Friday, March 30, 2012

Forced Get: Rav Schachter's use of public humiliation

 In order to focus more directly on the serious halachic issues I am copying a sampling of comments from a previous post   Rav Herschel Shacter: Options for Agunot


The issues of concern here are 1) Is there is an widely accepted basis of forcing a husband to give a get through public humiliation - after she has left him and gone to secular court and refuses mediation in a case where she claims she can't stand him (mo'us alei). In particular where there is already a civil divorce and no chance of reconciliation - does a beis din have the right and duty to force him to give a get. This would exclude suggestions which are clearly labeled as potentially l'halacha  but not applicable at present l'maaseh . Explicitly saying that it is perceived as a constructive proposal that needs agreement of gedolim. 2) Is  obtaining a get in this manner  a pyrrhic victory since it is viewed as an innovation and thus many poskim hold that use of humiliation produces at least a doubtful get and thus future children would be sofek mamzerim? 3) Does refusing a summons to a particular beis din - even one that is perceived as hostile or biased -  justify the beis din encouraging a public campaign of humilation and vilification? 4) Is there an acceptable protocol for obtaining a get when the wife doesn't want to remain in the marriage.
I have listened to the first section of the lecture by Rabbi Shachter about Agunoth and I think it is completely wrong. He says basically that the various pressures available to coerce a GET, beating, Beth Din commanding the husband to divorce, or passive ostracizing, are things to discuss when a husband supports his wife and they are living together but the wife wants out. However, says Rabbi Shachter, if the wife has left the husband, and surely if she has a civil divorce, we may beat the husband with sticks to force him to divorce. This is completely wrong.

The laws of a woman who spurns her husband and wants a GET are not where RS says it is, in chapter 154 but in chapter 77. There the SA does not mention forcing the husband, as the Rashbo forbids coercing the husband with MOUS OLEI. Forcing is mentioned only in chapter 154 regarding a forbidden marriage where we can use force to coerce a GET. The next category in 154 is when the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not say to force the husband. In that case, the Beth Din can tell the husband he is a sinner and people can call him a ROSHO, but no humiliation or active pressure is permitted. Ramo says that in such a case, where the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not clearly state to force the GET, we may do a passive ostracizing. The Vilna Gaon and others say this only applies with two conditions: One, that the Talmud says there must be a GET, and two, the husband can escape the ostracizing by going to a different town. It is not permitted to ostracize the husband passively in a case where the wife wants a divorce, so the ostracizing is not mentioned in chapter 77 where these laws are taught.
The Ramo permits passive ostracizing only when the Talmud comands a GET and not when the wife wants a GET. THe Shach and Chcazon Ish forbid even passive ostracizing even when the Talmud commands a GET.

Thus, Rabbi Schachter is completely wrong, and he has no support for his opinion, and whoever follows his opinion such as ORA with its public humiliation of the husband will produce children considered by normative halacha to be mamzerim.
Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn Mar 29, 2012 05:52 PM

Someone challenged me here: "1) The opinions you are putting forward are not universally accepted. There are a great many Acharonim and Poskim that allow a forced get עישוי כדין." Okay. A great many Acharonim and Poskim. Tell me one.

The halacha is clear: Some men, such as he who marries a forbidden women, is coerced severely and physically. Someone the Talmud demands that he divorce his wife but does not call for coercion, is not beaten, and any coercion is a problem and machlokes, but these are rare cases. We are talking here about MOUS OLEI, and I want you to tell me one major Acharon who permits coercing a husband to divorce his wife with public humiliation when his wife leaves him.

I have been careful in this blog and elsewhere to support my comments with sources. Where are your sources? Even R Schachter has no sources, other than the need to help Agunoth and the airy opinion that all of the sources I quote are only talking about when the wife didn't leave the husband, a ridiculous statement that no normative posek would make.

Rabbi Michael Tzadok

Some clarification:
Are you asking specifically in the Friedman-Ephraim case or in general?

Regarding the Friedman-Ephraim case:
1) There is seems to be no valid halakhic reason to compel a Get עישוי גט by any method as the case has not come before a B"D.
2) Public embarrassment however is warranted on the sole fact that Friedman refuses to appear before a B"D. I have above quoted the Sh"A on that matter, see there.

Regarding עישוי גט for a wife saying is is repulsed by her husband מאוס עלי you have two categories:

1) No extenuating circumstances There are Poskim who rule that in such a case there are ways to coerce a get עישוי גט כדין(admittedly none of which rely upon public embarrassment). They are:

a)Rabbi Moshe Feinstein Iggrot Moshe EhE 3:44, 4:106
b)Rabbi Ovadiah Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 2:8 and 6:17

2)When there are extenuation circumstances. If there is abuse, emotional, physical or sexual, or for a variety of other reasons. In such cases the B"D may ossur the wife to the husband and thus act accordingly:
a) Rav Ovadia Yosef Yabia Omer Ehe 3:18 and 3:20
b) Rav Ovadia Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 5:67 6:15(and numerous other places)
Yitzy Hillel Mar 29, 2012 11:29 PM

L'kavod Harav

After a week of research on the inyan of meos aliu, I have concluded that Rabbi Shachters actions can be defended: In his shiur plight of agunah minutes 48-101 he states that humiliation today is mutar and not even the harchakos of R'tam. In his other shiur that he talks about dead marriages and using any means in those cases, he was very vague about which cases and he must have been referring to cases of coffin osu that were mefaresh in shas otherwise that statements makes absolutely no sense.)

Your teshuva stresses the Rashba, Shach and Chozen Ish as the main sources for your oppinion. I found the following on this issue.

-Rav Sternbuch (5: 344) holds that in our generation we must ignore them and hold of the harchokes of R'tam in certain cases. He chooses the Rivash's Girsa in the Rashba (against the version of the Rashba in the Beis Yosef) which takes out the word humiliation and therefore advises that one can humiliate the guy on some level. He also argues with you and says the Chazon Ish holds that a get obtained through humiliation bedieved would be a valid GET

-Rabbi Yosef in Yabea Omer 8:25 paskens in a case of mius aley that we should apply the harchakos of R'tam. The Titz Eliezer signs off on those harchakos on the bottem of the teshuva. From this teshuva we also see that they are not choshesh for the Maharshdam's shitta which Rav Sternbuch and Rav Elyashiv are choshesh for because they mention the GET issue in their harchakas.

-Based on the above, I feel it is misleading to say that the Harchakos are off limits today, as some of the Gedole Haposkim in our generation have used them.

