Litigants who have a disagreement over land or over movable objects, this one says it is mine and this one says it is mine and one of them got up and informed (to the secular/ non Jewish authorities) then Bais Din (is obligated to) puts the one who forces (i.e. the informant) in cheirem until it reverts to how it was before and the hand of the forcer (through secular court) is removed between them and they have a Din Torah.
The Rema adds that the informant does not have the din of a moyser even though he made his "friend" have a very big loss because this is not called mesirah unless he intended to cause his friend damage but it is not mesirah where he (only) intends to retrieve what belonged to him (and there are those who disagree etc).
Please explain how we see from this Rema that a woman who goes to arko'oys for a divorce is not a moyser?
a) This case is talking about monetary matters, not other matters.
b) Even if you want to argue that it applies to non-monetary matters as well, merely by simply asking for a divorce the woman is almost inevitably harming the man unless he does not mind.
c) If the woman asks for anything that she is not entitled to al pi halocho, she is most definitely a moyser from this Rema e.g. alimony, equitable distribution etc.
d) If the children are boys and if she asks for custody and the halocho is that the boys go with the father, she is a moyser.
e) If she says anything bad whatsoever about the father to the courts, she is damaging the father and so is oyver mesirah.
f) If she asks for child support from the courts in the US, which many poskim including Rav Sternbuch hold is awarded excessively relative to the halochoh, she is a moyser.
So please explain to us, how unless in an extremely rare case, a woman going to arko'oys in the US is not a moyser?
Please explain to us why you conclude that such a woman in not a moyser? Who are you kidding?
I think this post proves how tzadok completely misquotes/ misinterprets his sources to justify the unjustifiable. And he then has the chutzpah to call others corrupt...
ReplyDeleteI will try and find his alleged sources that one is not chayav expenses of the nitvah when you go to arko'oys without a hetter e.g. the shach which he misinterprets and translate it for the benefit of the readers of this blog. I have little doubt another misinterpretation has taken place. A very particular situation gets extrapolated way beyond its intended and implied limited applicability. This is the style of the tzadok.
Well you could have started with an honest transcription and then translation of the Shulhan Arukh, as opposed to the same biased paraphrase that you used on your identity theft blog. Here let me help:
ReplyDeleteבעלי דים שהיתה בניהם מריבה על הקרקע או על מטלטלין זה אומר שלי וזה אומר שלי עמד אחד מהם ומסרה ביד גוים מנגדים אותו עד שיחזיר הדבר לכמות שהיה ויסלק יד אנס מבניהם ויעשו דין בישראל
That is the Mechaber. In English:
Littigants that have a dispute between them whether over real property or liquid assets, this one says it is mine, and the other says it is mine. One of the stands and hands the other over to the non-Jews. We ostracize him until he returns the original amount and ceases to damage between them and acts according to the law of Israel
Now the Rema
מכל מקום אין לו דין מוסר אף על פי שהפסיד חבירו על ידי זה הרבה דלא מקרי מסור אלא במתכוין להזיק אבל לא מתכוין להוציא את שלו ויש חולקין וס"ל דמקרי מסור וחייב לשלם לו כל הזיקו אם לא היה חבירו סרבן כל שכן אם התרו בו תחילה שלא ידונו בפני גוים ועבר שיש לו דין מוסר
Translation:
In any case he does not have the din of a moser even though he caused his friend a loss these are not the actions of mesirah, it is only called mesirah when his only intention is to harm him but not when his intention to to extract what is his and there are those that dispute this and reason that this called mesira and he is required to pay to him all the damage that he did if his opponent did not defend himself, all the more so if he was warned before hand not to go for judgement before the nations and he trangresses[the warning] he has the din of a moser
The Shakh 26, Sma 17 GR"A 34 Beer Hetiv 22, Rabbi Akiva Eiger 24, Beer HaGolah and Erekh Lehem say that we don't hold by the Yesh Holkin(those that dispute).
a)Not necssarily... but what do people go to court for that do not fall into monetary matters?
