Judges Declare Accused Nachalot Pedophile Innocent

Arutz 7     One of the three people tried in the Nachlaot pedophile case has been acquitted of all charges and declared innocent by a three-judge panel, according to Yedioth Achronoth news. On November 7th, Jerusalem District Court deputy president Judge Jacob Zaban, as well as Jerusalem District Court Judges Miriam Mizrahi and Rafi Carmel declared the unnamed 53-year-old man innocent of all charges. The suspect was imprisoned for two years and four months while awaiting the outcome of the trial.

The judges wrote that the feeling surrounding the arrest was "a general atmosphere of fear and panic," noting the lack of any evidence. Following the acquittal, the accused man stated, "I have suffered a great injustice. I am innocent and I was in jail through no fault of my own. I thank the courts."

One of the three accused, a man in his 40s described as developmentally disabled, was sentenced in May to 15 years in prison. A third man has been accused as well. The acquittal is the latest development in the saga that originally alleged that over 100 children had been abused over several years in a close-knit, historic section of the Nachlaot neighborhood of Jerusalem.

 ======================
 YNet

אחרי שנתיים וארבעה חודשים בכלא, שוחרר בסוף השבוע שעבר בן ציון פרי־משלנו (54), אחד הנאשמים בפרשת הפדופיליה בנחלאות, לאחר שזוכה מחמת הספק. הרכב של שלושה שופטים בבית המשפט המחוזי בעיר החליטו פה אחד לבטל את עבירות המין המיוחסות לו. "אני לא יודע מה יהיה איתי עכשיו", אמר לאחר הזיכוי. "התקופה הזו פגעה במצבי הנפשי בצורה קשה. אני כבר לא ישן בלילות ועדיין בהלם".

פרשת הפדופיליה בנחלאות התפוצצה ברעש גדול באוגוסט 2011, אז הגישה המשטרה כתב אישום נגד שלושה תושבי העיר על אונס וביצוע מעשים סדיסטיים בעשרות ילדים. בכתב האישום שהוגש נגד פרי־משלנו יוחסו לו עבירות אינוס, מעשי סדום, תקיפה והדחה. לאורך כל הדרך טען לחפותו, עד שזוכה בחמישי שעבר.

Prof. Lawrence Kaplan's review of Eliyahu Stern, The Genius

Seforim Blog      Yet, as the book’s subtitle, Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism, indicates, Stern has an even bolder agenda. For in addition to limning the Gaon’s life, thought, and personality, Stern in his book’s Introduction and Conclusion advances a novel thesis regarding the nature of modern Judaism and the role of the Gaon in its making, seeking to unsettle the binary opposition generally drawn between tradition and modernity.

            For Stern, modernity is not “just a movement based on… liberal philosophical principles,” but “a condition characterized [among other things] by democratization of knowledge and privatization of religion… that restructured all aspects of European thought and life in diverse and often contradictory ways,” (8) and that in the case of Judaism “gave rise to [both] the Haskalah and institutions such as the Yeshiva” (8).  It is in this light Stern maintains that we should understand the historical significance of Gaon’s great work on Jewish law, his Bi’ur or commentary on Joseph Karo’s sixteenth century code of law, the Shulhan Arukh. Here, to sharpen Stern’s analysis, we may point to an instructive paradox. From the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, thanks to the primacy of the Shulhan Arukh, the study of the Talmud was neglected and scholars focused their attention on codes of law. The Bi’ur might seem to fit into that pattern, but in actuality it served to subvert the Shulhan Arukh’s authority. For by tracing in great and unprecedented detail the source of the Shulhan Arukh’s rulings back the Talmud and its classic commentaries and then by often challenging those rulings in light of those sources the Bi’ur spurred a return to Talmudic study. [...]

