 2012 rape of a 16-year-old girl in Steubenville, Ohio, has indicted four school employees, including the school superintendent, who faces felony charges, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced Monday.

Steubenville City Schools Superintendent Michael McVey faces three felony counts: one charge of tampering with evidence and two counts of obstructing justice. He also is charged with making a false statement and obstructing official business, both misdemeanors, DeWine said.

Also indicted was elementary school principal Lynnett Gorman and wrestling coach Seth Fluharty, both of whom are charged with misdemeanor failure to report child abuse. Volunteer assistant Steubenville football coach Matt Belardine was charged with four misdemeanors: allowing underage drinking, obstructing official business, making a false statement and contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a child.

This brings to six the number of people the grand jury has indicted after two students were convicted of rape, DeWine said. A school technology director and his daughter were indicted in October. [...]

Weiss-Dodelson: Sorting out the major points of dispute

Guest Post by Kevin in Chicago[update: Added comments]

Dear Rav Eidensohn,

[...] Some readers are misunderstanding your position, to point out that a moral obligation is not necessarily a halakhic obligation, and to make clear your overriding concern that a misunderstanding of halakhah not lead to improper pressure on husbands and questionable gittin. So please accept these comments for what they are worth, and feel free to use or not use any part of them in any way you see fit.

Divorce is an emotionally-charged subject, and it does not help to mix in the antagonism between liberal and conservative wings of Orthodoxy. One can argue with the recent RCA pronouncement, but it is not an endorsement of "get on demand," nor does it purport to be a statement of halakhah -- although this should have been made explicit.

It seems that some commenters are talking past each other. I have no halakhic expertise, but perhaps I can help separate the issues. DT is concerned with the well-being of both parties to this divorce. But more importantly, he is concerned with a serious halakhic issue that extends far beyond this case. I understand this is basic halakhah: a get must be given willingly. If given under duress, it is invalid. If a get is invalid, the wife cannot lawfully remarry and her subsequent children are mamzerim; if the get is of doubtful validity, her subsequent children are safek mamzerim. This is a very serious stigma and disability extending to her children's children down the generations.

If a beit din issues a valid decision that a husband is required to give a get and he refuses, the beit din may authorize "persuasive" measures, although their extent is disputed among poskim. But the precondition is a judgment of a beit din that the husband is obligated to give a get; a civil divorce judgment is not a substitute.

The pressures the Dodelsons have brought to bear have been quite public. If they were not halakhically justified, and R'AMR gives a get appearing to have succumbed to them (although not directly admitting it, which would void the get ab initio), the get would be of doubtful validity or worse. The problem risks being multiplied many times over if it becomes acceptable to similarly pressure a husband to give a get before a beit din has ordered him to do so.

The belief has been spreading in some Orthodox circles that if there is a civil divorce, the husband is obligated to give, and the wife to receive, a kosher get. But absent a halakhically valid agreement, any obligation to give a get following a civil divorce is a moral obligation, not a halakhic one. The two should not be confused. It has long been acknowledged that one can be a "naval bir'shut ha-Torah," that a Jew can act shamefully without actually violating halakhah. The concern is that because of the specific and unusual requirement that a get be given willingly, pressure on the husband to "do the right thing," if the pressure is not in conformity with halakhah, could result in the wife receiving a doubtful or invalid get. This concern has nothing to do with condoning "extortion" by withholding a get. It is a concern that the get, when given, be universally accepted as valid, and avoid the risk of creating mamzerim.

The timing of the RCA's recent pronouncement made it look like a capitulation to pressure from the Dodelson camp and advocates for agunot, and it may have been. But it was not, and did not claim to be, a halakhic ruling. It was a statement of policy and moral exhortation. The RCA stated that,"when the marriage is functionally over and the relationship between the husband and wife has irreversibly ended ... the withholding of a get under such circumstances [is] an exploitation of the halachic process and a manifestation of domestic abuse." "Exploitation of the halachic process" implies something not actually forbidden by halakhah. The assertion that the RCA's statement purports to overturn millennia-old halakhah is mistaken. And in fairness it should also be noted that saying a get should be given and received once "the relationship between the husband and wife has irreversibly ended" (which it clearly has in the present case) is not the same as

requiring a get "on demand."