ReplyDeleteb)First sooner or later you have to file for divorce in secular court. Filing for divorce does not immediately indicate that the woman's only intention is to harm the man
c)Again no so. She would have to return it, and only then if the husband does not try to defend himself.
d)Not so. See Rav Shternbuch's teshuva.
e) Wrong again. First if her intention(or his it only matters to you if it is woman instead of a man) is primarily to get what is their's then this does not qualify as mesirah, and nothing here says that it does. Oh and again, if the other parties tries to defend themselves they are considered complicit, and thus it does not matter.
f) Wrong. She would have to return what is in excess of halakha. Now how about Rav Gestetner allowing a man to sue his wife for alimony? Where is that allowed according to halakha?
Tzadok, the ORA propagandist / apologist / troll is a master at telling the BIG LIE over and over.
DeleteTzadok: "but what do people go to court for that do not fall into monetary matters?"
Women are mosering their husbands in archaos all the time for both monetary and non-monetary matters, while commiting the worst aveiros in the Torah.
- Huge child support and alimony orders based on imputed income with debtor's prison if the father's unable to pay = MESIRAH.
- Orders of protection based on false charges = MESIRAH.
- Incarceration of innocent fathers based on false claims of violation of orders of protection = MESIRAH.
- Orders preventing innocent fathers from seeing their beloved children on pain of incarceration = MESIRAH.
- Orders for non-violent fathers to vacate their homes while sheriff's deputies are present = MESIRAH.
- Orders to deliver a GET or face incarceration = MESIRAH.
- Orders to appear before a judge delivered by sheriff's deputy = MESIRAH.
The Jewish family is under assault as never before from the well organized YU feminist ORA organization, and ORA's henchmen like Tzadok who promote MESIRAH and the worst aveiros in the Torah.
ORA / TZADOK and company = M'SAYEH MOSRIM
Women are mosering their husbands in archaos all the time for both monetary and non-monetary matters, while commiting the worst aveiros in the Torah.
DeleteThat's news. Are you going to enumerate these supposed non-monetary claims?
- Huge child support and alimony orders based on imputed income with debtor's prison if the father's unable to pay = MESIRAH.
Not mesirah, but must return what is in excess of halakha(see above). Furthermore this is not the 17th century there is no debtors prison, if you are going to make stuff up, there is really no point in continuing this conversation.
- Orders of protection based on false charges = MESIRAH.
Depends on the type of protection order. A temporary protection order could possibly be made on false charges, a permanent one requires solid proof. So whether a protection order is mesirah would depend case by case.
- Incarceration of innocent fathers based on false claims of violation of orders of protection = MESIRAH.
Not true. To be incarcerated for violating a protection or Either the police have to find the perp actively in violation or solid evidence of said violation must be submitted to a court. In either case the husband must have violated the protection order.
- Orders preventing innocent fathers from seeing their beloved children on pain of incarceration = MESIRAH.
Again this is highly dependent upon the case. Not an automatic Mesirah. Nor, as Rav Shternbuch pointed out, does even a health husband always have a halakhic right to custody.
- Orders for non-violent fathers to vacate their homes while sheriff's deputies are present = MESIRAH.
Again highly dependent upon the case. Especially today when most family homes are owned by the wife's father. In which case that is known as an eviction.
- Orders to deliver a GET or face incarceration = MESIRAH.
That only happens in Israel and it is by ruling of the B"D. If you can actually find me a posek that wrote against that, then we will talk.
- Orders to appear before a judge delivered by sheriff's deputy = MESIRAH. That's called a summons, and again there is no mesirah there, unless you can provide a source to the contrary.
Tzadok just re-translated with some inaccuracies but they don't effect outcome. Outcome is that basically in every divorce dispute in the US, unless the Plaintiff has a valid hetter to litigate, she is a moser.
ReplyDeleteThis Tzadok does not address because he knows he cannot refute this.
tzadok has completely misinterpreted the shulchan oruch to fit his twisted viewpoint. It is pretty clear that the only time it is NOT mesirah when the plaintiff takes only what is his al pi hatorah. And the case is talking about money. So how he concludes that going for a divorce is not mesirah is his own false extrapolation.
