Mendel Epstein's torture for Get gang: Sentences for all members

Department of Justice press release

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

District of New Jersey

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Sentenced To Eight Years In Prison For Conspiring To Kidnap Jewish Husbands, Force Them To Consent To Religious Divorces

TRENTON, N.J. - An Orthodox Jewish Rabbi was sentenced today to 96 months in prison for conspiring to kidnap Jewish men in an effort to force them to give their wives religious divorces, referred to as “gets,” U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

Jay Goldstein a/k/a “Yaakov,” 61, of Brooklyn, New York, was previously convicted by a federal jury of Count One and Count Five of an indictment charging him with conspiracy to commit kidnapping and attempted kidnapping. Jay Goldstein was convicted following an eight-week trial before U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson, who imposed the sentence today in Trenton federal court.

According to documents filed in this case and the evidence at trial:

On Dec. 1, 2009, in Lakewood, an Orthodox Jewish man, Israel Markowitz, was assaulted, placed in a van, tied up, beaten and shocked with a stun-gun until he agreed to give his wife a get.

On Oct. 16, 2010, in Lakewood, another Orthodox Jewish man, Ysrael Bryskman, was assaulted, tied up and beaten until he agreed to give his wife a get.

On Aug. 22, 2011, in Brooklyn, another Orthodox Jewish man, Usher Chaimowitz, and his roommate, Menachem Teitlebaum, were assaulted, tied up and beaten until Chaimowitz agreed to give his wife a get.

Based upon these incidents, the FBI began an undercover operation in August 2013 in which two FBI agents posed as a wife who was seeking a get from her recalcitrant husband, and her brother, who was trying to help her obtain the get. Over the next several weeks, the undercover agents had multiple recorded phone calls and in-person meetings with Mendel Epstein, 70, Lakewood, New Jersey. In those meetings, Epstein arranged to have his team kidnap the husband at a warehouse in exchange for $60,000.

On Oct. 9, 2013, Jay Goldstein, his sons Moshe Goldstein, 32, and Avrohom Goldstein, 36, and others – including Binyamin Stimler, 40, Simcha Bulmash, 32, David Hellman, 33, Sholom Shuchat, 31, all of Brooklyn, and Ariel Potash, 42, of Monsey, New York – traveled from New York to a warehouse in Middlesex County, New Jersey, to execute the planned kidnapping of the husband to force him to give the get.

They arrived at the warehouse in two dark minivans shortly after 8:00 p.m. Some of the kidnap team members put on masks and entered the warehouse office with the undercover agent posing as the brother. The remaining kidnappers walked around the outside with flashlights. Over the next 15 minutes, members of the kidnap team went in and out of the warehouse office wearing disguises, including ski masks, Halloween masks and bandanas. They discussed their plan for kidnapping and assaulting the husband, how they planned to grab him, pull him down, tie him up, and take his phone. Members of the kidnap team brought with them to the warehouse a 30-foot nylon rope, a blindfold, vodka, license plates they had switched out, and items used to ceremonially record the get. At 8:23 p.m., law enforcement moved into the warehouse office and arrested the eight men.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Wolfson sentenced Jay Goldstein to five years of supervised release.

Avrohom Goldstein, Potash, Shuchat, Moshe Goldstein, Hellman, and Bulmash have all pleaded guilty to one count of traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion. Avrohom Goldstein and Potash were sentenced Nov. 19, 2015 to 45 and 14 months in prison, respectively. Shuchat was sentenced to time served on Nov. 19, 2015. Moshe Goldstein was sentenced Nov. 16, 2015 to 48 months in prison. Hellman and Bulmash were sentenced Nov. 17, 2015 to 44 and 48 months in prison, respectively. Martin Wolmark, 57, of Monsey, previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce to commit extortion and was sentenced Dec. 14, 2015 to 38 months in prison.

Epstein and Stimler were also previously convicted at trial of Count One of the indictment charging them with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Stimler was additionally convicted on Count Five of the indictment, attempted kidnapping. Epstein and Stimler were sentenced yesterday to 120 and 39 months in prison, respectively.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Richard M. Frankel in Newark, and the Lakewood Police Department with the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys R. Joseph Gribko and Sarah M. Wolfe of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Trenton.

15-464

USAO - New Jersey

Violent Crimes

Is There Any Valid Reason For The Posek In Our Case To Rely Entirely On What He Was Told?