On the other hand, the "Kol Koreh" authorizing coercive measures against R'AMW and his father and uncle, which clearly DOES purport to be a halakhic ruling, is far more troubling. This proclamation, which DT called "halakhic nonsense" in his November 18 post, purports to be based, not on the judgment of a beit din, but on a seruv that, as "Joseph" explained in his guest post, is invalid and/or moot. I am a "nobody," but as I can't imagine that DT is brazenly ignorant, I can't imagine an explanation for respected rabbis signing off on "halakhic nonsense" that reflects well on them -- or on American Orthodox Judaism.

Update: Three additional thoughts:

Poor Rabbi Greenwald must have been painfully reminded of Mishlei 26:17:  מַחֲזִיק בְּאָזְנֵי־כָלֶב עֹבֵר מִתְעַבֵּר עַל־רִיב לֹּא־לֹו׃ 

Re the "Kol Koreh" -- Should it be understood that the credibility of a rabbinic pronouncement is inversely proportional to the number of rabbis signing it?  How many of the signatories would have individually signed off on teshuvot to the same effect?  Do "shepherds" have a "herd instinct"?  A wolf-pack instinct?  "Lo tihyeh acharei rabb[on]im l'ra`ot"?

At this point, neither member of this couple appears to be a desirable marriage partner.  Perhaps this period in which neither can remarry is a hidden blessing, an opportunity to mature.  When two people have a child together, neither should treat the other as disposable.  IY"H, they will come to the point of asking forgiveness of each other, and if not reconciling as husband and wife, at least treating each other respectfully as co-parents.

Weiss Dodelson: Dodelson's did begin binding arbitration proccess with Rabbi Greenwald

Update: Full document posted
The Dodelson's have been claiming that they were not involved in working out a binding arbitration agreement with Rabbi Greenwald. They assert that Rabbi Greenwald simply offered a proposal and they rejected it. Thus their side is claiming that Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak that according to everyone Avraham Meir could not be considered mesarev - is at best mistaken and worst is false.

The reality is different. There was a lot of negotiation involving the Dodelson and their lawyers as well as the intervention of Rabbi Ahron Koter and it was coordinated by Rabbi Greenwald.

This is a document which was received by Rabbi Greenwald from the Dodelson's lawyer to sign on the binding arbitration that they claim they never were involved in. 

This is clear proof that the Dodelson's did in fact start the binding arbitration process with Rabbi Greenwald. Binding arbitration was later abandoned for legal reasons and they focused on a consent order.

   Weiss-Dodelson Arbitration Agreement

===========From  Set Gital Free website

The Weiss Family has put out several statements.  This page is intended to refute their accusations and misinformation point by point.

 

Rabbi Dovid B. Feinstein put out a statement explaining the Weisses’ current position.  This is the gist of his statement:
1.      The two sides accepted Ronnie Greenwald as binding arbitrator
2.      The arbitrator rendered a decision
3.      The Weisses accepted the decision
4.      The Dodelsons rejected it
5.      Hence, the Get is on the table and the Dodelsons are unreasonably refusing to take it

 

First, before getting into the details, one note of importance:  This case was decided by the judge after three years in court and after hearing from both sides and both custody experts.  Weiss is not satisfied with that decision (despite the fact that he was the one who chose the venue of court), and he is withholding a Get until we go to arbitration for a new decision, totally discarding the judge’s decision.  That alone is extortion and totally unacceptable – withholding a Get in an attempt to obfuscate the court's ruling and a second chance to obtain better terms.

Our Response to the Statement:Ronnie Greenwald was never accepted as binding arbitrator.  Ronnie himself sent out an email: “It is unfortunate that due to many legal conditions regarding binding arbitration the proposal that I become the binding arbitrator was not accepted” (see email below).  

