Campaign to have father fired from Artscroll for supporting son

With the apparently successful boycott against Artscroll to have the father and uncle removed from their jobs  because they supported R Avraham Meir Weiss - the question is what was the halachic justification?

 

  Kol Koreh (translation)

Kol Koreh (Hebrew) says:

We also turn to Artscroll (where his father and uncle who support him work) to protest against his family and to remove them from their positions, for it is not fitting that Torah should be transmitted through them. 

There are a number of major problems with this statement.  Their sin was to support the husband. The Kol Koreh claims that the husband is in nidoi and apparently they hold that those who support a person  in niddoi should themselves be placed in niddoi.  However the sources that are cited in the Kol Koreh to ostracize the husband (Y.D. 334) are  1) Refusing a summons of a beis din (CM 11). However that only applies if he refuses to go to beis din at all not even one of his own choosing (C.M. 14). That wasn't true here and he had a beis din nullify the seruv. 2) They claim he went to a secular court without permission (C.M. 26) - but he did get permission from a posek to do so. 

Therefore if there is no justification to place the husband  in niddoi - then obviously those who support him can not be placed in niddoi. Furthermore Rav Dovid Feinstein said even for those who believe that there had been justification for a seruv - it no longer applied in this case. That is because the husband had been working together with the Dodelson's to negotiate a binding agreement to give a Get.Therefore Rav Dovid Feinstein paskened that he was not guilty of being in contempt of bein din [Rabbi Greenwald's letter doesn't contract this and Rav Dovid Feinstein was fully aware of the nature of Rabbi Greenwald's efforts].

Therefore the campaign to fire the Weiss brothers seems to be a serious miscarriage of justice.  I would appreciate enlightenment by those who think they have a justification for depriving the family of parnossa.

Does Rav Malkiel Kotler approve of Gital's NY Post Interview?

One of the rumors that has circulated after Gital gave the NY Post interview was that it was approved by Rav Malkiel Kotler and Rav Aaron Kotler. It is claimed that it also had the approval of the gedolim who signed the Kol Koreh against her husband which states:

We state that, according to the Torah, it is permissible and it is a mitzvah to protest against him, to gather publicly in front of his house and in other places, and to make the matter known publicly and in the newspapers in order to save an oppressed woman from her oppressor and an Agunah from being chained.

Can anyone verify that Gital received permission from Rav Malkiel Kotler to give an interview to the New York Post? If he did give permission did he also approve of the following views she expressed?


1) The dating process is problematic and too short. It leads to disaster because families and friends put pressure on the couple to get married and to ignore their own feelings. Dating should be over a longer period of time before engagement.

2) Time between engagment and marriage is too short without allowing time to determine or develop compatibility. The couple should have more time to get acquainted before marriage.

3). Wife shouldn't have to follow the customs of the husband.

4) Husband should not have control over the finances - especially if she is the breadwinner

5) A wife has the right to demand a Get and thus break up the family - even when she thinks he is not a bad person but simply isn't right for her.

Gital Dodelson brings her story to Newsweek

Newsweek   “Only three days into the marriage, I knew I made a terrible mistake.”

Gital Dodelson, 25, wrote those words about her 2009 marriage to Avrohom Meir Weiss in an explosive essay in the New York Post last week. [...]

Dodelson’s friends launched a website, SetGitalFree.com, to help publicize her situation. A Facebook page, Free Gital: Tell Avrohom Meir Weiss to Give His Wife a "Get," has over 13,000 likes. Weiss’ side of the story, however, remains largely absent from media reports. Newsweek has been unable to reach Weiss or his family. However, Weiss’ father, Rabbi Yosaif Asher Weiss, spoke exclusively to the Staten Island Advance, saying: “Our family is horrified by the vitriol, lies and hate that permeate Gital's article… This is a very, very heart-wrenching and ongoing dispute. We've been trying desperately to resolve this for a long time. This has destroyed my family health wise and destroyed my family financially.”

Dodelson’s story is not unique in the world of Orthodox Judaism, where men hold all of the power when it comes to terminating marriages. [...]

“I consider this to be the most pressing issue facing the Orthodox community in America,” says Rabbi Avi Weiss, the longtime leader of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale in New York. “It’s an outrageous situation… If there is someone who is recalcitrant, they are not welcome — I have actually escorted such people out of my synagogue, which is so contrary to my work.”[...]