Guest Post by Ploni

I believe that there are several solid reasons why in our case there is absolutely no צד whatsoever to allow a Posek to rely on what he was told. My hope is that this comment will be מעורר Talmidei Chachomim to be מעיין בדין זה עד שיצא לאורה. At the end of the comment, please see several מקורות on which this comment is based

לפענ"ד the whole question of being able to rely on what a שואל relates to a Posek without fact checking would ע"פ דינא דשו"ע not apply here for several reasons:

1) The נידון here is at the very least one of דיני ממונות (assuming RMF's comparison to מקח טעות). The possible exclusion from due diligence is only by איסורים. This would mandate that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF.

2) The נידון here is a question of being פוגם בכבודו ובכבוד אבותיו of AF. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים is only when nobody's כבוד is נפגם. This would also mandate that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF.

3) the נידון here is one of a דין מרומה - There were and remain now many "red flags" about the involvement of certain people, the fact that the diagnosis wasn't brought up earlier, contradictions to TE's testimony and diary notes, etc. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים like עגונה is only when there is no חשש דין מרומה. This also mandates that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF. Additionally, this would mandate דרישה וחקירה, and according to many (and perhaps most) Poskim "pleading the fifth" or saying "I don't know" (which is happening בנידון דידן) would of itself be a reason לבטל הדין.

4) Furthermore, if we take the stance of those Rabbonim who believe that the הפקעת קידושין is in error, but that AF nevertheless has a חיוב לגרש (like the YU Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshivos and many in Silver Spring), there seems to be a fourth issue here: the נידון here is one of לאסור אשה לבעלה, since by virtue of this Psak TE is now אסורה לבעלה. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים is only where there is no question לאוסרה על בעלה, which according to most Poskim would require both בפני בעל דין and also דרישה וחקירה, as mention in paragraph. #3.

The aforementioned is לפענ"ד in large measure the result of a single but terrible mistake arising from a mistaken belief in the VALIDITY of psychological diagnosis.

Everyone here agrees that the linchpin of נידון דידן depends on a DSM diagnosis, and the defense of the מתירים is (as RNG said) the belief that the psychologist's report is exactly like any matter where medical professionals have נאמנות. Under this assumption, psychology is like other areas of medicine, where certain illnesses can be diagnosed without ever meeting the patient. Had this belief been correct, many of the aforementioned problems might possibly not have applied.

It has, however, become abundantly clear from the very most authoritative sources in psychology, including from the architect of the DSM themselves, that forensic evaluations are extremely subjective and therefore require a whole slew of safeguards in order to be acceptable. THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DISSENTERS TO THIS FACT IN THE UPPER ECHELONS OF THE FIELD , although clinicians vey often ignore it. See, for example the posts at: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/...

and 

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/...

Especially enlightening is the four published papers (links at the "secular evaluations post) regarding the six most important question in psychology, in which TWENTY FIVE of the top experts in the field participated, and not a single one attempted to equate psychology to objective medicine.

Therefore, ANY possible היתר to continue without קבלת עדות לפני הבעל דין and without דרישה וחקירה are extremely questionable, to say the least.

מקורות - כמובן רק מעט מזעיר ....

א) בדין קבלת עדות בדיני ממונות שלא בפני בע"ד, ע' חו"מ ס' כ"ח סט"ו, שאם קבלו אין דנים על פיו לדעת הב"י בשם רבי מנחם וכן הוא במהרש"ל, אמנם לדעת ר"י ומרדכי כשר בדיעבד. ולפי הכרעת המהרא"י דוקא בגבר אלם שא"א בענין אחר מקבלין, ופשוט שטעם זה אין שייך כאן בנד"ד. (וודאי יהי' כאלו שירצו לתרץ מטעם מש"כ ברמ"א שבקטטות ומריבות מותר כדי להשקיט המריבה, אבל כבר דן בזה המהרש"ל בנידון הדומה לשלנו שעושים ההיפוך ומרבים מחלוקות, ובין כך אין היתר לפגום בכבוד אדם משום זה כמבואר לקמן, ואכמ"ל).