-I found the sefer Get Meusa (on the otzar hachachma database ) by Dayan Goldberg of Tel Aviv. In this sefer he comes out that obtaining a get through humiliation is not kefia he has a long footnote with sources which I will try to send to you in the coming days.

This sefer therefore agrees with Rabbi Shachter that humiliation is not even the Harchakas of R'tam. Therefore, following the husband from town to town would be ok. Also since this isn't kefia, your lumdus about the get isn't his rotzon wouldn't apply.

-lastly Rav Sternbuch writes that many of the great rishonim (Rambam, Rif, Rashi..)hold that in these cases we can even beat the husband for refusing the get when the woman wants out. Although the Shulchan Aruch doesn't pasken like them, this is something to keep in mind.

You asked to find any source showing that humiliation is ok...I ask you are there sources that clearly show humiliating is kefia and the get would be posel bedieved? The only source that I have found that mefaresh pasuls the get is the Maharshdam, which Rav Yosef and the Tzitz Eliezer weren't choshesh for in Yabea Omer 8:25.

However, I agree that from the fact the Eretz Yisrael Rabbonim don't talk about humiliating and rallies as being an option they perhaps would hold that what Rabbi Shachter is promoting is worse than R'Tam.

Although I attempted to defend Rabbi Shachter, I feel that you are right about getting approval from others before doing drastic changes in policy in halacha especially when the potential nafka mina is mamzerus.

For all those readers who will attack me for my above defense as being pro feminist and YU, I like Rabbi Eidensohn are interested in emes and sources and not name calling and hate. So if you disagree with what I said please explain how my defense is wrong and back up your claims with sources. I will be truly grateful. I think the blog will benefit if we could all stop the hate and venom and stick to trying to discuss issues of Jewish Identity in a respectful and pleasant manner,
kul tuv,
Yitzy Hillel


  1. i concur with your opinion. Force is only where the marriage is prohibited. and in certain cases like the rema mentions. Forcing the husband does not apply for a moredert this is simple. Just read perek af al pi (five in ketibot). I can see why the yeshiva world was never impressed with yeshiva university is such stupidity comes out of it.

  2. YU - ORA spokesmen (Yitzy Hillel, Herschel Schachter, etc.) are attempting to dupe a gullible Jewish public into believing that the feminist REESHUS of ORA ( Organization for the Resolution of Agunot ) is somehow legitimate under HALACHA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    ORA's spokesmen employ numerous fraudulent arguments to deceive and confuse the Jewish public:

    1. ORA intentionally limits the discussion to halachic hair-splitting involving HARCHAKA D'RABBEINU TAM (HDRT), and creates a false illusion of ORA's compliance with HDRT, while in fact HDRT has absolutely no relevance in the Friedman case or the majority of ORA's cases.

    2. Most or all of ORA's cases actually involve MOREDES, but ORA completely ignores the HALACHOT of MOREDES (a wife who has abandoned her husband, or has litigated in non-Jewish courts, or refuses to live with her husband). MOREDES, (Shulchan Aruch, Evan HaEzer Chpt. 77), is certainly not entitled to force a GET on her husband according to any normative Ashkenazi POSKIM, rather the husband is permitted to desposit a GET in Bais Din, and get remarried, as stated in Rav Sternbuch's TSHUVAH. The wife must remove the court orders, return the children, and submit herself to a kosher Bais Din before she may request a GET.

    3. Claims that ORA's actions against Jewish husbands only involve "humiliation" are utterly fraudulent. ORA's vicious warfare against Jewish husbands goes far beyond any passive actions which might be allowed by the minority of POSKIM who might allow HDRT if the wife is not a MOREDES. Anyone following the Friedman story knows that Mr. Friedman's employer and have family have been repeatedly harassed and pressured by ORA. In many other divorce cases, the Jewish husband's employers, landlords, family, etc. have been harassed and pressured by ORA gangsters. ORA promotes terrible violations of Torah law such as M'SAYEH MOSRIM (assisting informers), actions which were never allowed, even when HDRT might be allowed by a minority of POSKIM.

    ORA is an organization operating completely contrary to Jewish HALACHA and values, regardless of how much halachic lipstick is put on this pig. All decent Torah Jews should fiercely oppose ORA and its practices.

  3. The concept of HALACHIC justice for Jewish husbands simply does not exist by ORA, and is never discussed by ORA's spokesmen such as Herschel Schachter and Yitzy Hillel . ORA's refusal to recognize a Jewish husband's legitimate halachic rights is the major cause in the inability of ORA's clients to obtain kosher GITTIN.

    The following letter with Rav Moshe Sternbuch's signature, among others, explains that it is forbidden to help Jews who are litigating in civil courts
    in violation of HALACHA.

    Furthermore, Torah Jews are obligated to assist the Defendants (in most cases the husbands) who have been MOSER'D in non-Jewish courts.

    Since most or all of ORA's women "clients" are known to be operating in civil courts in violation of HALACHA, how can Herschel Schachter, Yitzy Hillel, etc.
    possibly justify assisting these women? Certainly HARCHAKA D'RABBEINU TAM has no application to a MOREDES who MOSERs her husband in non-Jewish courts.

    Not only do ORA's policies result in great injustices to Jewish husbands, numerous Jewish families are being unnecessarily destroyed by ORA's anti-Torah, GET on demand, M'SAYEH MOSRIM policies.

  4. Can someone please explain at what point did R' Shmuel Kamenetsky start agreeing with ORA? Does he only support ORA in the Epstein case because shes from Philly? If he agrees with their tactics shouldn't he suuport all "agunahs"? If there is a new breakthrough in Halacha why does he not endorse these tactics for all woman who say Mois Ali?

  5. Quite evidently there are two (if not more) opinions on humiliation. Why does this difference of opinion set the world on fire with name calling, defaming and anger?

  6. I don't think it's acceptable to call Rav Schachter "Hershel Schachter" anymore than one would write "Moshe Shternbuch"

    I am surprised that the moderator allowed such a public bizuy of one of the Gedolai HaDor

    1. There is a dilemma here. If I reject the post then we don't hear from one side of this issue. On the other hand most people who read his name calling and insults assume he is a nut and discount anything that he says. Rav Schachter's stature is obviously not degraded by his comments - but you are correct that it is not appropriate to speak this way.

      There is the additional point that for any person who is convinced that an important rabbi has taken a course that is deliberately violating the halacha and therefore is producing mamzerim - it is not only diffult to give him kavod but it is also assur. The question is this in fact happening or does Rav Schachter have an acceptable basis for what he is doing.