ORA, which has handled around 500 controversial get cases since its founding in 2002, helped Dodelson organize two peaceful demonstrations outside of Weiss’ home on Staten Island, the first in June 2012 and the second a year later. The group’s tactics — a concoction of social, communal and financial pressures that involve ostracizing a husband from his community and publicizing his name online and in the media — assist women who are often unable to advocate for themselves.

“Get refusal is the last stand of men who want to hurt their wives. It’s the act of desperation: ‘You will never leave me,’” says Elana Maryles Sztokman, executive director of JOFA, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance. “The moment of exit is the moment of greatest danger for abused women — it’s the moment when some abusive men will take out a violent weapon and try to kill their wives. In Judaism, men don’t need to take out a gun. They can take out a get and say, ‘I will own you forever.’”[...]

“I don’t agree with people living their lives out in the public eye like this, and using publicity to get something without everyone knowing all of the facts,” says HaDassah Sabo Milner, 40, a blogger for the Times of Israel. “You’ve got to think of the child. He’ll grow up and read vitriolic posts by each camp. He’s an innocent in all of this,” she says, adding, “I understand she’s totally desperate, and I get that, but at the end of the day, the husband has to give his divorce of his own free will.” [...]

Orthodox Judaism is replete with the vestiges of bronze-age patriarchy, and change in the community takes time and consensus. [...]

“I’m waiting for the email to say that Avrohom gave her the get,” says Shira Dicker, the publicist behind Dodelson’s Post article. “If we succeed here, we will have used a 21st century solution — Facebook, social media, the media — to combat a centuries-old law that is really in need of change.”

Weiss Dodelson: Rabbi Greenwald's 3 statements regarding his role

update Tuesday Novembe 12 2013:  Update: November 22, 2013 Explanation of apparent inconsistencies between 3rd letter and first 2   In particular the claim of Dodelson supporters based on Gital's webpage that the Weiss's are lying regarding the role of Rabbi Greenwald. 

I was told by someone who spoke with Rabbi Greenwald on Sunday that he fell down after writing the November 7th letter which was annotated by Rav Dovid Feinstein. As a resultof the fall he is in great pain, suffering from a broken wrist, two broken ribs, and an injured hip, and he is on strong painkillers.The stress from dealing with this case has taken a severe toll and he is being flooded with phone calls from all over the world, and he feels overwhelmed. The next day Monday he produced the email.
======================================
The following are the three documents in which Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald states his relationship to the Weiss-Dodelson dispute. The two emails were posted on the Dodelson website Set Gital free   I have sent an email to Rabbi Greenwald asking for an explanation for the apparent contradiction as to what he claims is his role in this matter. The second clearly states that both sides approached him to mediate the dispute. The 3rd one denies that he was ever accepted as a mediator or arbitrator in the manner and indicates that he was pursing this role but not that he was asked by both sides. Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak in the second document is predicated on the belief that Rabbi Greenwald was in fact accepted as the mediator in the dispute.  I will post whatever comments Rabbi Greenwald wishes to make.

Almost 50% of secular Israeli and 68% of Arab children have been abused

YNET     A total of 1,273,804 Israeli children experienced abuse, violence or neglect, data released on Tuesday suggest. According to a study peformed by the Israel National Council for the Child (NCC) and the Haifa University, every other child in a Jewish state school or Arab school has been subjected to some form of harm. However the study did not include state-religious and ultra-Orthodox education systems.

The data indicate a troubling reality of an overwhelming gap between the information available to authorities of 50,000 reports of child abuse a year, and the real scope of abuse and neglect.[...]

The study, which was conducted over the course of three years, is the first of its kind ever to be conducted in Israel and is one of the most comprehensive studies on child abuse worldwide. The researchers examined direct testimonies in a national polling sample of 8,239 Jewish children and 2,274 Arab children.

The findings indicate that half of Jewish children in public schooling (48.5%) reported they experienced some form of violence, including physical, emotional or sexual harm, as well as neglect. The situation in the Arab sector reveals a grimmer reality: More than two thirds of children (67.7%) reported some form of harm. According to NCC estimates, 540,390 children in the Arab sector have experienced a form of abuse.

The study further reveals that the most common abuse is emotional, mainly defined as parental cruelty, which is repeated systematically and distorts the sense of identity and esteem of 730,139 children. The report shows 399,212 Israeli children have suffered emotional neglect; 370,322 suffered physical violence; and 225,870 were exposed to domestic violence. 