Most importantly, however, Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald has issued this letter to clarify any misunderstandings:

If there had been binding arbitration, it would be enforceable in court.  There would be no need to post on the internet asking anyone to “accept the decision.”  Hence, the many statements made by Dovid Feinstein alluding to "arbitration" and a "decision" are beyond meaningless.   

There was no arbitration.  There was no decision.  Rabbi Greenwald, acting as a mediator of his own volition, passed along the demands of the Weiss family.  Gital, however, has no intention of giving in to extortion.

Now you know why we need your continued support.  The court rendered its decision and the case should be over.  Withholding a Get to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars and better terms – be it through new arbitration or new negotiations – is pure extortion.

Expectation grows for repeal of Beit Shemesh elections

Times of Israel   Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein is considering going to court to overturn the results of October’s Beit Shemesh municipal elections over allegations of widespread fraud.

A police investigation into allegations that some supporters of Mayor Moshe Abutbul had voted multiple times has led, according to a Justice Ministry official, to the realization “that there is no alternative to new elections, as things appear now.” 

Officials, speaking anonymously to Israel Radio, cited the growing body of evidence related to instances of fraud, including the discovery of some 200 identity cards in an apartment and car believed to belong to Abutbul supporters and the finding of a cache of clothing that apparently served to disguise individuals who voted multiple times on election day.[...]

In light of the close vote and growing evidence of fraud, and after holding several meetings on the issue in his office in recent weeks, the attorney general is expected to appeal the vote and ask the courts to order a new municipal election.

The decision to appeal is expected soon, likely before the weekend, after which appealing the election will be prohibited by law.

The Aveirah Song - Halachic Analysis by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times   [YOUTUBE]  As of this writing, it has about 170,000 hits on YouTube. It was uploaded in February of 2013 and it has already spawned a sequel.  Out of 1000 people who watched it and rated it, it has an eleven percent disapproval rating.  None of the comments are pareve – either the listener is bowled over or deeply offended and characterizes it as a grave Chillul Hashem.

What is the Aveirah song?  What is it’s appeal?  What has been the reaction to it?  And what do Torah sources have to say about the matter?

The Aveirah song is either a satire or parody that pokes fun at, well, something.  The disclaimer at the end of the video claims that it pokes fun at those who perform sins.  Its detractors claim that while this is what the producers claim that this is what it does, in reality it just parodies contemporary Orthodox culture, and has no redeeming spiritual benefit whatsoever.

As a background, the parody was produced by a very worthy Yeshiva in Israel that works with American high school graduates and not only gets them into learning, but catapults these young men into some very serious Torah growth.  Many of their graduates go on to the most prestigious Yeshivos in Eretz Yisroel.  The singer pronounces the lyrics with a Chasidic accent, and they are set to a modern rap tune. To get a feel for it, some of the lyrics are below.

I eat a gid hanasheh every bite,

I put on my left shoe before my right,

You think I don’t do aveiros? Don’t even wonder,

I never make a brucheh when I hear the thunder,

My wife wears a sheitel, not a tichel,

I eat the herring without the kichel,

I drink every night ad delo yudeh,

I never sing zemiros at the shabbos sudeh,

I hang around with a goyishe oilem,

I never do bikur cholim,

Yeah I hang out with goyim vus iz nisht gemalet,

I don’t put on my paper, beis samech daled. [...]

A proposal for solving the problem of get me'usa by Rav Dovid Eidensohn

Years ago, somebody told me he was upset with his wife. He had no specific complaint against his wife, but he was very upset. Finally, I asked him who he was talking to that got him in such a mood. He told me so and so. I asked, isn’t that person recently divorced? He said yes. I told him, “Get that person out of your house.” After that it was quiet. 

There was an article in the New York Times about an apartment building in Manhattan peopled by the up and coming. Those people had the good jobs,  great futures, and wonderful marriages. One day, people in the building were shocked to discover that a couple divorced. After a while, a neighbor of that couple divorced. And so it spread like a contagion. Those near a divorced person began to divorce, until the entire building was shaking with divorce. The purpose of the article obviously is to describe the poison that emanates from a bitter person who wants to spread the salvation that divorce brought to them. But this is wrong. If you talk to somebody filled with hate, you are going to learn hate. Never talk to such a person. Your marriage and your life hang in the balance.