      At present I have opted for the approach which encourages open discussion on this issue - even at the expense of derech eretz. If you i.e.,the readers would rather not hear the other side then I will simply not publish his comments.

      Of course the best solution is that he stop his insults and focus on the issues.

  7. Yitzy Hillel: You claim that you can defend R' Schachter and ORA's actions. A point that has not been brought up which I would like for someone to address is - In addition to the public humiliation that ORA applies to the "Get refuser", ORA also holds demonstrations outside the homes of the relatives of the so called Get Refuser. If you can bring down the source in Halacha that allows to publically humiliate the father and mother of a "Get refuser".

    1. We have seen that today in year 2012, public demos and rallies in front of someone's house, business or place of employment is not HUMILIATION rather a public act of letting others know the score. It takes alot to humiliate people in this day and age.

  8. I would like to separate the discussion into two cases, My comments are not on any 1 case but in general. Rabbi Shachter has been accused of reformaing halacha on this blog in two cases. 1) Mius Alai: a woman wants out of a marriage 2) Women who runs to secular coutt and says Meos Alai as well. I have a split opinion thus far on the issue.

    1) In the case of Meos Alai: Rabbi Dovid Eidonsohn Shlitta wrote a teshuva on on the topic accusing Rabbi Schachter of producing Mamzerim through the ORA pressuring husbands through humiliation in cases of mius alai (he doesn’t mention the secular court issue at all in the teshuva) I read the teshuva and was shocked at his outcome. He claimed that the future of klal Yisrael will be split in these cases over whether the children of these gittin will be mamzers. His brings down the Rashba, Beis Yosef, Shach, Chozen Ish as his main supports to his position. He also claimed the Harchakas of R’tam can’t be enforeced today because the Chazon Ish and Shach says that we don’t do them today.
    I wrote a defense on the blog of Rabbi Schachter after first being convinced by the teshuva of Rabbi Dovid Eidonsohn.

    -My main point was most rishonim hold that in the case of mius alai we force the husband to give a get and although the shulchan aruch is machmir due to the seriousness of marriage, most great rishonim say to force in this case
    -Rav Sternbuch holds the Beis Yosef’s version of the Rashba is incorrect and goes with the Rivash’s version which takes out forbidding humiliation. He therefore holds that in someway one can humiliate the husband in mius ali. The Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Yosef also held of using the harchakas of R’tam
    -The chozen Ish holds that although one should follow the Rashba bedieved the get is still valid! (as Rabbi Sternbuch claims in Chelek 5 of his teshuvas; against the teshuva of Rabbi Dovid Eidonsohn Shlitta)
    -the gedolia poskim have used the harchakas of R’tam in out generation
    -Rabbi Shachter claims humiliation is not even the harchakas of R’tam and the sefer GET Meusa of Dayan Golberg of Tel Aviv agrees that humiliation is not kefia. This means the husbands can be humiliated even once they leave their original town.
    -Lastly, I finally saw the Maharshadam inside and see that he says that within the Harchakas of R’tam one can’t mention the GET in the ostracism otherwise the get is posul. Rabbi Elyashiv and Rabbi Sternbuch are choshesh for this opinion but Rav Yosef and the Tzitz Eliezer aren’t choshesh for the opinion.
    This is my newest thought: since humiliation is not even the harchakas of R’tam the maharshadam would not posul the get in that case because the Maharshadam is only posuling the get in the case of mentioning the get while doing the harchakos of R’tam
    -even with my defense , I realize this entire way of going about gitten is new and hasn’t been recommended by Gedolim and therefore should get approval from great Rabbis before being instituted.

    So I end off saying: Can someone please disprove my defense. Show me sources that say that bedieved a get that is obtained through humiliation is invalid and creating mamzerim. I didn’t see any once I looked at all the sources inside Bringing in cases where Rabbi Shachter supposedly helps out women in the case of running off to secular court doesn’t disprove his actions during the case of mius alai. Can someone please bring sources saying that humiliation is kefia? If so the defense is over, but until than my defense and the ORA has a job in certain cases!

    About the point that people have said that the ORA doesn’t just humiliate but tries to use social pressure to ruin jobs etc.. If they indeed do that then there actions are of the harchakas of R’tam. and are only allowed in the husbands original town. Once he leaves town they must be stopped. If they continue in the next town then I agree the get should be posul according to R’tam .

  9. 2) Case of women running to secular court to secure custody and financial settelements without going to beis din and also claiming mius alai and then getting support by rabbonim over the get issue.

    I have no defense for Rabbi Shachter or any Rabbi in these cases if this is indeed true. I agree that this issue must be dealt with by the poskim of the world and there has to have clear guidelines and woman have to be warned about being a moredes and only going to beis din. I dnn’t understand how Rabbis can apply the harchakas of R’tam in these cases and feel it is wrong unitl the woman drops her gezel like Rabbi Sternbuch states in chelek 4 of his teshuvas. Why don’t Rabbonim come out and support the men in cases of clear violation of halacha and a mockery of the beis din system.

    The problem of politics between beis dins.and one posuling the next and men running to certain ones who have reputations to favor men and woman running to beis dins that have reputations to support woman is a travesty and think gives everyone a reason to cry on 9 of av over the state of golus that we are all in.
    Good Voch,
    Yitzy Hillel

  10. Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

    In response to your comments regarding alleged name calling against ORA and its advisor Herschel Schachter:

    The ORA supporters on this blog, writing in their ivory towers and ignoring ORA's activities, demand that KAVOD be given to their rabbis. But ORA activists themselves, while conducting "operations", show no KAVOD to their opponents.

    - A few years ago, a large ORA protest was conducted in front of a Chareidi rabbi's home. I personally observed the Chareidi rabbi being insulted
    and demeaned in the worst possible manner, while I observed Herschel Schachter himself attending the protest.
    - A Chareidi Rosh Kollel, TALMID CHACHAM, and prominent MECHABER going through a divorce informed me that he was subjected to vicious harassment by ORA.
    - A website, apparently created by ORA during a campaign against a Jewish father, contains bogus letters in English insulting and demeaning a respected Chareidi Av Bais Din.
    - Other rabbis and decent Jewish men attempting halachic divorce processes have been subjected to harassment and defamation by ORA supporters.
    - On the ORA website, a news article describes "a monumental event for ORA" - "ORA SUCCEEDS IN AWARDING $202,000 TO AN AGUNAH" in California Superior Court.

    I have personally heard many authentic rabbis and divorced Jewish men denounce ORA and its rabbis.

    I respectfully request that you please understand that some frum Jews cannot show KAVOD to the leaders of an "Orthodox" organization that causes numerous MAMZERIM, defames Chareidi rabbis and decent Jewish men, and encourages Jews to win $202000 settlements against other Jews in ARCHAOT.