More problematic, Stern’s thesis that the Gaon’s activity and image contributed  to the privatization of Judaism and the democratization of rabbinic knowledge leads him to skew his portrait  of the Gaon, exaggerating both his radicalism and modernity. Thus, for example, the reader never gets a full sense from Stern of the depth of the Gaon’s involvement in Kabbalah nor learns, except in passing, of the sheer number of major commentaries he authored on Kabbalistic literature. Perhaps Stern deemed such a discussion too technical for the general reader,[14] but one inevitably gets the feeling that this minimizing of the Gaon’s Kabbalistic side fits into the modern picture Stern is drawing.   [...]

Chapter 3, “Elijah and the Enlightenment,” advances the book’s most startling and revisionist claim. Generally, Stern notes, the Gaon’s contemporary, Moses Mendelssohn is portrayed as the founder of modern Judaism, while the Gaon is depicted as the defender of rabbinic or traditional Judaism. Stern, however, as part of his effort to unsettle the binary opposition between tradition and modernity, argues that in certain respects the Gaon was a more radical figure than Mendelssohn. Thus, while Mendelssohn maintained that rabbinic interpretations of the legal passages in Scripture were to be identified with the plain-sense meaning of the text, the Gaon interpreted the plain-sense meaning of the text independently of rabbinic interpretations, which were seen as belonging to another level of Scripture. Stern argues that this difference reflects a greater level of self-confidence on the Gaon’s part, as “the intellectual leader of a majority Jewish culture” (71) than on Mendelssohn’s, living as he did in “Berlin, a cosmopolitan city with a tiny Jewish minority” (64), where rabbinic Judaism and particularly rabbinic law were under attack in Christian academic quarters. Stern, I believe, accords too much weight here to matters to matters of demography. Rather, contra Stern, I support the regnant view that this hermeneutical difference reflects, in large measure, the Gaon’s insularity from as opposed to Mendelssohn’s greater openness and sensitivity to their respective surrounding cultures, deriving, in turn, from the presence of a “beckoning bourgeoisie,” to use Gershon Hundert’s phrase, in Berlin and the absence of one in Vilna. [...].

Face of Poverty in Israel

Former chief rabbi Metzger arrested for taking bribe, fraud

JPost   Former Ashkenazi chief rabbi Yona Metzger was arrested by authorities early Monday morning on charges of taking a bribe, fraud, breach of trust, and conspiracy to interfere with an investigation.

Anti-corruption detectives from the LAHAV 433 unit who have been investigating the rabbi for months said that the sums of money which exchanged hands in this case is “in the millions of shekels.”

Weiss-Dodelson: AZ asks why I don't agree with Kol Koreh to subject Avraham Meir to severe social and financial pressures?

AZ has requested that I publish his guest post asking why I don't follow the lead of the gedlim who signed the Kol Koreh advocating serious social and financial pressure to force Avraham Meir to give Gital a get.Guest Post from AZ:
Kol Koreh Hebrew

Kol Koreh English translation
=====================================
Daas Torah, 

It is possible that I am wrong and it is possible that you are wrong.

We are all human, and we must have the humility to recognize that no matter how much evidence we have and how smart we are the very nature of being human means that we are fallible. After all there are plenty of smart people – and even Talmidei Chachomim – on both sides of the aisle. By definition, in this case and in millions of other disagreements very bright people are wrong all the time.

Therefore, I call on you to be pragmatic. If you are wrong in your halachic positions on divorce, then you are guilty (by promoting these wrong views) of causing enormous suffering to hundreds of women whose husbands are not giving them a Get.

The path is open to you to follow R’ Shmuel Kamentzky and others whose opinions whether in this case or in many other cases are much more favorable to the woman and would make it easier to obtain a Get.

The spiritual danger of your opinion is clear. By going “all in” – by adopting opinions which make it more difficult for a woman to receive a Get - you risk destroying your humanity, decency, and compassion in the event that you are wrong about the Halacha, and you are acting with great cruelty by causing hundreds of women to be stuck without a Get. 

The Neturei Karta also think they are right – and we recognize that the Neturai Karta are wrong – and look how they destroyed themselves spiritually by hugging Arafat and the President of Iran. Look how religious Muslim fanatics have destroyed themselves spiritually (by murdering men women, and children) – and they are convinced they are doing a good deed – instead they could have adopted the path of a peaceful brand of Islam.