ReplyDeleteb)This is the most sickening statement that only those who trample halochoh could ever be so brazen to make. There is no issur in going to register the divorce with the authorities after everything is settled in bais din and this is dina de'malchusa dina. Litigating is an entirely different matter.
c) So genaivah is muttar if the nignav doesn't try and defend himself. New invented shulchan oruch. since tzadok needs everything spelled out, i am left with no choice but to do so. a woman asking for money she is not entitled to al pi halochoh in arko'oys is psik reishah being miskaven lehazik since she is trying to be motzi ma sheaino shela and is clearly a moyser.
d) moshe sternbuch is entitled to his opinion. not what the majority of the charedi world always held.
e) nowhere does it say that if a person goes to arko'oys to be moytzi what is NOT theirs al pi hatorah and the other side defends himself, he is complicit. A tzadok invention and a brazen lie.
f) Tzadok again fails to understand the halochos which i mentioned earlier. If one gets a hetter bai9s din to go to arko'oys and be the toveah, al pi halochoh according to rov poskim, you can only claim what you are entitled to al pi halochoh as if you were in a bais din.
If however, you are a victim of mesirah and the toveah went to arko'oys shelo ke'din against you, you as the nitvah are allowed to then put in claims based on the goyshe laws even if al pi halochoh you would not normally be entitled to the money. This is a k'nas on the toveah for being a moyser and going to arko'oys without a hetter.
In this case since Dodelson is the toveah in arko'oys for a divorce and child custody and support shelo k'din, she has no hetter, Weiss is allowed to ask for alimony. I mentioned this before but tzadok can't understand what others write, only his own opinions.
Stan you have lost all of your sources. Now you are stating what you think instead of what you can prove.
Deleteb) Many if not most Chareid Batei Din in the US require a secular divorce before the get. This is in part to ensure that there is no litigation after the B"D which may be in violation of halakha. Don't take my word for it, call Rav Brisman(musmak from Rav Shach) Av Beit Din of Philadelphia 215-722-0239.
c) No. I said if the nitvah tried to defend himself he loses his rights and is considered to be an active participant. As it says in the Rema here, and as is discussed back in CM 26. I will address this further in it's place(point e)
d) So now that you don't agree with him, it is no longer Rav Shternbuch? You don't think that Rav Shternbuch has a better handle on what Chareidi halakha is than you do?
e) Your assertion is FALSE. We have already gone around about this one. As I said on a previous post, 1) The defendant does not show up to court(does not hire a lawyer or in any way try to defend himself). Here it is a machloket. According to the Bach and Kuntras Ve’eileh Hamishpatim rule that in such a case, the claimant is still exempt from paying the legal fees and court costs, and is only required to pay back what he himself recieved in excess of what he would have received from a B"D on account of the other damages being a gerama. The GR"A and Orach Mishpat rule that these other damages are not a gerama, and that since the defendant was completely passive in keeping with the ruling of the Gemarra B"K 27 Where it states that if a person placed a coal on his fellowman’s clothes he must pay for the damage, and cannot claim “why didn’t you take it off,” because the other can reply “why should I take it off, in the end you will have to pay me.” This is still a machloket poskim.
2) In which the defendant actively tries to defend himself, and thus hires a lawer ect. In this case according to the Bach, the GR"A the Kuntras and Orach Mishpat the defendant is liable for whatever fees that he thus incurs, and the plaintiff is only liable for whatever he received in excess of what he would have received from a B"D.
There you inadvertently agreed with me when you said(emphasis mine to show point of agreement):
The Rama quotes two opposing positions regarding whether a
defendant improperly brought to secular court may seek monetary compensation from the plaintiff where the plaintiff ’s prohibited action results in the defendant incurring expenses he would not have otherwise had to pay.8 These two views emanate
from opposing views among the Rishonim regarding whether a plaintiff intending only to reclaim what is rightfully his or hers (lihotzi et shelo), but not to otherwise harm his or her adversary, is liable in tort for such action. Maharam Lublin rules in accordance with those authorities who do not find the plaintiff liable in tort to the defendant.9 The Shach, however, cites and rules in accordance with a number of authorities who assign liability to the plaintiff.10 Even if such recovery is typically allowed, a defendant may sometimes be found to have acceded to secular court adjudication, and thus waived his or her rights
to such recovery, if he or she simply participates in the process without actively seeking to have the matter removed to a beit din.
f) 1) I assume you are talking the Weiss case. In which Weiss had no heter. I spoke with Rav Gestetner, he is quite insistent that Weiss had no heter, because in his opinion he didn't need one, because the wife was the Plaintiff. When I told him that the court documents state otherwise, his rejoinder was that there are no such court documents. So you fail on this point Stan, because the blog owner has said court document.