Now let’s talk about the average couple in the Torah world who have a problem.  The husband or wife is very angry, but who can they talk to about it? Well, the closest people to them such as parents soon are brought into the secret. Maybe the way the complaint is expressed, filled with bitterness, influences the parent or close friend. Somebody has just lit a match in a very sensitive area. Eventually, the bitterness becomes open and both parents jump in and the marriage is over with.

I spoke with a major rabbi in Israel not long ago and told him that telling parents of your problem with your spouse is very dangerous, because parents have no balance and can really mess up a marriage. He agreed enthusiastically. 

Now let us go to the solution.

Let us assume that every marriage has its problems. The key to survival is to know what to do with these problems. We just described the folly of getting parents to back your hate, until both parents are firing away and the marriage is dead. So what should be done? Our solution is as follows.

First of all, marriage today is too delicate to wait until it falls apart to look for counseling. Then it may be too late. My idea is that before marriage and surely in its early phases the couple sign up with a Shalom Bais Beth Din. Now, this is not the ordinary Beth Din that enters the picture after all of the dishes have been smashed. This Beth Din does not deal with divorce or punishment for destroyed marriages. This Shalom Bais Din is only about Shalom. What is its function and how does it do its work to make Shalom?

The couple signs up with the Beth Din preferably before the marriage. A program of education is begun. Education covers those areas that impact upon Shalom Bayis, such as earnings, being tired or exhausted, unrealistic ambitions and expectations, etc.  We straighten out the road before it is filled with potholes.  We don’t ignore the basic problems that make pressures and confusion and disappointment in marriage, but we educate that they are here and must be faced and dealt with. And we educate the couple how to face and deal with them.

In other words, the Beth Din looks for trouble before it erupts. Most of the trouble is easily identified and can be dealt with, so we are far ahead of our program in the initial educating process. But yet, there can still be problems of personality, sensitivity, family, etc. So we come to phase two, not anticipating trouble, but leaning about it and dealing with it. As soon as husband or wife has a complaint, they are taught how to deal with it, and if they can’t settle it themselves, they must bring it to the Shalom Beth Din. The Shalom Beth Din will try to organize things, although this is easier said than done. Nonetheless, the fact that a Beth Din is involved, not in dividing up the children and money, but in settling things and making shalom, puts us far ahead of the usual process of problems in marriage.

We thus have phase one of pre-marital and early education, phase two of dealing with problems that erupt despite the education, and we come now to phase three, when one of the couple doesn’t listen to the Beth Din and the marriage is in trouble. Phase three is the power to fine, not to force a GET, because this Beth Din is not about divorce, but about Shalom Bayis. The fine is levied for violating Shalom Bayis. The couple signs a paper that is legal in Jewish and secular law that they will obey the Beth Din’s suggestions to make Shalom in the house. And if someone defies the Beth Din, the Beth Din has the power of fining the guilty party.

Now let us jump ahead to a marriage where the husband is tough and continues torturing his wife and refuses to listen to the Beth Din. He is fined, and fined again, and fined again. If it continues, and these legal obligations pile up, threatening his car, his house, his gulf clubs, his seforim, he may decide that he can’t afford this marriage and ask for a divorce. Note, he asks for the divorce to spare himself the fines. At least, this marriage will not make an Agunah. There is no problem of GET MEUSO  a forced GET because the Beth Din is not interested in divorce; it wants Shalom and its fines are directed at creating Shalom not at creating Gittin.

In very rare cases a husband may be a candidate for a forced GET, but this is not the purpose of the Beth Din, whose purpose is Shalom. If the husband is a candidate for a coerced GET, which is extremely rare, the Beth Din can make recommendations how to proceed, but its basic function is to make Shalom, and if it makes a GET it is a failure and a wrong turn in the process. Thus, there is no problem of forced GET because the Beth Din does not want a GET. Preferably, if there is to be a coerced GET another Beth Din should be involved, and should be under the direct guidance of Gedolei HaDor, as a letter from Rav Wosner states.