ב) לענין פגם בכבודו ובכבוד אבותיו ע' בשו"ת המהרש"ל סי"א בנידון הדומה הרבה לשלנו ר"ל שכ' המהרש"ל שגביית עדות לפסול איש מחזקת כשרותו ופוגם בכבודו וכבוד אבותיו .. פשיטא ופשיטא שאף בדיעבד אינו כשר והעדים והבית דין עברו משום לא תשא שמע שוא וכו

ע' מש"כ בשו"ת המהרש"ל סי"א במעשה שהי' שם הדומה קצת לנידון דידן שבי"ד גבו עדות שלא בפני בעל דין "להורידו מחזקת כשרות בעידי כיעור", וז"ל:

אבל גביית עדות לפסול איש מחזקת כשרותו לפגום בכבודו וכבוד אבותיו ... פשיטא ופשיטא שאף בדיעבד אינו כשר והעדים והבית דין עברו משום לא תשא שמע שוא וקרינן בי' לא תשיא וראוים להשליך לכלבים כדאיתא במסכת שבועות והסמ"ג הביאו (הגמ' בשבועות לא מנין לדיין שלא ישמע דברי בעל דין (חבירו) קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר תרחק מנין לבעל דין שלא יטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר תרחק רב כהנא מתני {שמות כ-ז} מלא תשא לא תשיא): וראה נא ראה עד כמה חשו עמודי עולם על כגון דא

ג) לגבי דין מרומה ומקום שיש לחוש לערמה, הנה אפי' לענין להתיר עגונה מבואר באהע"ז סי"ז סכ"א ברמ"א בשם רי"ו שצריך דרישה וחקירה , ולענין דיני ממונות מבואר בחו"מ ס"ל ס"א וגם בס'' ט"ו ס"ג, ולאסור אשה על בעלה מבואר באהע"ז סי"א ס"ד.

ולגבי גדר דרישה וחקירה, עמש"כ ברמ"א סט"ו ס"ג בשם ריב"ש דאף דדין מרומה צריך דו"ח כדיני נפשות אינו ממש כדיני נפשות, שאם אמר אחד "איני יודע" מכ"מ אין הדין בטל , אבל בפתחי תשובה אהע"ז סק"צ הביא מהר"ב אשכנזי בשם כמה וכמה ראשונים, דהיינו רמב"ם, רמ"ה, ר"י, ור"ן שדין מרומה הוא ממש כדיני נפשות ואם אמר אחד איני יודע הדין בטל, ומצטט שם לדברי הש"ך בחו"מ ס' ל"ג סקט"ז שמסביר שהיות שכל הטעם שלא בעי דו"ח הוא מטעם כדי שלא תנעול דלת, ממילא במקום שיש חשש דין מרומה אוקמוה שוב אדאורייתא, וצריך עדות שיכול להזימו וממילא אם אמר איני יודע כל הדין בטל.

ובכלל יש לע' שאפי' בדיני ממונות הרי הטעם שביטלו חז"ל דין דרישה וחקירה רק כדי שלא תנעול דלת לפני לוים, וכ"כ הסמ"ע בס"ל סק"א זה דוקא בדיני ממונות השכיחים אבל לדון בחבלות דלא שכיחי ולית בהו חסרון כיס אפשר שצריך דו"ח, ובנידון דידן הוצאת הלעז דומה לחבלות שאין בהן חסרון כיס ואף שאיסורם גדול מאוד שמבואר חומרם בחו"מ ס"א ס"ו, סכ"ז ס"ב, ס' רכ"ח ס"א, ס' ת"כ סל"ח וסל"ט. ואם אמרו שצריך בהם דו"ח לדון בהוצאת שם רע כדי להוצאי ממון וודאי פשוט שכש"כ שמוטל על בי"ד גופא שכדי שיהיו מותרים הם גופא לבייש יהי' מקודם דו"ח. וחוץ מזה עמש"כ בח"ח הל' רכילות רפ"ט בבמ"ח שכמו שגרמא בניזקין אסור אע"ג דפטור מתשלומין, כן הוא בהוצאת שם רע, הרי היו צריכין ליזהר בזה הרבה.

ד) לאסור אשה לבעלה:, ע' בב"ש אהע"ז סי"א סקט"ז בשם מהרשל סי"א דלאסור אשת איש לכו"ע לא מהני עדות שלא בפני בעל דין אף בדיעבד, ובפ"ת שם כמה דעות דכדי להפריש מאיסור אפשר דמותר שלא בפני בע"ד משום דזכות הוא להפריש ישראל מאיסור, ונמצא לפי"ז בנד"ד שעשו גם בזה היפוך הדין, כי לאסור על בעלה הראשון לא נמצא היתר לקבל שלא בפניו כשאינו אלם וכו', משא"כ כדי לאסור על בעלה השני מותר לת' הרמ"א בשם מהר"ר הירץ מבריסק ולדעת המאירי.