    I thank you for allowing my comments and I will try to moderate them as much as possible in the future, despite the circumstances.

    1. Allows beware of those who use a pen name of EMES as if they possess the only EMES>

  11. Daas Torah your hypochricy is beyond belief. Please explain why it is permissbale for Schlachter to violate Haolochoh openly as even per your brother by publicly humiliating innocent men but it it is unacceptable to call him Schlachter?

    When was the last time Schlachter protested a woman going to arko'oys? When was the last time Schlachter protested a woman being oyver false mesirah? When was the last time Schlachter protested a woman cleaning out a man through arko'oys and destroying his life?

    What exactly is Schlachter's stature? If he so brazenly violates Halochoh he has negative stature!

    Get real already. He would have been put in cheirem by Rav Shach if he were alive today just like he did to the chief Rabba of Efrat. Since you are not intimately involved with the victims of GetOra and victims of other corrupt Brooklyn rabbis you sit and pontificate like you know what you are talking about. You sit on the fence and claim on the one hand Schlachter has no halachik basis for his behavior but then talk out of the other side of your mouth as if he is some godol.

    there are more than 300 avreichim in BMG who would put him in the shade in laerning.

    who is he changing halochoh and converting ivanka trump and putting siruvim on men whose wives went to arko'oys and who deposited gittin in botei din that follow halochoh. sorry you are out of your mind if you think him and his thug buddy belsky are worthy of anything but total contempt. i really couldn't care less if you fail to publish this but cut it out already.

    1. I am not interesting in hosting a spitting contest. There are genuine issues and baruch HaShem they are finally coming out. I am interesting in understanding the halachic issues rather than just let people express their contempt for the other side.

      As you are well aware there is no one with the stature of Rav Shach today. My son who learnt in Ponevitch heard the following story.

      A number of years before his petirah, Rav Schach contacted one of his best friends. He said," I want to ask a favor from you. Would you please come to my leviyah." The friend was shocked by the request and said of course he would come but why was he asking? Rav Shach replied, "I have made so many enemies in my life I am not sure I will have a minyan at my leviah so therefore I am asking my friends to ensure I will at least have a minyan."

      I got a ride to the leviya with a friend who is a strong religious Zionist. When I asked him why he was going he replied, Rav Shach strongly condemned many of my rebbeim - but he was still a gadol b'Torah and a leader of clall Yisroel. Even though I strongly object to many of the things he said - he still has to be given proper respect.

    2. Stan I appreciate your position. I am functioning here as a psychotherapist - a moderator - interested in hearing both sides and trying to work at a reconciliation if possible. The production of mamzerim or even sofek mamzerim is a horrible thing.

    3. Can always admire those who know for sure the actions of our gedolim, (after their death)? Sort of Ruach Hakodesh in reverse...

  12. Rabbi Eidensohn,
    You may well have transgressed lavim by not editing the disgraceful words used to denigrate a gadol batora and a gaon adir
    Could you ask Rabbi Shternbuch if you should make the quick and easy edit to "Rav Schachter"
    Let us all know what he says?

  13. YisSteinMar 30, 2012 08:56 AM
    Can someone please explain at what point did R' Shmuel Kamenetsky start agreeing with ORA? Does he only support ORA in the Epstein case because shes from Philly? If he agrees with their tactics shouldn't he suuport all "agunahs"? If there is a new breakthrough in Halacha why does he not endorse these tactics for all woman who say Mois Ali?

    Can you show where Rav Kamenetsky "agrees" with ORA? The only thing I have seen him sign is a seruv from a B"D. We can argue the legitimacy or not of that B"D, and it's ability to demand a person appear before it(something which I think is inviolate even in the case of a biased B"D).
    My understanding(and perhaps I am wrong) is that even the Greater Washington Vaad has been putting pressure on Mr Friedman to appear before the B"D.
    My opinion is as follows regarding Rav Kamenetsky's involvment:
    1) The fact that Epstein's father is a supporter of the Philadelphia Yeshiva is irrelevant as per the Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 9:2, "If before making a monetary claim against someone in Beis Din, a person gives a gift to one of the Dayanim, the plaintiff is unable to claim that the gift disqualifies the Dayan from judging the case. On the other hand, if the Dayan wants, he is permitted to refuse to judge the case (such as when he knows that his heart became biased) (Tur), but it is only middas chassidus."

    2) I know of no halakha which will permit a person to refuse to appear before a B"D when summoned, except when the person summoned can legitimately claim to be a Talmid Hakham who's stature surpasses that of the three Dayyanim combined. However, even then he must submit to their questions in writing.

    3) Just because Mr. Friedman must appear before the B"D does not mean that he is forced to allow them to adjudicate his case. As is stated in the Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 3:2 No Beis Din can be comprised of fewer than three people, but as
    soon as there are three it is called a Beis Din, even if they are everyday citizens for it is impossible that not even one of them understands the reasoning behind the laws. If, however, not one of them has such understanding, they are forbidden to make rulings (Tur in the name of the Rosh, Sanhedrin, Siman 1, Perek 1). Still, they are able to hear the claims and pass them on to a qualified authority (Maharam Padva, Siman 43)]. The three can judge the accused against his will if he refuses to come before them, or if he does not want to have the case heard in the plaintiff’s city. If he agrees to have the litigation in the plaintiff’s city, but he does not want the three who were chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff chooses one (judge), and the accused chooses one judge. Rama: See further on, Siman 13. It appears to me that this law (of choosing) applies only when the
    Dayanim are not Dayanim on a fixed basis. When, in that city, they do serve as Dayanim on a fixed basis, he (the accused) cannot say, “I will not come before you for litigation unless I choose one Dayan and he chooses one Dayan.” Such is the custom in our city. See further on, Siman 22, Se’if 1.

    In Mr Friedman's favor is a Teshuva from Rav Moshe Feinstein(Iggrot Moshe Hoshen Mishpat 2:3) which states that the vast majority of Batei Din in the US are not fixed קבוע and thus one has the ability to insist on a reconstitution of the B"D according to Zeh Borair. If the Seruv was written on letterhead from the Philadelphia Badatz he would have a much harder time, as that does meet the requirements of a fixed B"D, however it is not so that is a non sequitur.