To summarize, one should not marry with Kiddushin unless they are cognizant of the chance of being an Agunah and the sin of doing something in violation of accepted halacha to coerce a GET or to annul the marriage. My brother told me that this was the opinion of HaGaon Rav Moshe Shternbuch shlit”o head of the Beth Din of the Ado in Jerusalem.

Each community should establish a Shalom Bais Din and see that various procedures are implemented to improve the marriages and prevent broken marriages and Agunose.

Such a Beth Din should be founded with the guidance of senior Gittin poskim, although the purpose is not to make a GET but to make Shalom Bayis.

If anyone is interested in such a project they can contact me at 845-578-1917.

Dovid Eidensohn

Musmach from Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l  to be Rosh Beth Din of Gittin

Weiss Dodelson: Background on the siruv from Machon Lehora

Just received this comment from a distinguished talmid chachom. He said I can publish it but to delete his name from the comment. Even though he is fully aware that it will be obvious  from the comment - to the Lakewood establishment - who he is.

Rabbi Eidensohn,

I just wish to point out that over two years ago Rabbi Malkiel Kotler asked me how he can convince Machon Lehora to issue a siruv in this case. 

My response was, if a siruv is warranted why do you need my assistance, and if not why should I assist. His response, "ihr veist doch vee es geit" [my translation - "you know very well how things are done"]

Please don't quote in my name.

Custody Battle Raises Questions About the Rights of Women - or divorce is unfair to someone

NYTimes    The relationship did not last long — but she did become pregnant. And now the skier, 36, and Ms. McKenna, 27, a former Marine and firefighter who is attending Columbia University with G.I. Bill support, are locked in a cross-country custody fight that has become not only tabloid fodder but also a closely watched legal battle over the rights of pregnant women to travel and make life choices. 

In December, when she was seven months pregnant and already sparring with Mr. Miller about their future relations, Ms. McKenna moved to New York to start school. Mr. Miller accused her of fleeing to find a sympathetic court, and a New York judge agreed, castigating Ms. McKenna for virtually absconding with her fetus. This allowed a California court to subsequently grant custody of the baby, a boy, to Mr. Miller and also set off alarm bells among advocates for women’s rights. 

But on Nov. 14, a five-judge appeals court in New York said Ms. McKenna’s basic rights had been violated, adding, “Putative fathers have neither the right nor the ability to restrict a pregnant woman from her constitutionally protected liberty.” 

The appeals court also ruled that jurisdiction belonged in New York. 

On Monday, a New York City Family Court will start proceedings that could switch custody of the boy, now nine months old, back to Ms. McKenna.[...]

Once the boy was born, Ms. McKenna filed in New York for temporary custody. But on May 30, a Family Court referee refused, rebuking Ms. McKenna for “unjustifiable conduct” and “forum shopping” and making the unusual decision to leave the case in California even though the baby was born and lived in New York. 

While Ms. McKenna “did not ‘abduct’ the child,” the court said, “her appropriation of the child while in utero was irresponsible, reprehensible.” 

The Family Court in San Diego proceeded to grant primary custody to Mr. Miller. On Sept. 4, as Ms. McKenna described it, choking up, Mr. Miller and his wife came to her apartment, “took the baby out of my arms, dropped it in a car seat and drove away.”

Rabbi Zweibel: Aguna supporters are creating halachic problems

Rabbi Dovid Zweibel  said at the Aguda convention:

"There are so many issues, the Agunah issue, which has been in the news for all kinds of terrible reasons... 'We have to do something about it!' Unfortunately we discover that sometimes 'doing something about it' without the proper hadracha of Gedolei yisroel, can be so terribly counterproductive and can create shaalos about the validity of Gittin." See minute 19:52



Motzoei Shabbos Address from R' Chaim Dovid Zwiebel from Agudath Israel on Vimeo.