Mendel Epstein sentenced to 10 years in jail for forcing men to give a Get

NJ.COM    A prominent Lakewood rabbi convicted of helping to arrange the kidnapping of Orthodox Jewish men who refused to grant their wives religious divorces was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Tuesday.

The sentence for Rabbi Mendel Epstein, 70, is less than what the federal government had requested for a man prosecutors said was the head of a well-organized operation that kidnapped and beat men. But it also was more than what his defense attorney argued was deserving of a man who devoted his life to good deeds and charitable acts.

The sentence was one, though, that U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson said was necessary to deter others in the Orthodox Jewish community from continuing what federal prosecutors called "paid vigilantism."

"No one is permitted to commit acts of violence against another," Wolfson said during the three-hour sentencing proceeding in Trenton. "It is not the law of our society and what we live under."

R Shmuel Kaminetsky to attend AJOP Convention in Baltimore January 24-26

R Shalom Kaminetsky rumored to be coming to Jerusalem soon for a student's chasuna

Just received a call that R Shalom Kaminetsky is coming to Jerusalem and that there is talk about demonstrations against him. Don't have any more information now - will post it as it comes in.

Mendel Epstein trial: Tamar's lawyer Ephraim Goldfein ordered to testify and it won't be held against him

Mendel Epstein Torture for Get ring: Martin Wolmark sentenced to 38 months in jail

ABC New

An Orthodox rabbi was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison for his role in a ring of Jewish men who used brutal methods and tools, including handcuffs and electric cattle prods, to torture unwilling husbands into granting their wives religious divorces.

Martin Wolmark, 57, of Monsey, New York, had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit extortion. Ten men in all were convicted for their roles in the plot.

Rabbi Nota Greenblatt will be in Silver Spring today to do conversions

 Just received this email

Rabbi Greenblatt will be in Silver Spring today to officiate over conversions.  (Guess that Barry Freundel is not available today.)  The mikvah is at 8901 Georgia Avenue.  He will be leaving from BWI airport at 3:15.  I was told that there will be protestors at airport at that time and was asked to help publicize

No Fault divorce - a frum lawyer's perspective

Guest post by  Moshe Anwalt who a lawyer dealing with family law 

This deals with issues raised regarding the issue of whether women have a right to a Get on demand

 http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/12/chanukah-and-claim-that-woman-has-right.html

---------

Yesterday's post raised a key issue that deserves special treatment: Is it proper to have a divorce system where either spouse can exit the marriage without any consequences?

The idea of unilateral, no-fault divorce is a relatively new phenomenon, both as a legal standard and as a cultural norm. Western society frowned upon divorce and the legal systems required a judicial decision based upon a finding of fault in order to grant a divorce.

It is not surprising, therefore, that chazal and the later poskim created numerous obstacles to ending a marriage - ketubah and cherem, to name two examples.

In that way, the agenda promoted by "Agunah" advocates - will definitely in tune with modern mores and assumptions about the nature of marriage - goes against the grain of thousands of years of halacha, not to mention societal conventions that were held by Jews and non-Jews alike.

What is noteworthy, however, is not simply the novelty of the pro-divorce agenda, but the discriminatory fashion in which that agenda is applied, at least as far as gender is concerned.

The JOFA Guide

A clear example of this is the "Guide to Jewish Divorce and the Beit Din System," published by the Orthodox Jewish feminist organization "JOFA."  You can find the guide at: http://jofa.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_documents/beit_din_guide_0.pdf

While the guide is otherwise useful and presents an accurate description of the Jewish divorce process, it makes some startling statements about unilateral, no-fault divorce. On page 16, the guide defines an Agunah as follows:

"An agunah is a woman chained to a dead marriage. ... "

The guide goes on to argue that a get should always be done immediately and may not be used to improve the party's legal position in the settlement (page 18):

"It is wrong for either party to use a Get for leverage in divorce proceedings. As soon as it becomes clear that there will be no reconciliation, the Get should be written and delivered to the woman so that it cannot be used as a bargaining tool in financial or custody negotiations."

While this paragraph would indicate that JOFA looks askance at women who refuse to take a get, the guide actually clarifies that this is not the case and the wife - and only the wife - is entitled to refuse to take a get. The guide continues (page 10):

"7. ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A WOMAN SHOULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT A GET?