    1. "Just because Mr. Friedman must appear before the B"D does not mean that he is forced to allow them to adjudicate his case. As is stated in the Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 3:2"

      This is a bit inaccurate inasmuch as it reflects halacha but not common practice. I dont think Friedman has any problem appearing before the B"D. The problem is that batei din in america, in order to have jurisdiction, require litigants to sign an arbitration agreement submitting to their jurisdiction. In order for Friedman to "appear" before a BD, he has to submit to their jurisdiction.

    2. Actually no. The B"D has authority in a religious respect. In order for their rulings to be upheld in a secular court the two parties must sign a binding arbitration agreement, though unless those are done pre-nuptually they can be easily defeated in the court. Such as in this case, if either party were to sign a binding arbitration agreement, it would not be worth the paper that it is written on.
      Ms. Epstein can say that she was coerced into signing in order to get the Get that has been withheld for years. Mr. Friedman has the public humiliation campaign that he can use as evidence of coercion.
      However, whether or not the parties sign an arbitration agreement first and foremost for Jews is halakha. If the halakha says that the B"D has the right to compel him to come before him, it does, whether or not he wants to, he is required al pi halakha to do so.
      Secular law and whether or not a secular court will uphold the findings of a B"D have no actual relevance in this discussion. The "practice" of an arbitration agreement is simply in case one of the parties decides to forgo the halakha, as a protection to the other party.

    3. I dont know anything about this case but my experience as an attorney dealing with datei din is that the only response to a hazmana which they consider legitimate is signing an arbitration agreement. They are not interested in deciding jewish law only to see the losing party ignore the decision and go to secular court.

      This is not related to the pre-nup arbitration agreement.

  14. continued...

    4) Yes there are some aspects of Rav Kamenetsky's involvement in this that are a bit odd. However on account that he is a well respected Rav and Rosh Yeshiva, a member of a well respected Badatz, and a Posek for a large and growing community in Philadelphia, and because his name has never come up in any sort of odd Get controversy, and because Rav Aharon Kotler had enough trust in him to give him Semikha Yadin Yadin, and help him establish a Yeshiva, I think that he should be afforded every benefit of the doubt.

    5) Finally it seems to me that he is endorsing these tactics only because Mr Friedman is refusing to go before the B"D that has summoned him. When a person refuses the summons of the B"D the B"D has the ability and the right to place him into Nidui and to use whatever coercive methods that they deem necessary to compel him to appear.

    6)Just because they can compel him to appear does not mean that they compel him to give a Get.(See point 3 above for half the reason). Even amongst those Gedolim and Poskim that permit compulsion to give a Get, none will permit it without the person first appearing in the B"D and being ordered by the B"D to give the Get. Though technically his refusal to appear, ought to grant the B"D the right to hear the case and judge it(and him) in absentia. That they have not done so also speaks volumes...

    1. "5) Finally it seems to me that he is endorsing these tactics only because Mr Friedman is refusing to go before the B"D that has summoned him. When a person refuses the summons of the B"D the B"D has the ability and the right to place him into Nidui and to use whatever coercive methods that they deem necessary to compel him to appear"

      Rabbi Kamentesky denounced Friedman in a public letter in the spring of 2010, over a year before the third beis din (the beis din that issued a seruv) summoned Friedman.

  15. The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. the power to pretend is inborn in her and is to be found in the most stupid woman as often as in the most clever one.
    there really is no reason to confuse the issue of a moredert with that of an aguna. This is like mixing apples with rotting apples. Any rav who can mix these things up really need to sit down and learn a little gemara before he can be called a gadol.

    1. What you are saying simply does not make sense. Perhaps... perhaps, if it was simply Rav Shachter supporting Ms. Epstein, your argument would have some merit, however it is not. Instead, from the names that signed the Seruv, it is a wide range of Rabbanim who are supporting her, in fact considering that Rav Shachter's signature was an addendum on the seruv, I'm not even sure that the two are entirely related.

      Also there is no guarantee that we have heard all the details of the case. In fact it is quite likely that we haven't. In addition her being a woman to claim she is repulsed by her husband, and him refusing to appear before a B"D are in effect two separate issues. The proper procedure for a Moredet is to deposit a Get with the B"D, not refuse to appear before one.

  16. Just spoke with a posek regarding the issues raised

    1) He said that Rav Schachter is well known to be a solid talmid chachom and he can't believe that he would say anything without solid sources. Therefore he should be addressed respectfully - even by those who disagree with him. However he said that those who feel otherwise who wish to make comments - it is sufficient for me to note my objection - but that I can still post the letters without editing them even if they contain disrespectful comments.

    2) Regarding ignoring a beis din - he said that it is clear that one can not simply ignore a summons but need to respond to it.

    3) Regarding serving on a beis din for someone who is a supporting his yeshiva. He noted that the Shulchan Aruch says that it is permitted though it is clearly midos chassidus not to do so.

    4) He also noted that it was not clear who actually constituted the beis din. The mere fact that these four rabbonim signed on a letter of siruv doesn't mean that they actually constitute the beis din that would hear the case. As far as he knows Rav Shmuel Kaminestsky has not been a member of a fixed beis din and does not presently serve on a beis din. So the question is why these rabbis signed the seruv.

    1. I hate to disagree with a posek, however regarding number four, I can provide a Get(my own), in which Rav Kamenetsky signed as a Dayan, and on whose letterhead(Badatz of Philadelphia) he is listed as one of the fixed Dayyanim. It's a minor point, but for at least a decade he has been part of that B"D(and my understanding was that he has been since Rav Brisman became the AB"D, which is a bit further back than that).

    2. thanks for the information. the posek said he was not aware that he was part of a beis din. I will inform him of what you said

  17. Your claims that Schlachter is allegedly a solid talmid chochom from some unknown source are contemptible. Why does he ignore the shulchan oruch and support women who are in arko'oys? Why does he put siruvim on men who deposit a get at a valid bais din? Why is he involved in bizuy talmidei chachomim? Why does this biryon not consult the poskim in eretz yisroel who are much much bigger than him before making up new fangled heterim?

    I know of a case where he issued a siruv without even being mazmin the person once and in any case the person was not mesarev le'din but offered the m oredes in arko'oys a bais din she knew would slam her. This is the man you are defending.

    The more people claim he knows the worse his behavior in reality is. If rav Elyashiv were healthy and knew the truth about schlachter he would throw him out just like he did to his OU mate belsky. protest as much as you like, decide already if you are for Hakodosh Boruch Hu or for Ba'al already, stop sitting on the fence.

    He has never protested the issur arko'oys, he has never protested the issur of mesirah, he is obviously motivated by feminsim and anti Torah hashkofos. He is an Acher plain and simple.