Delete2) I agree that you are allowed to defend yourself if you so desire. However, as stated above in so doing you waive your rights to recovery in Beit Din.
3) Once again Dodelson is not the Toveah. The husband is the Plaintiff. He filed first, and without a valid heter.
If the blog owner has said court documents, can he let us know what they state in this regard?
Deletethe document states that the husband is the plaintiff
DeleteIsnt your brother in touch with Rav Gestetner? Why not clear have him present the Rav with the documents?
DeleteTzadok, how do you explain in the Meir Kin case, when Lonna Kin obtained a Gag order that prevented him from speaking certain facts to a Bais Din? meir kin spoke with Rabbi Gobioff from bais Din Even hamishpot and she tried to have him jailed because of that and he ultimately had to give up custody to avoid a jail sentence? Is this not mesira in your shulchan Oruch?
ReplyDeleteRabbi tzadok does not have to explain your assertion of facts because you have no evidence to support them. You can not begin a comment with "how do you explain".
Delete1) Meir Kin went to Rav Gestetner, a B"D that is notorious, and universally rejected.
Delete2) If there were a gag order, then how do you know any of this information? A gag order would prevent it from being public.
3) If you can provide documentary evidence that does not come from Rav Gestetner's B"D I will be happy to listen.
Emes Le'Yaakov, do you really expect ANYONE to take you seriously when you commence your posts in this way
ReplyDelete"Tzadok, the ORA propagandist / apologist / troll"
Grow up and start to write in a respectful manner. This blog smells like a toilet when it allows people to write in this way.
And how many "Stans" are there. Put your name to your posts and stop these cowardly ways.
Tzadok,1)Im not going to show you the proof until you become a man and proclaim publicly on this blog that Lonna Kin will have committed Mesira if the proof is shown. This is because you have not shown any flexibility that anyone othen than ORA could be right. 2) FYI Meir Kin's first Bais Din choice was Bais Din Even Hamishpot by Rabbi Gobioff, WHO ORA AND NO ONE ELSE CALLED THIS BAIS DIN A CORRUPTED BAIS DIN, yet lonna did not appear at this bais din when summoned by rabbi gobioff and rabbi gobioff requested that she remove the gag order, but did not!! This occurred way before rabbi gestetner!
ReplyDeleteShow evidence. It's that simple. First I will admit that all I know of the Lonna/Meir Kin case is that they wound up in an unrecognized B"D. She may well be guilty mesirah. All I have seen is the documents from R' Gestetner's unrecognized B"D. Which has been shown here to be(at best) less than competent.
DeleteFor all that want to learn about the Gag order see it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://lukeford.net/blog/?p=20526
Shmuel- This is self-contradictory. There is a gag order on him, but he is talking about it to a blog. That makes absolutely no sense.
DeleteTzadok stated "b) Many if not most Chareid Batei Din in the US require a secular divorce before the get. This is in part to ensure that there is no litigation after the B"D which may be in violation of halakha. Don't take my word for it, call Rav Brisman(musmak from Rav Shach) Av Beit Din of Philadelphia "
ReplyDeleteThis is not only foolish, but it is never done that way unless unavoidable. No court or B"D wants a divorce case to remain anywhere in the courts or B"D after it has been completed. I guess the concept of "krisus" exists in family court, too. Every B"D I have ever interacted with insisted that the agreement be completed, reviewed by lawyers, and signed before the mesiras ha'get'. Most B"D do NOT insist on the secular divorce before the get. It postpones the get interminably. Rather, the completed paperwork from B"D, as the binding arbitrator, is submitted to the divorce court. The agreement is generally accepted as is, though the court will review it superficially. If the court feels that the settlement for the children is inadequate, the agreement may be rejected, and the case litigated. That's a strong reason (aside from language) to have attorneys review the settlement before signing in B"D. I have worked alongside B"D and lawyers on many divorce cases, and have yet to encounter a single B"D that sought the civil divorce before the get. The only reason to press for that is the potential problem of "get me'usah", where the get is coerced as a criterion for civil divorce. There are varying opinions among contemporary poskim on this matter, though the commonly accepted procedure is to have the get first with full agreement of all parties to everything.