The data indicate a significant gap between the number of reports to the authorities and the number of children who first-handedly attested abuse. In 2012, only 48,992 reports regarding suspected child abuse and neglect were filed. These finding reveal that the reports refer to 1.9% of all children. This figure stands against the finding that shows that 48.5% of all children reported that they experienced a form of abuse and harm. The meaning: Welfare authorities and police are unaware of the scope of the phenomenon. [...]

Weiss Dodelson - Rabbi Yosaif Asher Weiss resigns from Artscroll

Artscroll   For the least several months, we have invested enormous time and effort to facilitate a mutually acceptable outcome to the very sad matter of the Weiss-Dodelson differences. We have been motivated by one desire: to help bring about a get so that Gital and Avrohom Meir can build new futures for themselves and so that their child should be provided for in the most positive manner, for his benefit. Unfortunately, these efforts have not yet borne fruit.

In order to avoid further distraction from the harbotzas haTorah of ArtScroll/Mesorah, Rabbis Yosaif Asher and Yisroel Weiss have decided to give up their positions with our firm until this situation is resolved. Their letter to this effect is attached.

May our shared hope be fulfilled: that Hashem will provide all parties with the wisdom and good will to bring a peaceful conclusion to this tragic situation, and may Klal Yisrael everywhere come together and enjoy the blessings of peace.

Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz

Abuse whistleblower Kellner - Case dismissal overruled in mysterious circumstances

Jewish Week    Prosecutors in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office were set to dismiss the case against chasidic abuse whistleblower Sam Kellner this week for lack of evidence, but were overruled by their supervisor and then reassigned, The Jewish Week has learned.

Last Wednesday, one day after Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes suffered a crushing defeat by Ken Thompson in his bid for re-election, Assistant District Attorney Joe Alexis informed Kellner’s lawyers, Michael Dowd and Niall MacGiollabhui, by phone that the case against their client would be dismissed at the next scheduled court date, Nov. 12.

On Friday, however, MacGiollabhui told The Jewish Week that he received a call from Alexis, bureau chief of the Rackets Division and a 22-year veteran of the office, informing him that he and the other trial prosecutor, Nicholas Batsidis (who had indicted the case), had been overruled and then transferred out of the Rackets Division by its chief, Michael Vecchione.

Vecchione, one of Hynes’ top aides, has been under scrutiny for alleged misconduct during his tenure as a prosecutor; his alleged actions form the basis of a $150 million lawsuit against the city by a wrongfully convicted man named Jabbar Collins. During the campaign, Thompson called on Hynes to fire Vecchione and in September, after Thompson’s primary victory, the Daily News reported that he intended to fire Vecchione when he takes office.

“We had been dealing with two very professional, career prosecutors,” Dowd told The Jewish Week on Sunday. “And then to find out that they are being punished for their exercise of judgment and conscience, it makes you sick. How can you have faith in the system when the system is obviously being corrupted by Michael Vecchione?”[...]

Yaakov hated Leah - a minority view takes it literally

The Torah states that because of Leah's deceiving Yaakov to marry her - when he thought he was marry Rachel - he hated her. The majority of commentaries clearly understand this as not being literally true or that relative to his love for Rachel she was hated. In contrast there are a small number of commentaries from respected sources which understand that Yaakov literally hated her and wanted a divorce.

The first source cited claims that Yaakov actually hit her and verbally abused her. This is a very problematic assertion. I could not find any medrash or other commentatry that makes such a claim and it clearly goes against Chazal's many statements against either physical or verbal abuse.

Tur (Bereishis 29:32):  G-d has looked on my affliction. Concerning Reuven the verse said "G-d saw" while concerning Shimon it says "He heard". That is because originally prior to the birth of Reuven Yaakov would hit Leah. However once she had given birth Yaakov stopped hitting her - but he would verbally abuse her. When Shimon was born Yaakov stopped the verbal abuse also. That is why it says "He heard". Nevertheless he didn't get along with her until after Levi was born....