    1. It is evident that you are clueless to who Rav Schachter is, his background in Yidious, ehrlichkeit and hasmada. Disagree if you did Rav Meir and Saadia Gaon in their generation as did many other gedolim of other generations.

    2. Stan, your unbridled hate is contemptible. I don't know who this Posek is (and I do NOT understand why he is nameless? R' Eidensohn?) However, the more you post with this mode of vituperative spiffllication, the less I and I dare say others will pay any attention to what you have to write.

      What is your name "Stan"?

      Why do YOU hide?

  18. One point that is being ignored as far as maus alai is that this is only relevant if she takes NOTHING out of the marriage - "not him, and nothing of his". Any woman who asks for any benefit while leaving the marriage can no longer use the claim of maus alai.

    All of ORA's agunot are not maus alai - they all want quite a bit from their husband on the way out. This issue is entirely irrelevant here.

    1. Do you have a halakhic source for that? It would seem to me that this is not the case.

      1) The Yaskil Avdei(see above quoted sources) says that the children should remain with the mother until they are six and then if the father wants them he may take them, but they should not be separated from the mother in that time.

      2) The father is required to provide support for his children(i.e. alimony of some sort).

      3) Until the husband gives the wife a Get(for which he actually has to go to B"D) he is responsible for his wife's support(the Yaskil Avdei lists this as one of the ways of halakhically compelling a Get עישוי גט כדין.) So as long as the husband refuses the Get the women are entitled to support.

      4) It will depend on whether there is extenuating circumstances in regard to the Maos Ali מאוס עלי if there is abuse, spousal rape ect. the wife may well be entitled to things.

    2. The source is the Rema in EH 77:2 based on rashi kesubos 63b.

      You have been commenting too much to be ignorant of such basics. You are arguing from non-mainstream later authorities instead of primary sources since your position cannot be supported if we go back to the sources.

      It is easy to find some printed opinion to defend anything. The challenge is to trace it back to the sources and show acceptance of the various sources through the generations.
      Your third point is baseless. If the Yaskil Avdi indeed says that he cannot claim to be honestly presenting the halacha.
      Your first and second points are irrelevant to the primary discussion so I will not comment on them.
      Your fourth point is irrelevant and again show you are being disingenious.

    3. The Yaskil Avdei is a non-mainstream later authority? Rav Ovadia Yosef is a non-mainstream later authority? That's news. I don't think you will find a Dayyan in E"Y that doesn't know the rulings of both, especially since they are necessary learning for the Rabbinut Dayyanut exams.

      Admittedly I have been quoting later sources, especially those(like the Yaskil Avdei) that received wide support(at least I assume that when the Dayyanim of the Badatz Eda HaChareidit all sign a haskama saying that they reviewed his Teshuvot and give them their support, that is fairly mainstream).

      Yes I have been arguing from recent sources, because recent sources are the ones who actually deal with the issues at hand. For instance Jews being able to enter into civil marriage or having a non-Jewish government at all involved in their marriages is a relatively new development. Thus so is the necessity for a civil divorce. So too are the various Batei Din that require a civil divorce before they will begin Get proceedings.
      So to say that just because a husband and a wife went to civil court to dissolve their civil marriage does not make, in today's world, a woman a moredet. Rather it is simply standard operation procedure in many locales.
      The Even HaEzer piece is specifically discussing a woman who refuses to go to mikvah. Fine -the sources I have quoted deal with that as well. The husband is still required to give her a Get after 12mos, and if he does not he is required to provide for her support(after those 12mos).
      Honestly I know nothing of what is standard practice for ORA, the only thing I am familiar with the Epstein-Friedman case at hand. In which case Epstein has a B"D that is signing for her that her husband is refusing to appear before a B"D. Thus it is permitted to treat him accordingly.

    4. You are again making up halachos. The 12 month rule is that if the wife refuses a get she can be forces to take one after twelve months, there is no such rule the other way.
      Likewise your statement that after 12 months he must pay support is not true. If you feel it is, please post a source which predates the rabbanut.

      The rabbanut has corrupted halacha beyond recognition in this area, and created far more mamzerim than Shachter ever will. I have no respect for anyone who sat there. Since we were on the subject, its worth mentioning that the rabbanut ignores this 12-month rule, together with many others. (just one more example, the rule that you need three judges is not something they are particular about.)

  19. "I am... interested in hearing both sides and trying to work at a reconciliation if possible. The production of mamzerim or even sofek mamzerim is a horrible thing."

    Rabbi Eidehnsohn- Thank you for performing this valuable service. I plan to print up this debate afterwards and try to learn up the Sugya myself a bit.

    "Rav Shach strongly condemned many of my rebbeim - but he was still a gadol b'Torah and a leader of clall Yisroel. Even though I strongly object to many of the things he said - he still has to be given proper respect."


    P.S. Was aforementioned Religious Zionist his son?

  20. Michael tzadok another tzedoki keeps on distorting halochoh. There is absolutely no halachik requirement to give a ki hu ze to a moredes, no support, no kesuvah, no nothing. And if she is in arko'oys, she is responsible not only for his legal fees and any awards she received that are k'neged the Torah, but cannot receive a get.

    he has also made claims that one can force a get if there is emotional abuse. Mr. Tzadok what constitutes abuse? Refusing to pay for an over the top outfit at Saks? What if the wife has been the abuser? You will never know the truth and just because she says so means nothing. every marriage that ends badly has each party feeling it has been abused by the other side. Yet the Shlulchan Oruch has a siman on what constitutes the requirements for when a Get can be forced and this is not one of them because if it were then a Get could always be forced since the woman will always feel abused.

    According to the Shulchan Oruch only if the husband has been repeatedly warned in the case of physical violence can a Get be forced by tzadok makes up his own rules along the way because he has preconceived feminist views.

  21. R' Moshe Sternbuch has got it pretty wrong. The Gedolim in America put out a kol koreh about 10-15 years ago re-affirming that any woman in arko'oys and oyver mesiarah is not only not entitled to a Get but is not entitled to get remarried. Unfortunately R Sternbuch obviously in his old age wishes to enhance his legacy with all this baloney.

    Let him start with his sister's own family and tell his brother in law HaGo'on hagodol Rav Dovid Soleveitchik the head of the Briskers in Eretz Yisroel to order his great newphew Yosef Dov Meyerson to give a Get to Ms Kessler who claimed mo'os olai and went to the arko'oys of the Bais Din of the Rabanut and forced a Get - the same arko'oys that the Brisker Rov assured to even step foot in, namely Haichal Shlomo. He would not dare!!!

  22. yes, here it is:


    if you wish to obtain rav gestetner's psak on meyerson, i need an email address please.