I gave you the phone number of the Av B"D, feel free to call. I have been told, and from working with Batei Din in Philadelphia and other places in the US, that this is entirely normal.
DeleteDue to time constraints I am unable to reply to all of tzadok's inventions and delusions at once but will do so over the space of today, tomorrow. but the following brief comments will suffice for now.
ReplyDeleteTzadok has invented the fact that if someone goes to arko'oys asking for more they are entitled to that that is not mesirah. He then goes onto al very lengthly diatribe about a separate topic on repaying the legal fees of the nitvah which is not directly rrelevant to the issue at hand.
Since the mechaber and the rema are not arguing here, it is clear that what is defined as "not being miskaven le'hazik" is when you are only interested in "being moyzi es shelo". Anything else is defined as being miskaven le"hazik and hence would fall in the category of mesirah.
So since a woman goes to arko'oys instead of bais din at least 99% of the time in order to get better monetary terms than she would get under halochoh, by definition she is a moyser since her intention is le'hazik and not just to be "motzi es shelo".
This basic fact tzadok has not only not answered but he goes into a lenghthly diatribe about fighting back all of which is irrelevant to the issue of mesirah and probably incorrect as well.
Asking for custody is not being "motzi es shelo" if it is boys and even girls even according to rav shternbuch because the children also belong to the father. and inevitably arguments are used to give the children to the mother by saying bad things about the father and denigrating him, so there is clearly kavonah to be mazik, so again this is mesairah. These things are so poshut that having to spell them out for tzadok should be embarrassing for him.
OK. Dont reply to all the points. Just respond to this:
Delete"I assume you are talking the Weiss case. In which Weiss had no heter. I spoke with Rav Gestetner, he is quite insistent that Weiss had no heter, because in his opinion he didn't need one, because the wife was the Plaintiff. When I told him that the court documents state otherwise, his rejoinder was that there are no such court documents. So you fail on this point Stan, because the blog owner has said court document."
I asked the blog owner to check the documents. He confirmed that the husband was the plaintiff.
Tzadok has invented the fact that if someone goes to arko'oys asking for more they are entitled to that that is not mesirah. He then goes onto al very lengthly diatribe about a separate topic on repaying the legal fees of the nitvah which is not directly rrelevant to the issue at hand.
DeleteThe invention here is your idea of what I said. I did not say this. I have never said this. This entire argument with you began on another much older post in which I insisted that if a person went to Arkaot to get what was legitmately their own under halakha they are not considered a moser, nor are they לא ציית לדינא. Ever since you have been inventing new words and twists on what I said and trying to ascribe it to me in an attempt to discredit me, mostly because you cannot discredit my sources. There I dealt with a number of your fallacies. You claimed:
1) In the name of Sh"A C"M 26:1 that anyone who went to secular court lost all rights to have that case or any other subsequent case heard in B"D. Which is false.
2) A woman who goes to secular court without a heter(though you have no problem with a man doing so) is automatically a reisha, moredet and moser. False.
3) That the plaintiff is always liable for the defendants legal fees according to halakha. False.
Since you cannot find sources to actually overturn any of my points or assertions you seem to need to invent assertions on my behalf. Just because you say that I said something, does not mean that I did, nor do I have any need to defend an assertion that you have made on my behalf.