... It may also be legitimate to refuse to accept a Get if the woman will be compelled to also accept an unconscionable settlement with regard to spousal and/or child support or custody. Another circumstance in which it may be recommended for a woman to refuse to accept a Get is a situation in which the Get is based on false allegations against the woman. ....

Note: The decision to refuse to accept a Get is a significant one and should only be undertaken with a great deal of forethought and in consultation with an attorney and a rabbi."

According to JOFA, there are four cases where a woman is well within her rights to refuse to take a get from her husband:

1) The wife is accused of "false allegations."

2) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to spousal support

3) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to child support

4) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to "custody"

In scenario 1, essentially JOFA gives carte blanche to women to hold out and keep their husbands in a dead marriage.  As for the other cases where a woman is "justified" in refusing a get, JOFA concedes that the wife can use a get as a leverage.

Rivka and Avraham

To illustrate this, think of the following example (the names are completely fictional):

Rivka and Avraham live in a modest home in a suburban "out of town" Jewish community in the United States. Avraham is a successful saleman, while his wife is a well-known architect. After many years of marriage and all the children having grown up and left the house, Avrfaham has a run-in with the Feds, as a result of criminal activity in which Rivka was a minor participant. Rivka asks Avraham for a get and takes him to Beis Din, through a toen.

At the Beis Din, and after the parties sign a binding arbitration agreement (shtar beirurin), Reb Berl, the dayan, asks Avraham if he agrees to give a get, and Avraham responds in the affirmative.

As the Beis Din is about to set a date for a siddur get, Reb Berl tells the parties that they must be separated before the get is done - and must remain separated after the get as well. At this point, Rivka's toen tells the Beis Din that his client will not leave the house, even though she is the one who demanded the get. Rivka tells the dayan the the familial home is jointly owned and therefore she has a right to it. Rivka and her toen add that the house is worth $500,000 - a fact which Avraham stipulates to.

Avraham, who is well versed in both halacha and secular law, proposes that he buy out wife wife's share of the house. Rivka responds that she does not agree under any circumstances and that she wants to stay in the house, without having to but out Avraham's share.

Moreover, argues Rivka, she is entitled to post-divorce spousal support, as her income is slightly lower than Avraham's. Avraham rejects this and observes - correctly - that halacha does not recognize a right to spousal support after the get and that, under state law, the aware of spousal support is a matter of discretion and, given the circumstances, no judge would rule that spousal support is justified.

It is at this point that the dayan issues the following ruling:

1. Avraham will put $250,000 in escrow - immediately - for Rivka's benefit.

2. As soon as Rivka leaves the house, the escrow agent will transfer her the full sum.

3. Once the parties are separated, the Beis Din will set a date for a get.

4. Since both parties consented to get divorce, the wife is no longer entitled to spousal support. Nevertheless, after the get, the husband will pay 12 months payments, as payment of Rivka's kesuba (as per the opinion of the Chazon Ish), to the amount of $4,000 per month. While the wife is not entitled to the kesubah, the Beis Din sees fit to award the kesubah since Rivka's suit for divorce was based upon the criminal acts of Avraham, even though Rivka was aware of the criminal acts and even participated in them.

-------------

Bracha is not happy with the ruling, despite the fact that it conforms to the halacha - and state law, since the parties had signed a binding arbitration contract. She approaches a local Rosh Yeshiva, Reb Baruch, and asks for his help. He writes a letter, on the yeshiva stationary, declaring Rivka an Agunah and calling for protests against Avraham for refusing to give a get. Additionally, the Rosh Yeshiva forbids Avraham for counting toward a minyan or receiving any honor in shul.

Reb Baruch further advises Rivka to take an attorney and go to secular court, with a motion to vacate the arbitration award and petition for spousal support.

Going back to the JOFA Beit Din guide, under the criteria delineated there, Rivka would be considered an Agunah - despite the fact that Avraham agreed immediately to give a get and did not seek to infringe upon any of Rivka's rights.

Since JOFA permits a woman to refuse a get if the settlement is - at least in her mind - unconscionable, Rivka was justified in refusing to accept the decision of the Beis Din. At the same time, since the marriage is "dead," Avraham is wrong not to give a get and he should be shunned for not doing so.

This story, while entirely fictional, is typical of divorce cases today - and it shows how the divorce standards being proposed by Agunah advocates lead to incorrect (and unjust) results.