הטור (הארוך על בראשית כט:לב): כי ראה ה' בעניי. בראובן אמר "כי ראה" ובשמעון אמר (פסוק לג) "כי שמע", לפי שמתחלה, קודם שנולד ראובן היה מכה בה, ומשנולד נמנע מלהכותה, ועל כן אמרה "כי ראה", ועדיין היה מקנתרה בדברים, ומשנולד שמעון נמנע גם מזה, ועל כן אמרה "כי שמע", ועדיין לא היה מתחבר אליה, וכשנולד לוי נתחבר אליה, "על כן קרא שמו לוי (פסוק לה):

חתם סופר (בראשית כט:לב): ותקרא שמו ראובן כי אמרה כי ראה ה' בעניי, ובמדרש רבה כיון שרימה אותו נתן דעתו לגרשה כיון שהי' לה בנים אמר לאמן של אלו אני מגרש, ועי' ברמב"ן דמייתי, משמע מהמדרש דעד שנולדו לה ב' בנים הי' דעתו לגרשה, וכן משמע מקרא דגם בשמעון אמרה כי שמע ה' כי שנואה אנכי ויתן לי גם את זה משמע עד לידת שמעון הי' עדיין שנואה ואמאי לא זז משנאתה בלידת ראובן מיד, גם מי עיכב בידו לגרשה טרם הי' לה שני בנים, גם לשון הקרא בשמעון אמרה כי שמע ה' ובראובן ראה ה', גם אמרה ויתן לי גם את זה אין לו מובן לפי פשוטו. הנה אחז"ל ספ"ב דנדרים דבני שנואה הוא מהמורדים והפושעים וא"כ הלא ראובן הי' ח"ו מבני שנואה. ותי' המהרש"א [במס' ב"ב קכ"ג.] לפמ"ש תוס' ביבמות ע"ו ע"א דלאה היתה מתעברת מביאה ראשונה ועדיין לא היתה שנואה שסבור שהיא רחל, ולא תיקשי א"כ ה"ל בני תמורה דכבר תי' מג"א סי' ר"מ שהי' נתכוון על זה הגוף אלא שהי' סבור ששמה רחל ע"ש, אלא דמ"מ קשי' לי ממשמעות הקרא ישאר הקו' על שמעין שהי' בן שנואה ח"ו, ע"כ נ"ל לחלק דוקא אם היא שנואה בהחלט אבל אם יש טעם לשנאתו והוא טועה בטעמו ואילו הי' יודע האמת לא היתה שנואה, א"כ קמי שמי' גלי' שהאיבה ההיא לית לן בה, והנה יעקב שנאה מפני שרימה אותו והי' סובר שהיא הולכת ע"ד אביה הרמאי, וכ' רמב"ן [כ"ט ל'] שהיא היתה כוונתה לש"ש שתנשא לאותו צדיק ומכ"ש למשאחז"ל שהיתה מתייראת שלא תינשא לעשו הרשע ויעקב לא ידע כוונתה בזה עי' רמב"ן, א"כ באמת אין כאן שנאה ולא הוו בני שנואה וא"ש. אלא מ"מ תשאר הק' על יעקב האיך שמש עמה לפי טענתו שהיתה שנואה בעיניו איך לא חשש שתלד לו בנים שנואים, וי"ל שע"ז בעצמו הי' סומך ובטוח שלא יארע לו כל און בדבר שנצטער בו כל ימיו שתהא מטתו שלמה:

ואם יתן לה ה' הריון שמע מינה גלוי לפניו ית' שכוונתה לטובה הי' ואין כאן שנאה למפרע:

מלבים (בראשית כט:לב): (לב-לג) כי ראה ה' בעניי, כי שמע כי שנואה אנכי. ר"ל שלפעמים יאמר שראה ה' ולפעמים יאמר ששמע ה', והוא אם הנענה ידע מצרותיו והתפלל עליהם, יתואר בלשון שמיעה, ובמקום שאינו מרגיש בצרתו רק ה' היודע תעלומות ראה בעניו ויוכח, יתואר בלשון ראיה, והנה לאה לא הרגישה תחלה שיעקב שנא אותה, ולא הרגישה רק חסרון אהבה לא שנאה, שאחר שעוד לא ילדה לא עלה בדעתה שישתעשע עמה כמו עם רחל אשר אהבה, וע"כ לא התפללה עדיין רק ה' ראה בעניה, וע"כ קראה שמו ראובן ע"ש הראיה, ולא אמרה ששנאה רק אמרה כי עתה יאהבני אישי, אבל אחר שילדה בן שחשבה שעתה ראוי שתהיה חשובה בעיניו כרחל, וראתה שלא נשתנה ענינה אצלו, הרגישה ששנא אותה והתפללה, ועז"א כי שמע ה' את תפלתי, כי שנואה אנכי:

הכתב והקבלה (בראשית כט:לב): יאהבני. הבי"ת פתוחה וראויה להיות צרויה (ר"ש ב"מ), ולדעתי נפתחה הבי"ת להורות שאיננה פעל עתיד לבד כ"א פעל מורכב מעתיד ועבר, כי בעבר יבא הנסתר עם כנוי מ"ב בי"ת פתוחה אהבני, וטעמו מעתה ימצאני אישי היותי ראויה להיות אהובה לפניו מאז בתחלת הנשואין וכאלו לא הייתי מעולם שנואה לפניו (זאללטע געליעבט האבען), ויבוא עד"ז בבלק ותראני האתון, עמ"ש שם. ואמרו (רבה פע"א) כיון שראה יעקב אבינו מעשים שרימה לאה באחותה נתן דעתו לגרשה, וכיון שפקדה הקב"ה בבנים אמר לאמן של אלו אני מגרש, ובסוף הוא מודה על הדבר הה"ד וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, מי היה ראש מטתו של יעקב אבינו? לא לאה. והדברים מכוונים עם מ"ש:

העמק דבר (בראשית כט:לב): כי עתה יאהבני אישי. באשר היא לא ידעה שהיא שנואה אלא שאוהב את רחל ביותר. ע"כ חשבה שעל ידי הבן ישוב להראות לה התקרבות ביותר והקדימה לומר השם ואחר כך הסיבה ללמדנו שיש עוד טעם על זה השם והיינו כדאיתא בברכות מה בין בני לבן חמי:

פרדס יוסף (בראשית כט:לב): והנה קשה דמאי טעמא נקרא ראובן כי ראה ה' ושמעון כי שמע ה' מה נשתנה מראיה לשמיעה. וי"ל דמתחלה שנאה ופירש ממנה שלא לשמש עם השנואה, עד שהוכר עובר חזר לאהבה וכמו שכתב רמב"ן [כ"ט, ל"ב], אך בני אדם היו מלעיזים שהיא שנואה שלא האמינו שיעקב דר עמה, עד שנתעברה משמעון אז הוברר שאינה שונאה שלולי כן לא היה דר עמה. ואתי שפיר בתחלה אמרה ראה ה' בעניי זה פרישת דרך ארץ, על כן נתן לה הריון בלילה א' ומאז לא שנאה עוד, ולא ראה ה' דבר אך שמע בני אדם מדברים מוזרות בלבנה ששנואה היא זו, ויען כי שמע ה' כי שנואה אנכי על כן נתן לי בן שני לברר לכל כי אהובה היא, ועיין בספר אמת ליעקב לאדוני אבי זקני הגאון מליסא ז"ל בברכות [דף ה' ט"ג ד"ה ראובן] מה שכתב בזה דבר יקר ומהאריכות לא העתקתי. ועיין עוד שם בספר סמיכות חכמים [ברכות ז ע"ב ד"ה ואר"י] בזה:

אברבנאל (בראשית כט:לא): והנה השנאה ידוע שתראה לאדם מחבירו אם במעשים אם בדבור אם בשתי הדרכים האלה תצא השנאה מהמחשבה למציאות ויעקב היה שונא את לאה בשתי הדרכים רוצה לומר במעשים כי לא בא אליה רק בדרך מקרה וכן בשאר הענינים היה מתנהג עמה בדרך שנאה וכן היה מורה תמיד שנאתו בדבריו שתמיד היו בכעס ובגערה ומפני זה כשתלד לאה הבן הראשון קראו ראובן כי אמרה כי ראה י"י בעניי ראה המעשים שיעקב עושה לי. שהם מורים על שנאתו אותי ועתה יאהבני אישי רוצה לומר במעשיו. כיון שבי בלבד יקוים התכלית המכוון בזווג וידמה שעם זה היטיב יעקב מעשיו עמה אבל עכ"פ תמיד היה מדבר עמה בגערה וכעס ובזיון. ולכן כשילדה הבן השני קראו שמעון ואמרה כי שמע י"י כי שנואה אנכי רוצה לומר עם היות שבעלי לא היה עושה עמי מעשה שנאה תמיד היה מדבר עמי דברי שנאה וזהו מה ששמע השם ולכן נתן לי הבן השני הזה ועתה כבר סרה השנאה ולא תשאר לא בדבור ולא במעשה. וזה טעם ויתן לי גם את זה כי מלת גם הוא להסיר השנאה כראשון ולזה לא הזכיר גם את זה בזולתו מן הבנים כי כל אחד נולד לסבה מיוחדת ואלו השנים נולדה להסיר השנאה לגמרי מהמעשים ומהדברים. ולפי שבהסרת השנאה צריכה סבה לשתחייב האהבה כי לא בסור זה יבא זה לפי שלא כל בלתי שנואה הוא נאהב לכן אמרה שנולד הבן השלישי המחדש האהבה בינה ובין בעלה וזהו אמר' הפעם ילוה אישי אלי כי בפעמים הראשונים סרה שנאתו ממני בלידת ראובן ושמעון לא יותר מזה אבל עתה ילוה ויתחבר אלי בדרך חבה כי ילדתי לו שלשה בנים רוצה לומר כי הנה אברהם לא הוליד רק ב' בנים וגם מב' נשים שרה והגר ויצחק הוליד גם כן ב' בנים אבל אני ילדתי לו שלשה בנים שהם יותר ממה שדמה להוליד כי הוא היה בדעתו להוליד בני' כאביו ואבי אביו ואני עשיתי יותר מזה ובעבור שהיו שלשת הבנים האלה ראובן ושמעון ולוי מתיחסים לאהבתה עם בעלה אם להסיר את השנאה מביניהם ואם לתת התקשרו' אהבה וחשק ביניהם לכן כללה שלשתם במספר אחד באמרה כי ילדתי לו שלשה בנים שההלוות שזכרה לא היה בסבת לוי בלבד כי אם בסבת שלשתם ולכן אמרה כי ילדתי לו שלשה בנים והנה אמר על כן קרא שמו לוי להגיד שראובן שמעון לאה קראה שמם אבל לוי קרא שמו יעקב כי הוא בשמחתו הסכים עמה שילוה אליה. ואפשר לומר עוד שראובן בא להסיר השנאה מהמעשים ושמעון כדי להסיר השנאה מהדברים ולוי בא כדי להסיר השנאה מהלב והמחשבה ולכן אמר' ילוה אישי אלי שילוה אליה לדבר עמה מעניניו כאיש עם אשתו האהובה אצלו. ולהיות שלשתם להסיר השנאה מהמעשים ומהדברים והמחשב' אמרה כי ילדתי לו שלשה בנים שצרפם כלם כפי הכוונה בתולדתם ועם מה שפירשתי בזה הותרה השאלות השלישית והד'. ולפי דעת חכמינו זכרונם לברכ' היה יעקב יודע ונשיו גם כן מפיו שהיו עתידין לצאת ממנו י"ב שבטים נחלקים לד' דגלים ושיהיו מד' נשים לכן אמרה לאה עתה ילוה אישי אלי כי ילדתי לו שלשה בנים רוצה לומר מעתה אין לו פתחון פה עלי שהרי נטלתי חלקי בבנים ויתכן שידע זה ממה שאמר לו במראת הסלם ופרצת ימה וקדמה וצפונה ונגבה שהוא רמז לד' דגלים בי"ב בנים כמו שאמרתי למעלה. האמנם אמרה בבן הרביעי הפעם אודה את י"י אפשר לפרש שהיתה כונת' שהבני' הראשוני' ידעה סבת לידתם שהיה ממשפטיו הש"י ורחמיו על כל מעשיו כי כן דרכו לרח' על העגומי' אבל עתה שנשל' המכוון שאני אהובה אודה את י"י ואתן שבח והודאה לשמו על עשו' הטוב הזה מבלי סבה והי' מתנת חנם על כן אודה את י"י לכן לא הזכירה טעם כלל בזה הבן ולא זכרו בו מנין הבנים. והיותר נכון לפרש שלאה בראותה צער העבור וצער גדול בנים והיו לה כבר שלשה. כאשר בא הבן הד' קצה בו כי היתה כבר אהובה ואין חפצה בבנים יותר ולכן אמרה הפעם אודה את י"י כאומר זה יספיק לי וכמו שכתב הראב"ע ולכן עמדה מלדת וכי היתה בזה כפוית טובה. והנה זכרה לאה תמיד בדבריה שם יי' ולא שם אלהים לפי שהיו כל המעשים אשר עשה עמה דרך רחמים לפנים משורת הדין ואתה תראה שאחרי שילדה לאה ארבעה הבנים האלה מפני שהיתה שנואה...

A supporter of Gital weighs Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak vs Gital's NY Post article

Rena's comment to Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak

Not sure what to think. I know and love people on both sides of this. I also know this is not the first time a fight over a get has torn great people apart. I obviously lean towards Gital's side, and have since the beginning of this terrible mess. It seems to me to be too many rabbonim leaning towards her side to be discounted. I thought the blogs defending Avrohom Meir were wrong. 