As far as children's custody, it is a case of shelo. Unless you can point to distinct halakhic sources that say otherwise.
imputing income occurs all the time despite tzadok claiming otherwise as long as its the father whose being imputed. the mother gets off in many cases.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jersey/imputing_income_for_child_support
there are most definitely debtor's prison in the US the paradigm and paragon of justicet zadok, don't invent facts
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html
Imputing income does not automatically mean that the resulting court decision will exceed halakha. Even Rav Shternbuch says that this does not happen all the time. Second to that:
Delete1) A father is halakhically required to support the children(daughters and possibly sons) who a B"D have decided belong in the wife's care and custody. Thus if the wife goes to Arkaot to get that it is mozti shelo(shela in this case).
2) The wife would be halakhically required to return whatever the court assigned over and above what a valid B"D rules appropriate.
Regarding this supposed "debtors" prison. Did you even read the article? There are no debtors prisons. Actually read the article that you post before you make absurd assertions.
Could someone please explain to me what this passage in the tanaim refers to.
ReplyDeleteואל יבריחו ואל יעלימו לא זה מזה ולא זו מזו שום הברחת ממון בעולם אלא ישלטו בנכסיהון שוה בשוה ובשלום ובשלוה כדרך בני תורה ויראי השי"ת.
It is extremely misleading for it explicitly states that the property and financial resources are shared 50:50 by the couple. It would seem that based on this document, a woman claiming 50% of the couple's resources would stand on solid ground. And it is possible that she could think that her only recourse to recovering her fair share (the 50% which they both signed on and agreed upon in their tanaim) is to seek the ajudication of the secular courts (since the rabbinic courts do not, as a rule, at least today, give any weight to this signed document, nor sadly, even to the ketuba). In divorce negotiations, the financial obligations of the ketuba are dismissed in the first round (at least if the woman initiates the proceedings even based on abuse, non-fulfillment of the ketuba, or other halachicly substantive complaints). It seems that a woman's decision to seek her portion of the couple's wealth (based on this tanaim) would be within the parameters of the Rema, et al. Meaning that "She is simply seeking what belongs to her."
Tzadok still refuses to admit taht taking more than you are entitled to al pi halocho is mesirah. That is what i call kefirah.
ReplyDeleteClearly he is clueless about how the court system works because why would someone go to arko'oys if not to take more than they are entitled to al pi halochoh the rest of his long comments are pure obfuscation hiding this fact.
the definition of miskaven le'hazik is taking more than your share.
Clearly he is clueless about how the court system works because why would someone go to arko'oys if not to take more than they are entitled to al pi halochoh the rest of his long comments are pure obfuscation hiding this fact.
DeleteIf this were the case than there would have been no reason to write this halakha at all. Court systems have not changed in 500 yrs. It was accepted that the secular court systems do not hold by halakha.
the definition of miskaven le'hazik is taking more than your share.
Try again. Hence the Sh"A rules that one has to return what was awarded in excess of what one is entitled to al pi halakha.
I'm among those who think that Tzadok flipped his lid here. Many women go to arkoyos not to exact more than entitled to al pi halacha, but because many B"D are extremely sympathetic to men at great expense to the woman and to the children. Not just sympathetic, but oftentimes openly biased, unfair, and dishonest. I do not advise anyone to go to arkoyos. If it becomes necessary (for survival) to use arkoyos, I send them to reputable poskim who hear the case, and give the heter in writing. I have heard some of the dishonest dayanim in the community dismiss the heter given with the slight of hand, "I don't recognize him", to which I return them the same response, that I don't recognize him. Not all cases of women going to arkoyos are in the categorty of mesira or issur arkoyos. You can sell these "mesira" proclamations to the uneducated public, but they are transparent when examined without bias by anyone with experience in the field.
DeleteHaving stated this, I will note that I have observed many cases of divorce reach the secular courts while the B"D process was working at the settlement. Likewise, there were many cases that were stuck in B"D with corrupt dayanim and toanim involved, and rabbinical advice was the heter to go to court.
in certain feminist states it is always in excess eg NY, NJ etc.
ReplyDelete1) A father is halakhically required to support the children(daughters and possibly sons) who a B"D have decided belong in the wife's care and custody. Thus if the wife goes to Arkaot to get that it is mozti shelo(shela in this case).
look at the lengths tzadok goes to with his illogical rantings. If there has been no ruling that the children go to the mother by BD, that is for sure not a case of motzi es shelo as we don't know that for sure. So definitely mesirah until bais din makes such a ruling.