The Double Standard

The double standard offered by such groups - and JOFA in particular - goes even further. Here is the Guide's advice (page 18):

"When someone is told that a woman refused to accept a Get, the listener must question whether and why the Get may have been refused prior to determining that the woman is simply recalcitrant. There may be valid reasons for a woman to refuse a Get. (See FAQs Section II:7.) One should refrain from premature judgments and gossip."

If we unpack that statement, we notice how far the double standard actually goes. While a husband can be criticized and ostracized without being heard, the wife is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Summary

The opposition to no-fault divorce is absolutely rooted in the sources and there are many good policy reasons for not changing the rules, even where there is room for halachic flexibility. Chazal, in their great wisdom, understood that marriage is not to be tampered.  The current trend in Western societies to create intimate relationships without any mutual obligations is abhorrent to Judaism and it was precisely to avoid this breakdown that chazal created safeguards and set legal boundaries.

However, whichever side we take on the debate of no-fault versus fault divorce, we cannot apply the standards arbitrarily and treat husbands any different than wives. The public discourse has to be altered and the frame of the debate refocused - not just on blogs, but also in shuls and educational institutions. Once people (especially askanim and rabbanim) are more aware of the issues, they will, hopefully, display more sensitivity in dealing with self-proclaimed "Agunahs."

Chanukah and the claim that a woman has a right to a Get on demand

Guest Post

 

A Freilichen Chanukah to all visitors to this site, who come to hear what Da'as Torah has to say on various issues, 

Sholom u'Brochoh!

With the last rays of Chanukah flickering into oblivion, already searing through Chodesh Teves, the darkest month, along with the rest of the cold and dark winter, )in particular going with Rabbeinu Tam's zman shkiah,:-) I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to grab the opportunity for a "mesiba". What?? Yes, a get-together l'kovod Chanukah!

Compounding that with the minhag to engage in pilpul on Torah sheba'al peh, since Chanukah is a Yom Tov of Torah sheba'al peh - which brings me to the focal point: our enemies' intent on shikchas HaTorah.

Of course we know that the Yevonim would have let us *study* Torah, but we know that it was only tolerable as a *chochmoh*. To let us *observe* (pardon my *antics*) the Torah? Aha! That was a different story. Again here, we know that malpractice of Torah, despite preservation of the text, is nonetheless shikchas HaTorah.

Eras have come and gone with arising with various issues of threats to Jewish Identity. For example, the Reform Movement (whose founding fathers were very learned) that started out with the changing of direction of the bimah to face the kehilla, bringing in change after change, up to the point that there is virtually nothing that they observe.

We all know that on Chanukah, that we again ask the famous kashya of the Bais Yosef, dor achar dor, but here, appropriate for this site and more so, in the spirit of this site, we wish to, nonetheless, engage in a pilpul that has to do with Issues of Jewish Identity.

Unfortunately, we are exposed to secular society and to their ideas, causing us to adopt them as second nature. We are exposed to society that stresses 'women's rights' or 'equal rights'. We are pressured to find it unconscionable that a woman in the 21st century cannot free herself from marriageable bondage among our ethnic society, so we are thus compelled to go as far as administering forceful and dangerous coercion of a get, then, when that ceases to be an option, to just annul a marriage in order to not necessitate a get (without even hearing out the other party, as we know) - amounting to an alternate route to shikchas HaTorah.

Yes, some of may argue (with consternation) that this issue has been discussed quite some time before, but others, on the contrary, would (gleefully) want it revisited, as is perceived that the more it is discussed, the more we see ignorance on the basics of such a core issue, finding it imperative to one more time, lay out on the table.

Hence, without further ado, the shayla: is there any basis for get on demand? Are we halachically, ethically or morally coerce or pressure or coax or cajole a man to do so? After doing some research, or perhaps, iyun, and with pilpul chaverim, no one was able to indicate to me where it is brought al pi Shulchan Aruch that although when a get cannot be coerced, it is 'yashrus' to give one and that there is no need for any m'kor and that it should be done nonetheless out of common sense! I found it odd that such a vastly popular notion should have no mention in anywhere in Tanach , Shas or poskim.

Our Gemara mentions dinim we must do out Chassidus (Pirkei Avos is all chassidus). In nezikin there are things that's we may be potur b'dinai Odom and yet, chayav b'dinai Shomayim. There are halachos- al pi din, to do because of "v'osisoh hayoshor v'hatov" and in the Shulchan Aruch there instances where"hamachmir tovo olov brochoh". In short, we see many scenarios where we are to conduct ourselves beyond the letter of Law, and many times demanded so by Halacha itself! So again, and from new perspective - why is there no m'kor for get on demand, especially if it is such a fundamental?