But over the last few days, I have simply been shocked. The Post article, to me, was simply the wrong thing to do. No matter what. And it was so full of things that were misleading! The way it portrayed Gital as being up against the "untouchable Feinstein family" when I saw no advantage being given to her ex husband because of that. And making it sound like only he is a member of a powerful rabbinic family seemed a little strange. 

And the fact that most of the article is spent on attacking dating the way it is done in the frum world! But even then I figured it was done out of pain. And the fact that it blasted Orthodox dating and made the get sound like some kind of backwards ancient law I chalked up to the Post rewording the article. Maybe it was an interview that was twisted. And then I saw that the Dodelsons are running a campaign through a PR person! The Facebook page and the article, the whole thing, is calculated to look exactly the way it does! It made me start to question my position, though I admit I was not sure the whole time, just leaning heavily.

But now with Rav Dovid! My whole life I was told that there is one person who all the poskim in America listen to. And that's Rav Dovid. I know he can be looked at as nogea bedavar, but there isn't one posek in the world in this kind of thing that isn't nogea bedavar in some way. I just feel that if I had to choose who I should follow in this whole confusion, when everyone is twisting facts to their advantage, the one person I have always known for sure I can trust with my life and death shailos and my olam haba has to be Rav Dovid. Anyone who knows him even a little knows exactly what I mean. I'm sure what he wrote won't make a difference to most people who have dug in, especially not the modern orthodox or the poster on this blog who I can only refer to as the one with many names because he changes them to have conversations with him or herself, but for me it is enough to know that I have to wait and see before I just dismiss Avrohom Meir as a rasha.

 I hope that someone, maybe Rabbi Greenwald, maybe Rav Dovid, is given siyata dishmaya to resolve this. We in klal yisrael can't afford this anymore. May Hashem help us achieve achdus.

Why is the Iraqi Jewish archive being returned to Iraq?

NY Times    These are not the weapons of mass destruction that the American Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha was seeking in Iraq during the spring of 2003. But the books and manuscripts that the team found in a flooded basement of Saddam Hussein’s secret police headquarters — now on display for the first time at the National Archives here — look like victims of some form of ordnance.  

They are ragged, warped, torn, stained. And that is after extensive restoration. This new exhibition, “Discovery and Recovery: Preserving Iraqi Jewish Heritage,” presents just 24 artifacts (and some reproductions) selected from 2,700 volumes and tens of thousands of documents the American military found submerged in four feet of fetid water in the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence building. Those items, which had been collected by the Iraqi office investigating Israel and the Jews, span five centuries of Jewish life in Iraq. It took weeks for the American team to gather them, set them out to dry and ship them — in disarray and black with mold — to the National Archives. Much still awaits being restored and digitized at the archives’ laboratories in College Park, Md. 

Their condition, though, may be the least complicated thing about them. The flooding was caused by an unexploded coalition bomb — an accident of war. The mold was partly the result of the military rescuers’ inability to freeze the waterlogged material immediately, which would have halted decay. The costs of the restoration, overseen by the archives’ director of preservation, Doris Hamburg, have been mainly paid with $3 million from the State Department, which will return the materials to Iraq next year — as was agreed.

But that plan has touched a quivering nerve. Protests have been registered by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democrat, and other members of Congress; Iraqi Jews, now in other countries, have also been pressing for alternatives to the collection’s return. Passions are high, too, because the collection’s state of ruin is an uncanny representation of what happened to the Iraqi Jewish population itself. It had been the oldest Jewish diaspora in the world, arriving before the sixth century B.C. In 1940, Jews accounted for a quarter of Baghdad’s population; there were more than 130,000 Jews in Iraq. Now there is scarcely a handful. 
[...]

Rabbi finds $98k in used desk - returns it to its owner

Israeli Rabbinical Court Forcing Divorcée to Circumcise Son

 Jewish Press   A rabbinical court in Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son, Behadrei Haredim reported. 

During the divorce process, which Israeli Jews contest in rabbinical court, the husband requested that the regional rabbinical court in Netanya, about 20 miles north of Tel Aviv, to compel his wife to give their son a legal circumcision. The court accepted his request.