What does this have to do with the Weiss case. He took her to court and didn't listen to Beis din. He is the one who has a כתב סירוב against him. Is there an איסור for a frum person to me a mensch .
DeleteAs my rebbes would say. תלמיד חכם מרבה שלום בעולם. And if he is not making sholam, he isn't a Talmud Chacham.
Again we have seen the teshuva of Rav Shternbuch(who you said was clueless)who said that daughters and sons younger than 6 automatically go to the mother l'fi halakha. Hence motzia et shela.
DeleteLikewise a father is halakhically required to support his children l'fi halakha. Hence motzia et shela.
Again insisting that a B"D make a ruling first nullifies this halakha, as it is about going to secular court before a B"D makes a ruling and without a heter.
A couple more distrotiond by tzadok:
ReplyDelete- Incarceration of innocent fathers based on false claims of violation of orders of protection = MESIRAH.
Not true. To be incarcerated for violating a protection or Either the police have to find the perp actively in violation or solid evidence of said violation must be submitted to a court. In either case the husband must have violated the protection order.
MESIRAH unless there was a threat to life. Stop inventing a new Torah
- Orders preventing innocent fathers from seeing their beloved children on pain of incarceration = MESIRAH.
Again this is highly dependent upon the case. Not an automatic Mesirah. Nor, as Rav Shternbuch pointed out, does even a health husband always have a halakhic right to custody.
what a pathetic statement. The remark revfers to visitation and because you cannot answer it you switch to custody.
The level of dishonesty in these posting should worry you DT about the integrity of your blog. Just pointing it out.
Orders for non-violent fathers to vacate their homes while sheriff's deputies are present = MESIRAH.
ReplyDeleteAgain highly dependent upon the case. Especially today when most family homes are owned by the wife's father. In which case that is known as an eviction.
Stop the leitzonus already.
- Orders to deliver a GET or face incarceration = MESIRAH.
That only happens in Israel and it is by ruling of the B"D. If you can actually find me a posek that wrote against that, then we will talk.
Ever hear of the NY GET LAW Tzadok?
- Orders to appear before a judge delivered by sheriff's deputy = MESIRAH. That's called a summons, and again there is no mesirah there, unless you can provide a source to the contrary. Unless it's a case of being "motzi es shelo", this is definitely MESIRAH.
MESIRAH unless there was a threat to life. Stop inventing a new Torah
ReplyDeleteNot so. Any sort of abuse(which is about the only way you can get an order of protection) one is permitted to call the police. Again Rav Eidensohn wrote a sefer on this. If there is a temporary protection order, it means a judge believes that there may be an imminent threat. If there is a permanent protection order it means that there is a proven imminent threat.
what a pathetic statement. The remark revfers to visitation and because you cannot answer it you switch to custody.
Unless you wrote it, you really don't know what the intent was behind this remark. You have until now repeatedly said that EmesL'Yaakov isn't your sock puppet, despite evidence to the contrary. Are you now admitting that it is?
When you say orders preventing- The only way a court will rule that a parent has no visitation to their child is if you can prove that the parent is an imminent threat to the welfare of the child, in which case it is not mesirah, it is pikuah nefesh. Again see the sefer that Rav Eidensohn wrote on this.
"SamJuly 2, 2012 8:37 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat does this have to do with the Weiss case. He took her to court and didn't listen to Beis din. He is the one who has a כתב סירוב against him. Is there an איסור for a frum person to me a mensch .
As my rebbes would say. תלמיד חכם מרבה שלום בעולם. And if he is not making sholam, he isn't a Talmud Chacham"
Perhaps you should read the heading and the purpose of the post before you post such nonsense. This post is about a previous deliberate distortion of halochoh by tzadok before the Weiss case was ever debated here.
This comment should not have been posted. It is irrelevant and makes a fool of its author.
Again we have seen the teshuva of Rav Shternbuch(who you said was clueless)who said that daughters and sons younger than 6 automatically go to the mother l'fi halakha. Hence motzia et shela.