Furthermore, perusing through teshuvos of igunah, we often find the classic case where we need to be mattir a woman because her husband disappeared. There are cases then where the husband is not well and physically or mentally incompetent to give a get due to illness. Does anyone remember where there was a teshuva how to get a woman out of a marriage because she simply wanted out because she didn't feel the relationship would work out?

After humbly expressing all formalities to all talmidei chachamim and ready to be shredded apart, (already putting forth an urgent request for anybody to come to my defense,) with ra'ayos back and forth, I put before you (albeit with great trepidation) my thoughts:

If I may, I bring a ra'ayah from Yevomos 106b on the Mishnah "Mitzvas chalitzah: bo hu v'yovimto l'bais din v'hain m'si'in lo eitzah hogenes lo she'nemar (translation: he and his yevomoh (- his childless brother's wife that he can marry - and by force) come to Bais Din), "v'koru lo ziknai iro". Rashi says on the words "eitzah hogenes lo" says: go to those who are comparable to you and do not bring in machlokes to your house. The Bartenurah elaborates a bit more: if he is young and she is old or he is old and she is young, they tell him that what do you need an old one for? What do you need a young one for? Go to those like you!

Question: isn't that common sense? And furthermore, why is there no counterpart to this Mishnah in Masechta Gittin that if she wants a get and he does not, that we tell him something like, 'Look, it's not going to work, you need to go on with your life'?

Perhaps I can answer that the Torah makes a distinction as follows: in yibum, the yevamah never agreed to get married to this man, who happens to be her deceased husband's brother, so *Da'as Torah* states (to the extent that it makes it to the Mishna) that although we can't control him, we at least advise him or steer him, but by gittin, since this bond was done with HER COMMITMENT, there is not even an *ethical* suggestion of advising or steering him, even in the most gentle way, to appease her.

One more ra'ayah (and hopefully others will construct (or perhaps even destruct) upon my cornerstone,): the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom prohibiting one to divorce a wife against her will: is it not ethically wrong to force a man against his will to stay married to a woman that he dislikes? Apparently, this question is not asked nowadays, only the other way around : how can the rabbis force a woman to stay married to someone that SHE dislikes? (By the way, the Israeli Rabbanut has found by a poll that more women refuse a get than men.) We see from here that it is ethically perfect to l'chatchillah make a takanah binding (or 'enslaving') a man to his wife. Therefore, we see that the same would apply vice versa, binding a woman to her husband - especially that we don't find any ethical notion or suggestion otherwise.

Thanking you all for your audience and best wishes for wonderful winter,

May we take along the light and warmth of Chanukah.....

An Open Letter to Rabbi Rosenbaum, President of the Rabbinical Council of Greater Washington / Vaad Harabonim of Greater Washington

Dear Rabbi Rosenbaum,

You have greeted me with a smile despite my opposition to your treatment of Aharon Friedman. Sometimes we clashed in public. On two occasions I counter-protested at rallies against Aharon that you promoted and attended. We met privately several times to discuss the matter.

I have contacted some of the other Rabbinical leaders in the DC area. When I bring up the issue of the Washington Vaad letter that urges people to persuade Aharon to give a Get, all roads lead back to you. You hold the key to rescinding the letter.

The Vaad letter specifically references a letter from the Agudas Harabonim that also calls on people to persuade Aharon to give a Get. It is clear to all now that that the Agudas Harabonim letter is a fraud.

The Agudas Harabonim letter is fraudulent in numerous ways. It is from a Bais Din, and yet the Bais Din never met with one of the parties in the dispute. It is from a Bais Din, yet this Bais Din did not have jurisdiction, despite the assertion otherwise in the Vaad letter. It is from a Bais Din, but one of the signatories to the letter received favors from the family of one of the parties to the dispute. The list goes on and on. One of the signatories is headed to prison because he was part of another Bais Din that ruled that a non-existent husband in a non-existent marriage should be beaten. At least one official of the Agudas Harabonim participated in the attempted beating. One or more of the other signatories was aware, and apparently approved, of this other Bais Din's method of making secret rulings to beat husbands. One of the signatories specifically said the letter is not meant to be used as a basis for public rallies against Aharon, but that is exactly how the letter was used by ORA at a rally here in DC where I first met Rabbi Jeremy Stern and he showed me the letter.