As you have repeatedly said when responding to me and others, that we are only saying these opinions because we don’t know the halacha and we are influenced by Western values. In other words, you agree that if not for your sources, the natural ethics and morals would lead us to believe that the husband should just give the Get (as the rest of the world believes).

My advice is, don’t adopt opinions which do terrible harm to people when there is another halachic path available (R’ Shmuel Kamentetzky and others) whose ways are peaceful. Remember, I want a win-win situation where both sides can be happy – and I believe the Weiss’s have received a very fair custody deal from the courts (2 nights a week plus every other weekend), and the couple has no money or house to fight over. If Weiss gives the Get today, I think that he received a good deal – a fair deal. Weiss's situation would be no different than the hundreds of other frum husbands who give a Get each year.

==============================
Daas Torah replies: Update November 18, 2013

AZ as you have said you are just a simple and sincere Jew - but you have inserted yourself in a major halachic dispute as if you knew what you were talking about. Please tell me what the above rabbis hold concerning get me'usa in a case of ma'os alei? It is nice you claim they disagree with me - please tell me what exactly do they say?

One of the reasons I didn't immediately answer your challenge in your post is your mistaken assertion that that are two distinct camps - those who have halachic reasoning for peace and make it easy for woman and those whose halachic reasoning leads them to cause problems. People like Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky have not written teshuvos on the subject - so it is difficult to know what exactly they believe. He has never justified his actions in these case by halachic reasoning. By and large these rabbonim who signed the kol koreh did not do it for halachic reasons but for political reasons. My brother called up a number of them. One declared that even though he signed it didn't mean that he was saying that kefiya is permissible?! If you can wrap your head around that one then you can understand that your premise is not correct. The declaration of the kol koreh are halachic nonsense. Speak to a neutral posek and ask him for a source for nidoi for the supporters of someone who doesn't want to go to a particular beis din or to destroy a supporter's yeshiva and his parnossa or to go to a trashy newspaper and speak lashon harah about your husband and Judaism - THERE IS NONE!

As regards to your question why not go to the posek who brings peace, we see that for you it is not whether the halacha is poskened accurately and correctly - but the consequences. This is known as posek shopping. Your pragmatic approach to halacha is to first find out what the different views are and then to pick the posek if he agrees with what makes you happy?!

This is amazing "scholarship" - you don't really care whether what I am asserting is the normative view of most poskim through ages and it is recognized as the most accurate fit with the texts - i.e., mostly like to be true according to G-d's Will. You totally skip that and you say since there is a rabbi who says something that I want to hear I will chose his views. Of course on another issue if he doesn't say what I want to hear I will shop around to find another posek! Thus you care nothing about Torah and rabbinic authority - i.e., doing what G-d wants from you - but rather making your life as easy as possible

Why don't you ask those poskim such as Rabbi Kaminetsky and Rabbi Schachter if that is what you should be doing? Or do you first need to ascertain whether they agree with you before you consider their views authoritative.

AZ - I don't deny your sincerity in wanting peace and tranquility. But there is another issues which this current firestorm has made obvious. Halacha and Torah values are not viewed as valid - unless they are according to the current secular values in our society. Secular society now values individual happiness over family and community responsibility - therefore there has to be Get on demand. Even in secular society such a value is only about 20 years old. Before that it was impossible to get a divorce unless you could demonstrate a serious problem with your spouse such as adultery. 

Please read the 19th letter of Rav S. R. Hirsch (especially the 18th) where he laments the fact that people require Torah to be consistent with secular values and not the reverse. People have been screaming - it is a chilul hashem not to give a get on demand. Chilul hashem is not determined by whether Torah is subordinated to secular Western values. The same cry is made in regards to homosexuality or same-sex marriages. Are you also advocating finding rabbis who support such views? Bris Mila and schecitah is also claimed to be a chilul hashem by the "enlightened" Western nations. Should we do away with that also? Are you also advocating geirus on demand to any non-Jew who want to have a Jewish identity? Are you advocating accepting mixed marriages to avoid "chilul hashem"? AZ the bottom line as Rav Moshe Feinstein writes in the Igros Moshe - we have to try as hard as we can to find what the Torah wants through studying the sacred texts and the Mesorah. One does not reject a Torah view simply because my non-Orthodox neighbor or co worker might not like it.