 The woman argued that the rabbinical court does not have jurisdiction over her son, and may not decide on what constitutes a dangerous medical procedure for him, especially since the boy is not a party to the divorce procedure. She argued that the authority to decide on this matter belongs exclusively in family court. But the rabbinical judges, Rabbis Michael Amos, Sheur Pardes and Ariel Yanai, rejected the woman’s argument and determined that when a couple is in a dispute over the treatment of their son, the dispute may be resolve either in family or in rabbinical court. 

 “The circumcision,” wrote the judges, “is a simple surgery which is conducted on every Jewish baby eight days or older, around the world, for thousands of years. Therefore, when one of the parents demands it, the other party may not prevent it unless a medical danger can be proven.”[...]

The woman argued that the rabbinical court does not have jurisdiction over her son, and may not decide on what constitutes a dangerous medical procedure for him, especially since the boy is not a party to the divorce procedure. She argued that the authority to decide on this matter belongs exclusively in family court. But the rabbinical judges, Rabbis Michael Amos, Sheur Pardes and Ariel Yanai, rejected the woman's argument and determined that when a couple is in a dispute over the treatment of their son, the dispute may be resolve either in family or in rabbinical court. "The circumcision," wrote the judges, "is a simple surgery which is conducted on every Jewish baby eight days or older, around the world, for thousands of years. Therefore, when one of the parents demands it, the other party may not prevent it unless a medical danger can be proven." The judges added: "The minor's entire educational construct depends on the performance of the Brit Milah-circumcision; therefore the mother's claim that the circumcision is unrelated the child's guardianship and education is refuted and rejected. "The circumcision is the sign, the mark, the distinguishing detail of the Jewish identity of every Jew wherever he may be, and whatever his spiritual state. An uncircumcised Jew's Jewish identity is incomplete and defective." Therefore, the mother's request was rejected and the court ordered her to have the circumcision be performed within seven days, or suffer a financial penalty. About the Author: Yori Yanover has been a working journalist since age 17, before he enlisted and worked for Ba'Machane Nachal. Since then he has worked for Israel Shelanu, the US supplement of Yedioth, JCN18.com, USAJewish.com, Lubavitch News Service, Arutz 7 (as DJ on the high seas), and the Grand Street News. He has published two fun books: The Cabalist's Daughter: A Novel of Practical Messianic Redemption, and How Would God REALLY Vote. © 2013 The Jewish Press. All rights reserved. Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/ Scan this QR code to visit this page online: Related posts: Guilty: Rabbi Motti Elon Convicted of Sexual Assault Women of the Wall Protesting Bennett’s High Holidays Plan Brave New Nation: 30 New Rabbinical Courts to Process Conversions Close

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/0/?print

The woman argued that the rabbinical court does not have jurisdiction over her son, and may not decide on what constitutes a dangerous medical procedure for him, especially since the boy is not a party to the divorce procedure. She argued that the authority to decide on this matter belongs exclusively in family court. But the rabbinical judges, Rabbis Michael Amos, Sheur Pardes and Ariel Yanai, rejected the woman's argument and determined that when a couple is in a dispute over the treatment of their son, the dispute may be resolve either in family or in rabbinical court. "The circumcision," wrote the judges, "is a simple surgery which is conducted on every Jewish baby eight days or older, around the world, for thousands of years. Therefore, when one of the parents demands it, the other party may not prevent it unless a medical danger can be proven." The judges added: "The minor's entire educational construct depends on the performance of the Brit Milah-circumcision; therefore the mother's claim that the circumcision is unrelated the child's guardianship and education is refuted and rejected. "The circumcision is the sign, the mark, the distinguishing detail of the Jewish identity of every Jew wherever he may be, and whatever his spiritual state. An uncircumcised Jew's Jewish identity is incomplete and defective." Therefore, the mother's request was rejected and the court ordered her to have the circumcision be performed within seven days, or suffer a financial penalty. About the Author: Yori Yanover has been a working journalist since age 17, before he enlisted and worked for Ba'Machane Nachal. Since then he has worked for Israel Shelanu, the US supplement of Yedioth, JCN18.com, USAJewish.com, Lubavitch News Service, Arutz 7 (as DJ on the high seas), and the Grand Street News. He has published two fun books: The Cabalist's Daughter: A Novel of Practical Messianic Redemption, and How Would God REALLY Vote. © 2013 The Jewish Press. All rights reserved. Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/ Scan this QR code to visit this page online: Related posts: Guilty: Rabbi Motti Elon Convicted of Sexual Assault Women of the Wall Protesting Bennett’s High Holidays Plan Brave New Nation: 30 New Rabbinical Courts to Process Conversions Close

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/0/?print