  23. Daas Torah,

    I believe the Kol Koreh referred to by "facts" above is located at

    One version is a large type version, the other one should be the same letter with rabbinic seals.

    This is actually a very important document, as it is signed by many rabbanim, and it certainly proves that women who have litigated in ARCHAOS cannot demand a GET based on "MAUS ALI", as ORA claims.

    "Women who summon their husbands to a non-Jewish court, it is forbidden to marry them, for they are considered wicked ("reshaim") who descend to Gehenom and forfeit their share in Olam Haba, and therefore they should remain unmarried for the rest of their lives."

    1. Also note that the Kol Kore says that a person must come when summoned to a B"D and if he refuses three summons they issue a seruv and he is treated accordingly.

      Again I have no actual knowledge of how ORA or Rav Shachter normally behave, and thus the reason for the controversy. However, you do have a seruv from a B"D with Rav Kamenetsky's signature on it and that means something.

  24. Emes L"Yaakov we should not forget that it is a psik reisha that being in arko'oys involves mesirah and this is what the shulchan oruch choshen mishpot shin peh ches (possibly ramoh) I think off hand says Yordim leGeheinom le'dorei doros ve'ainom oylim.

    Sorry daas Torah you may think I amgetting personal for no reason but if you had seen the devastation caused by some of these rashanta mordos onm the lives of their husbands and the children, the bankrupcy caused by figting these liars in courts just to get visitation, the years lost, you would not criticize me at all for what Schlachter and the corrupt brooklyn mafiosa of ralbag, belsky, mendel Epstein, etc have caused. I am not exaggerating one bit.

  25. One important fact that most above commenters have wrong is that Mr. Friedman, DID in fact appear in front of beis din. He appeared in front of the beis din that he and Epstein agreed to go to. They presented thier cases and just before they were about to isssue their ruling, EPSTEIN refused to follow the beis din's instructions and WALKED OUT on the beis din. She then went to multiple batei diinim whom refused to take the case for obvious reasons, until she ended up by the infamous Ralbag. So -- did Friedman not appear before beis din? or did Friedman do everything he was supposed to do and Epstein has absolutely NO claim to a get. This is leaving aside all else that Epstein did wrong, like taking their child to another state and defaming Friedman and his family in the worst possible way. Epstein is really ruining it for the real agunah's out there!

    1. The B"D there denies that the case ever came before them. They have done so several times publicly. The only B"D which has ever stated any actual involvement in the case is the one that issued the seruv.

    2. You have no idea of what you are talking about. The case was in the Baltimore B"D for months. Epstein walked out in the middle. Why would you talk without knowing any facts ay all?

  26. If someone can tell how Rabbi Kamenetsky’s views are any different the Rabbi Schachter/ORA I’d like to hear it. Here is a link to one of the letters that Rabbi Kamenetsky wrote in December 2010 . In it he states that because all issues have been settled in court (he states that Aharon Friedman was the plaintiff – which I’m sure Rabbi Kamenetsky is aware that Mr. Friedman was the plaintiff after he received permission from his Rav to go to court to for an emergency court date to try to get back his daughter after his ex-wife took their daughter out of state without his knowledge – I have yet to hear any Rabbi speak out against kidnaping children). The letter goes on to endorse the rallies that were held later that month outside Aharon Friedman’s apartment in Silver Spring as well outside his mother’s home in Brooklyn. When questioned about the Halachic validity of having a protest outside Mr. Friedman’s mothers home Rabbi Kamenetsky responded by saying that “his mother must support him so it is Muter”. At the same time there was an article in the Washington Jewish Week on December 22, 2010 which stated “Complicating matters, however, is that no beit din, or religious court, has ordered Friedman to issue Epstein a get. Initially, the case was being handled by the Baltimore beit din, a proceeding that was apparently halted when the secular courts took up the matter. Eventually, jurisdiction was handed over from Baltimore to the Vaad Harabanim of Greater Washington, also known as Vaad, which made clear in a recent community letter that, currently, "there is no bet din order for Mr. Friedman to give a get." Authority, the Vaad said in its letter, was recently handed back to Baltimore after the beit din there "reasserted its jurisdiction." Currently, the Epstein-Friedman case remains open but dormant, as "neither party has approached" the Baltimore beit din, requesting that it reconvene, according to Rabbi Mordechai Shuchatowitz, a rabbi on the court. "Right now," he said, "the ball is in [Epstein's] court" because, as the party seeking the get, she is responsible for reinitiating proceedings. Since the court has yet officially to order a get, Shuchatowitz said, it's "a bit premature" to be holding rallies and other events meant "to pressure [Friedman] because he's not been given his day in court." After all, "you can't disobey something you've not been told to do."

    In short the Baltimore B”D (which is the B”D that both parties agreed to go to) stated that they were waiting for Ms. Epstein to come to court to request a Get and you have Rabbi Kamenetsky/ORA stating that since there is a civil divorce Ms. Epstein is an Agunah, Mr. Friedman is mechuyav to give a get without a B”D and one can humiliate Mr. Friedman as well as his relatives. Does anyone else not find Rabbi Kamenetsky’s position troubling?

    1. A couple of points:

      1) How do you know that Rav Kamenetsky was aware that Mr. Friedman had a psak from his Rav to go to a secular court?

      2) How do you know that Mr. Friedman actually had such a psak(I have seen no proof only his word).

      3) Most poskim hold that the child is the sole custody of the mother until age 6(see above Yaskil Avdei for full list of sources).

      4) Considering that that letter was written before any of the B"D proceedings that lead to the seruv, that is indeed problematic.

    2. On another note. Going by the above listed Kol Kore, Friedman was in violation of several points for going to secular court. The Kol Kore says that one cannot go to a secular court based on the psak of a singular Rav but only based on the ruling of the B"D.
      The B"D that some claim was involved did not issue such a psak and as reported dropped the case when Friedman instituted court proceedings.
      The Kol Kore then would seem to insinuate that Friedman has the Din of a moser. It may well be that for that reason alone Rav Kamenetsky saw fit to issue the various statements he has.

    3. Again you have no concept of what went on in this case. Both parties were in the Baltimore B"D when Epstein walked out. Your comments show how you don't have the slightest understanding of the facts

    4. The exact point is Rabbi Kamemetsky did not know all the relevant facts - only what his handlers told him. This would not be the first time that Rabbi Kameneyski wrote a letter without knowing all the facts.
      When has it become normative practice for a mother to take an infant out of state without knowledge of the father? Epsteins "frum" lawyer then argued and got visitation rights to start friday evening after shabbos. Is this a women who should be getting our sympathy?