Weiss-Dodelson: Gital "the face of Agunot" discuss her views

Times of Israel  Update see below [...] Dodelson’s public fight for a religious divorce has changed her, especially in terms of how she might approach future relationships.

“It’s kind of too depressing for me to even think ahead to this, given my current situation, but I do now understand why people live together before marriage,” she says. “I’ve even told my mother that next time I like a guy, I’m going to live with him for five years first. Of course I was joking. I know what I would and wouldn’t do — and I would never do that.”

This is because one major thing she is not allowing her struggle to do is convince her to leave Orthodox Judaism.

“I’ve never blamed my religion for this situation. I blame Avrohom Meir for it.”

As she sees it, Judaism is not bad, but there are Jewish people who do bad things.

“I don’t want Avrohom Meir to ruin my religion for me,” she asserts.

Other than finding herself an agunah, Dodelson claims that she has always felt empowered as an Orthodox woman. However, she is uncomfortable with the “feminist” label.

“Being a feminist is beyond what I am putting my energy into right now,” she states.[...]

===================
Guest post by Outraged rebuttal to Gital's apparent belief that living together before marriage helps prevent divorce

Gital is mistaken: Couples cohabiting before marriage are MORE likely to divorce, not less

Marriages are successful only when each of the spouses believes that marriage is a commitment, not just an easily reversible choice, and works hard to make the marriage successful.

But Gital apparently believes that the true problem is that she and Avraham Meir didn't move in together before marriage, in which case she presumably would have known that he was not for her and would not have married him.

NY Times Marry
NY Times: Downside of cohabiting before marriage

"...About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.

But that belief is contradicted by experience. Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.

Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

Weiss-Dodelson:The $1,000,000 Question why are the gedolim silent about Gital's tactics?

Guest Post: By Kat Shel Beryonim

My question is not who is right but how can the Gedolim agree for her to go to the New York Post and if they don't then how come there is no kol kore about that?

The stakes are now much higher then just Dodelson vs Weiss. It is a question as to whether the Chareidi world will bow to pressure from folks who clearly do not have our best interests in mind. I honestly believe that even if Avraham Meir was wrong it is assur for him to give a get. Doing so would create a tremendous chillul hashem and further erode faith in our gedolim and the beis din system. Now every yid who has a complaint about his neighbor will now go to the press which will eagerly lap up the story of those archaic Orthodox Jews, and they will say if she can do it why can't I. Why is she any better then other people whom were wronged and were told to hush up for the sake of the community, and that it would cause to big of a chilul hashem? Does it perhaps have anything to do with her last name, for those of you who do not know yet DODELSON = KOTLER = BMG. If it does then we as a community have a lot of soul searching to do.

Weiss-Dodelson: Gital's campaign against Rav Reuven Feinstein's Yeshiva begins

SI Live  A social media and phone campaign to bar an estranged husband from the Yeshiva of Staten Island is the latest gambit in an increasingly aggressive and professionally-orchestrated effort to extract a "get" from the son of a prominent Island Jewish family. [...]

"We turn to the administration of the Yeshiva of Staten Island, where he studies, to protest against him and to remove him from the Kollel" says a notice posted on Ms. Dodelson's web site. "Tell them in no uncertain terms that withholding a get is NOT acceptable." 

Supporters are urged to call the yeshiva and the phone number and address are listed on the web site. Calls to the yeshiva for comment weren't immediately returned.

Shira Dicker, who described herself in an email to the Advance as "part of Team Gital," acknowledged that "Gital is one of my clients" and became defensive when asked whether she was paid for her services.   

"I have seen some people jump on the fact that the Dodelsons hired a publicist as if this is some kind of crime or sinister strategy," Ms. Dicker said. "That really confuses me. What is problematic about a victim taking her story public? I hope that is NOT what your question implied. Other women in Gital's position hired hit men."[...]