Perhaps most significantly, the Agudas Harabonim letter purported to be a Seruv but did not conform to the Halachic format of a Seruv. The letter was phony on its face.

The Vaad letter refers to Tamar Epstein as an "agunah". This "agunah" just remarried. It is two years since this "agunah" declared herself free and stopped demanding a Get.

Yet, you, Rabbi Rosenbaum still demand of other Rabbis in town that they pressure Aharon to give a Get.

And the Rav is an honorable man.

So I would like to ask you, or any other Rabbi in town who accepts you as leader of the Vaad, to please explain to the thousands who follow this blog, what is your basis for excluding Aharon until he gives a Get?

Please include the basis for the Vaad determining the Baltimore Bais Din no longer had jurisdiction, and please explain the Halachic basis for forcing a Get in the context of a wife unilaterally deciding to leave her husband.

I hope the graciousness you have always shown me will be extended to answering my sincere question.

Joe Orlow

The Wolmark-Epstein gang's Hamas / ISIS defense by Nathan Lewin (part II)

 Guest post

The most important right Jews have in the United States is the free exercise of religion provided by the First Amendment. As originally enacted, the First Amendment applies only to actions by the Federal Government. The Fourteenth Amendment applies these protections to State and local governments. However, the Constitution only protects against government actions. Congress viewed the free exercise of religion as so important that it enacted several statutes providing that interference or attempted interference with the free exercise of religion is amongst the most heinous of crimes. Therefore, Congress made persons committing this crime, if combined with certain aggravating circumstances, eligible for the most severe possible punishment, the death penalty. Included amongst the aggravating circumstances that make this crime eligible for the death penalty, are kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and sexual assault and attempted sexual assault.

As noted previously, the Epstein-Wolmark gang, whatever its motivations (whether religious, money, pure sadistic glee at torturing another human being) forced and attempted to force several Jewish man to perform a religious action against their will. This is completely indisputable. The gang was properly charged with kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit these offenses. Contrary to the arguments of Mr. Nathan Lewin on behalf of the Epstein-Wolmark gang, any supposed religious motivations (itself doubtful, as noted previously) does not bar prosecution for these violent crimes. But the gang’s actions are far worse than that. The Wolmark-Epstein gang clearly violated two Federal capital crimes, 18 U.S.C. 241, and 18 U.S.C. 247, combined with the aggravating circumstances needed to make the gang eligible for the death penalty under the statute. It is of course extremely rare for Federal prosecutors to even ask for the death penalty, but the fact that the Wolmark-Epstein gang committed crimes eligible for the death penalty highlights the extreme heinousness of their actions.

18 USC § 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise [including free exercise of religion under the First Amendment] or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 U.S.C. § 247

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section—

(1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or

(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

(d) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be—

(1) if death results from acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for any term of years or for life,

or both, or may be sentenced to death;

(2) if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more that 40 years, or both;

(3) if bodily injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and

(4) in any other case, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(e) No prosecution of any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except upon the certification in writing of the Attorney General or his designee that in his judgment a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

(f) As used in this section, the term “religious real property” means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.

(g) No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense under this section unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Psychologist Dr Baruch Shulem says the first concern is that the therapists need to be reported to the professional bodies for making a report about someone they never met

I had a discussion today with Dr. Baruch Shulem - one of the leading psychologists in Israel - about the use of forensic reports made by psychologists/psychiatrists about someone they never met. In addition about the belief of poskim that psychology/ psychiatry is a science and that conclusions made by therapists can be totally accepted and halacha paskened - without concern with how those conclusions were reached.

He said I could report in his name the following. The critical issue in the present case is not the mistaken belief that psychology is a science like medicine - even though it is in fact a significant problem. The most important thing is that this heter should never have been given because a therapist is not allowed to give a report about someone they have never met. He therefore said that it is critical to get the names of the therapists and make complaints to the AMA, APA and other relevant organizations. In addition he strongly advised going to a lawyer to see what legal actions can be taken against these therapists.

Aside from being unethical or possibly illegal there is a major problem of their lack of validity. Consequently there is no factual basis for the heter. It is elementary that one can not issue a psak without knowing what the facts are.

Anyone who knows who the therapists are that wrote the reports for Tamar Epstein's heter - should  let me know their names and any other details that might help in reporting them.  If anyone can send me a copy of the reports - that would be very helpful.

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky will be attending Torah Umesorah Conference December 17- 20 Aventura, Florida