    5. The husband was moser her in secular court. The Kol Kore says that a single Rav cannot give a heter to moser someone in secular court. So, as long as the B"D did not give a heter to do so, he is over for that. Full stop.

      As to the B"D's involvement that depends on who you listen to. On the hand the Baltimore B"D has said that they were never approached about the case, at least that is what they said to Tablet. Washington Jewish week said that the Beit Din ceased its involvment when secular courts took up the matter, again their involvment was initiated by Friedman. So whether it was that they were never approached, or they ceased when Friedman was moser his wife, you cannot put onto Epstein(actually if is the latter and I am more inclined to believe the Jewish Week, especially as it is the same story that Friedman's supporters are anouncing) the problem is solely on Friedman.
      Relocating with the child is another matter, but many poskim rule that so long as the child is under six years of age, that determination is solely that of the mother.

  27. Rabbi Eidensohn, I suggest you go lifnim mishuras hadin of your posek and simply quick edit posts which denigrate Gedolim by dropping titles and using horrible names. Just change those to "Rav so and so" it's not hard.

    How do you feel about that?

  28. factsApr 1, 2012 12:29 PM
    Michael tzadok another tzedoki keeps on distorting halochoh. There is absolutely no halachik requirement to give a ki hu ze to a moredes, no support, no kesuvah, no nothing. And if she is in arko'oys, she is responsible not only for his legal fees and any awards she received that are k'neged the Torah, but cannot receive a get.

    Is that the best you can come up with?

    As far as distorting halakha. I am in no way supporting, promoting or in any other way agreeing with ORA or Rav Shachter. However since Rav Kamenetsky has seen fit to involve himself, a Rav who is Musmach from Rav Kotler and a well respected Rosh Yeshiva, who was made a fixed Dayyan on the Badatz of Philadelphia by Rav Brisman(who is himself musmach from Rav Shach, with whom he had a close relationship, and his own saintly father, who was musmach from the Chafetz Chaim) I am confident that in this case(Friedman and Epstein) that the halakha is very much in Epstein's favor.

    In fact the Kol Kore that you yourself point to, is pretty damning to Friedman. Friedman, according to all accounts, was the one who initiated court proceedings, supposedly on the psak of a Rav and not a B"D, that is in direct contradiction to the first three points brought on that Kol Kore. That would give him the din of a moser(according to that Kol Kore), and all who aid him are also acting contrary to halakha(see point 7).

    As to your other points. What qualifies as abuse? Whatever a reliable B"D rules is abuse. If the husband beats his wife, if he forces himself upon her against her will, if he wants to commit other aveirot with her. A B"D has the right to rule that any of these are abuse, and that the man is not a fit husband.

    As far as a moredet or a maos ali being entitled to support if her husband will not grant her a get, you have the halakah in EhE 77:2, which says that she is to be cut off from all support for 12mos, after which time her husband must deposit a Get with the B"D. If the husband refuses to do so(after the 12 mos have elapsed) many poskim(see the Yaskil Avdei above for sources, a sefer itself which bears a haskama with the signatures of all of the dayyanim of the Eida) rule that the husband would then have to begin supporting his wife again until such time as he gives the Get. Nor does it eliminate him from his halakhic responsibility to support his children.

  29. It is really getting tedious to argue with you, Rabbi Michael Tzadok. You keep selectively misquoting the sources and ignoring all arguments. Every time you throw out a new argument without responding towhat we asked you before.

    EH 77:2 does not say what you said, and please link to one of the "many poskim" you quote (you can find them on hebrewbooks). (As I wrote above, I am sure that some people said this, you can find someone to rely on for anything.)

    You write that according to all accounts, Friedman was the one who initiated court proceedings. I did not see any such account. Please provide a link. This is also an obviously farfetched story because he has everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing that. I know that many women tell this crazy story and lots of people like to believe them, but it almost never happens. Again, please at least provide a relevant link.

    You also keep mentioning child support, which is another perversion, but not relevant - why do you keep bringing it up?

  30. It is really getting quite tedious argiung with you, Rabbi Michael Tzadok. Every time you throw out a new argument instead of responding to the points brought up previously, and you keep selectively misquoting the sources.

    EH 77:2 does not say what you said it does. Who are the "many poskim" who you quote, and since you are familiar with them, what is the primary source for mezonos after 12 months? (Again, predating the rabbanut).

    You also make the unbelievable claim that Freidman went to court first. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing that, so why would he? Many women like to tell this story, as farfetched as it is. You say this is the available information, but I have not seen this claim made in all the discussion on this topic. Link, please.

    You keep mentioning child support, which is another perversion, but quite irrelevant here. Why do you keep bringing it in?

  31. It is really getting quite tedious argiung with you I could say the same.
    Every time you throw out a new argument instead of responding to the points brought up previously, and you keep selectively misquoting the sources. You appear to have a reading comprehension problem.
    EH 77:2 does not say what you said it does. Try again.
    Who are the "many poskim" who you quote, and since you are familiar with them, what is the primary source for mezonos after 12 months? (Again, predating the rabbanut). The first 6 of the seven volumes of the Yaskil Avdei(and thus all the sources he brings) predate the Rabbinut. The last two(which I have not quoted) are the only ones published post 1948. I don't really know the problem you have with Rabbinut, but that alone should suffice. Yet you refuse to look it up.
    You also make the unbelievable claim that Freidman went to court first.

    It says here
    and the owner of this blog linked to it here:

    Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PA would transfer jurisdiction over the matter to PA, unless the case was filed in MD court. In addition, Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PA would be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. Aharon received a psak [Jewish Law ruling] to bring an emergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that Aharon would bring the matter to Beis Din after the emergency motion, before any further proceedings in Court.
    Aharon brought an emergency custody motion in late July 2008, at which point Tamar had not allowed C to spend any time whatsoever with Aharon on Shabbos [the Jewish Sabbath] or Yom Tov [Jewish Holidays] for almost three months.
    So on the psak of a single Rav Friedman took Epstein to court instead of having a B"D issue a summons. This is contrary to the ruling in the above Kol Kore.
    You keep mentioning child support, which is another perversion, but quite irrelevant here. Why do you keep bringing it in? Perversion? Since when is a father not required to provide food and clothing for his children(who are minors)? Can you provide a valid source for this?

  32. The question would be on the Rav not on Friedman

    1. Not according to the above Kol Kore. For various reasons the person being moser is the one committing the aveirah.

  33. Only if you establish that a Rav cannot disagree with the Kol Kore!


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.