Bnei Brak has alarming increase in child molesting cases

Kikar Hashabbat

תושבי בני ברק בחרדה בעקבות ריבוי המקרים הקשים של תקיפה אכזרית של ילדים. בהוראת הרבנים, ארגון "השומרים" מפרסם אזהרה חד-משמעית לתושבים: "מסתובבים אנשים רעים וחטאים, חוטאים ומחטאים, שמציקים לילדנו באופן הגרוע ביותר". הסיבה לאזהרה: מעל עשר תלונות רק בשבוע האחרון

 

Police drop Rabbi Chaim Halpern investigation

Jewish Chronicle   A police investigation into alleged sex abuse of women by prominent Golders Green rabbi, Chaim Halpern, has been dropped.

The Metropolitan Police said today that a file passed to the Crown Prosecution Service "regarding allegations of sexual assault has resulted in no charges being brought against a 54-year-old man".

It said that officers from Barnet's sexual offences, exploitation and child abuse command, who investigated the allegations, "confirm that all allegations have been fully investigated".

Weiss-Dodelson: A pragmatic resolution to their conflict

Update See Solution below

Everyone acknowledges that the battle between Gital and Avraham Meir has gone on far too long and is now seriously harming the Jewish community.

Two young people – amongst our best and brightest - are losing the best years of their  lives in a war of attrition that neither is winning and can continue for many years. The wake up call came with three recent developments. 1) The chilul haShem that has been generated by Gital's article in the New York Post that she says was written out of desperation for her freedom and 2) His father and uncle lost their jobs to prevent Artscroll from being destroyed by a consumer boycott. 3) The threat to destroy Rav Reuven Feinstein's yeshiva for his support of his grandson.

Various people have suggested that it is time for everyone to stop fighting over who is right and focus on providing a realistic proposal that will be acceptable to both sides and bring an end to this ma'aseh Satan. I have a  friend whose son was deceived into marrying a mentally ill woman by important rabbis. When the son asked for a divorce, the schizophrenic woman demanded full custody and financial compensation. Our friend told his son not to fight, but to sacrifice their child and get on with his life. Even though he lost his son, he now has a new family and is doing well.

In a similar vein, one gadol has stated that even though it is clear to him that Avraham Meir is right in every detail - he won't fight for him. "If I succeed in defending Avraham Meir I will have to destroy the reputation of many important rabbis and institutions that are critical for our community. I would rather sacrifice Avraham Meir than destroy the Jewish community."

This post then will be devoted to understanding the critical issues from both sides and suggesting a solution satisfactory to both sides - based on pragmatism and not principle. First let me present what I think their pragmatic and psychological concerns are and then offer a solution that addresses them.

Gital's view: 

1)  She doesn't want to be married to Avraham Meir and wants a Get to be able to marry a "stepfather for her son."

2) She wants more control over their son and in fact she and her family want to reduce Avraham Meir's right to access and involvement with her son that had been mandated by the court custody agreement. She and her family don't think that Avraham Meir is a good parent and want to minimize their child's attachment and love for him. Ideally they would like Gital's next husband to be recognized by the  child as Tatty.

3) She refuses to pay any compensation for the severe financial loss of the Weiss Family resulting from the legal fees in this battle. In fact she feels they owe her for causing her to legally defend to that which is rightfully hers. She feels that Avraham Meir is only the sperm donor and her son is totally hers. She feels she should not have to pay for the Weiss'  being obstinate and fighting her for custody of her child but rather they should have simply given up when she moved out and took him away. She was willing to be fair and generous in allowing him to see her son. She saw no need to go to court for custody rights. Consequently she doesn't feel so generous after the court battles.

4) She wants to be acknowledged as rightfully fighting not only for own freedom but that of other Orthodox women who are being held captive by laws that are out of step with modern values of individual freedom. She readily points to the many great rabbis who have supported her and have called for her husband to be ostracized until he gives into her demands. She also feels that her experience indicates a significant change needs to be brought about dating and marriage in the Orthodox community. She thinks women - especially those who are the breadwinners should have greater financial control in the marriage.  She also feels that women should able to obtain a Get on demand for those who are unhappy with their marriage, and have final say over child custody. 

5) Gital is used to getting her way and this fight with Avraham Meir has been traumatic. It is important that she regain control over her life and well as to recover psychologically from what she  views as a demeaning relationship with Avraham Meir. Even though he tried improving their relationship - it was too late because she could never trust him again. Her need for a get is much more than freedom to find a "stepfather for her son." The get also means retrieveing her life from being controlled by Avraham Meir.

6) This fear of being controlled and thus the compensatory need to be in control extends to other aspect of Gital's life - especially in relationship to other people. It played a role in a previous relationship that didn't work out. Thus these last four years have been  torture for her, while the sense of power from intimidating the Weiss' and Feinstein's has been exilarating.

Thus whatever settlement Gital obtains has to not only include receiving the Get - but also clearly establishing that Avraham Meir and his family did not win and that they don't dictate the terms. This view is also shared by her mother and therefore is non negotiable.

Avraham Meir view: 

1). He entered marriage viewing it with the normative view presented in the gemora and poskim that the husband is the boss - but found out the hard way that his wife (like many frum women today) wasn't interested in that approach. His eventual willingness to change his view to his wife's view of equality  was rejected as coming too late. Thus he now has a much more realistic and flexible understanding of women then when he got married.

2) When his wife simply left him with their child it was a major shock. He wasn't used to this helpless state - especially in regards to his own child - whom he loves dearly. Initially he tried simply accepting it as a test and relied on her sense of fairness. However he realized that the good faith relationship was not working out and that in reality she was in total control of his ability to see their child and she was using that power to keep his son from him. Thefore he decided that he needed to formalize in enforceable secular law his access to their son - something that went very much against his training as a frum Jew. Again he learned to act pragmatically rather than what was maximally ideal.

3) His initial belief in rationality - if you are logical - than the other side will eventually agree has been shattered. When his wife agreed to go to therapy, he thought they could work things out and he would give up what ever needed to hold the marriage and family together. When she quit therapy with the therapist she chose - after four session - despite the therapist saying that the marriage was fixable, he realized that rationality in these matters is not much use.

4) His education in pragmatism - and the emotional rather than intellectual approach of women - was only the start of his education in real life. He discovered that going to court cost money - lots of money and that the Dodelson's could play the court system better than his family. As his family was driven into bankruptcy and the stress was severely impacting all members of his family - he became focused on regaining this money that he had been forced to spend to retain access to his son.  He views it as an non-negotiable point to regain if not all - at least a significant amount of money that his wife forced him to spend. It is not just a question of pride. He doesn't want to live the rest of his life paying off the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent - nor does he want his family to have to deal with it.

Bottom line. Avraham Meir is much more mature and realistic about life. His minimum requirements for a get are 1) guaranteed custody rights from a consent agreement ratified by the judge which will ensure that the Dodelson's don't try to take his son away from him. 2) Financial compensation for the lawyers fees that he had to shell out in order to obtain the elementary human right to be with his son. He doesn't have the psycholgical need to win - but he and his family have suffered major public shaming. He doesn't want revenge but he does want the settlement to convey a public message that he and family are not the evil psychopathic creatures that the Dodelson's have successfully conveyed to the public.

Suggested settlement: 

After listening and engaging in discussion on this topic for countless hours I think the outline of a resolution to this disaster has become obvious. The halachic issues have been fully discussed regarding his right to give a get and the requirement to avoid a get me'usa. Her excrutiating pain from being kept in a marriage for 4 years has also been fully and clearly described. I have allowed posts from both sides that I normally would not because of the to'eles that both sides need to know that their pain and indignation  and rage has been heard by the whole world – especially the other side.

There are actually two viable solutions - not one.

1) Reconciliation: I know most people will respond that this proves that psychologists are all crazy – but this is really the best solution. I am not saying this merely as an armchair observer. Gital had agreed to go to marriage therapy contingent on a number of conditions 1) The choice would be hers 2) He had to be a non-Jew 3) He had to live outside their community 4) She would only go for 4 sessions. The therapist told them that the marriage could be saved. Gital wasn't interested and never went back.

 It is clear that returning to a marriage that can be repaired with the person with whom she had a child – is infinitely better than hoping to find someone new. She has already struck out twice – there is no reason to believe that marriage to a 3^rd person would not end the same way. Her legitimate objections to Avraham Meir can readily be dealt with by an agreed upon rav that will guide them through future conflicts. Likewise the rav can help Avraham Meir to be more sensitive and accommodating to her psychological and religious needs. It really isn't rocket science.

Rabbi Avraham Blumencrantz once mentioned that he advised all couples to move far away and minimize contact with their families at least during the first year of marriage. He observed that many if not most disputes came about through "good advice" from concerned mothers and fathers. Chazal tell us that when a woman marries it equivalent to be captured by a foreign nation. She needs to understand that marriage doesn't make the husband an extension of her family – but that she and her husband are forming a new family with alliances to relatives. This advice applies equally to Avraham Meir. 

Avraham Meir needs to be fully aware that the ideal of marriage described in the rabbinic literature – needs to be modified according to the nature of the wife. He needs a wise rav who they both respect to guide him in making appropriate accommodation. I have seen too many avreichim who cite Shulchan Aruch and stories of tzadikim when they come for shalom bayis session. As the Steipler put it – he has to understand his wife is not a shtender.

They both have to know the welfare of their son is best served if he has the two parents living as husband and wife in harmony rather than living in two alienated families. Even with the best psychologist and the best intentions their son will be harmed by divorce. In reality divorced couples are not known for their rational loving attitude towards each other – and they convey that clearly to the detriment of their child.

2) Divorce: If the thought of reconciliation makes them want to vomit then here are the outlines of a fair divorce settlement. It is clear that despite all the yelling and screaming about extortion – money is not the main issue for either of them. Baruch haShem, Gital's parents are very wealthy and will not suffer in any way from a financial settlement. They do not however want to give it on principle. However since this is a pragmatic solution which has a single goal – that Gital should obtain her Get – we must ignore who is right or wrong. 

First step: $350,000 should be put in escrow according to both their lawyers advice. Giving of the money to Avraham Meir is to be contingent on his giving a get of his own free will. This step is really the simple one

Second step: This is really the issue that divides them. They are both concerned that the other side will harm the child and therefore satisfactory guarantees need to be provided. The Dodelson's have consulted with a psychologist who has emphasized the need for the child to have one home where he can feel secure. He noted that by having divided custody, the child really does not have a home or identity. Therefore the Dodelson's want a reduction from the court ordered custody arrangement. They also don't want their grandson to be too attached to his father and are hoping that when Gital remarries the child will accept his stepfather as his Tatty.

Awareness of the Dodelson's goal is the reason that Avraham Meir is fighting so hard for a consent agreement which will guarantee that he doesn't have to constantly worry that he will be summoned back to court to fight for his relationship to his son. In addition to the stress, he does not have the money or the time for this fight and he feels this tension is bad for his son – as well as his whole family. He doesn't want his son to be poisoned against him – which is a realistic worry.

I would suggest the formation of a committee of several rabbis respected by both side working in consultation with psychologists who are respected by both sides. I would suggest that Rav Matisyahu Solomon, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, Rabbi Aaron Kotler and Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald form this group with psychologists of their choosing. I would suggest that both Avraham Meir and Gital agree in advance to whatever decision the committee unanimously agrees to. The issue of custody should not be left to a secular court, nor it should be decided on the basis of advice by a psychologist hired by one side nor should it be the source of ongoing tension. It needs to be decided now. (However if in the future one side feels a need for modification, the committee should meet again and decide the issue.)

If these two issues are dealt with as described, there is absolutely no reason why a get will not be given promptly. Gital and Avraham Meir with then be able to live again – and peace will be restored in Clall Yisroel.