ReplyDeleteLikewise a father is halakhically required to support his children l'fi halakha. Hence motzia et shela.
Again insisting that a B"D make a ruling first nullifies this halakha, as it is about going to secular court before a B"D makes a ruling and without a heter
When did I say that Rav Sternbuch was clueless? This is a blatant falsehood and invention of tzadok's.
when did i insist that bais din nullify any halochoh tzadok? I am unsure how these posts ever see the light of day they are so inaccurate and clutching at straws by the tzadok.
Ever hear of the NY GET LAW Tzadok?
ReplyDeleteWhich do you mean? The one that Rav Moshe Feinstein supported or the one that states: in a contested divorce, any applicant whose marriage was solemnised by a religious celebrant must file a statement that he or she has taken, or will take, all steps within his or her power to remove all barriers to the other spouse’s remarriage; or the other spouse has waived in writing the applicant’s obligation to file the statement. Considering that Rav Moshe Feinstein backed the first and the language of the second I don't see how either constitutes Mesirah.
- Orders to appear before a judge delivered by sheriff's deputy = MESIRAH. That's called a summons, and again there is no mesirah there, unless you can provide a source to the contrary. Unless it's a case of being "motzi es shelo", this is definitely MESIRAH.
No. It is a summons. A deputy comes to see you either because there is a believed imminent risk of life to your spouse(or another party), you have committed a felony, or you have refused to appear in court, and thus they want to ensure that you receive the summons to hold you in contempt. That is not mesirah, because every instance that would precipitate it is of your own doing.
Reb Moshe backed the language of the 2nd get law. problem is he was niftar for baout 8 years before it passed. So stop inventing facts tzadok. in fact very many charedi rabbonim came out against it. so blatant lie.
ReplyDeleteJust because an order of protection is in place, it does not mean that it constitutes a threat to life. Unless it does it is mesairah despite the new religion of tzadok claming otherwise. unless there is a threat to life it is mefuresh in this siman later on that it is mesirah.
"is not mesirah, because every instance that would precipitate it is of your own doing." absolutely not, it is the doing of the wicked marshaot that tzadok is insistent in defending.
tzadok stop inventing facts. it is enough already. we are not stupid.
First you have yet to prove that many Chareidi Rabbanim came out against the Get Law which Rav Feinstein clearly endorsed. I'm not taking your word for it. You have been shown to invent things when it suits your purpose such as court docs that you claim to have seen, and then when that was proven false a heter arkaot which your favorite B"D knew nothing about.
Deleteunless there is a threat to life it is mefuresh in this siman later on that it is mesirah.
Once again, please see Rav Eidensohns book about the various forms of abuse for which one can call the secular authorities, and get a protection order. That is simple.
absolutely not, it is the doing of the wicked marshaot that tzadok is insistent in defending. Tzadok stop inventing facts. it is enough already. we are not stupid.
Oh I am assuming that the readership is not stupid at all. I am actuall assuming that they are intelligent enough to realize that with the sheer number of civil court cases that are filed every single day, the Sheriff's department deputies have better things to be doing then riding around handing out court summons. Especially since sheriff in most places is an elected position, and so he has to campaign on things like crime statistics and arrest and conviction rate.
I'm also assuming that the average reader has a basic understanding of how the American justice system works.
tzadok is so naive and so removed from reality that it really is a waste of time arguing with him. does he really think that the only time an order of protection can be obtained against seeing one's children is when there is black and white proof that the father constitutes a threat. This is how it should be but is not how it is. And numerous frum people can attest to that so nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThere are many instances where the mother out of spite manages to force the father to have supervised visitation when he is no threat at all. And don't start telling me this is not the case because I have seen it happen several times with people I know.
There are many other times when the mother uses the children as pawns to obtain extra concessions from the father when this has nothing to do with safety whatsoever. Just the fact that the courts are completely aligned with the woman.
You are clearly so far removed from the realities of how the court system works its a waste even having this debate with you. of course you will deny it that all this abuse occurs but that's just par for the course with you tzadok. ask any honest divorce lawyer and see what he has to say about the system.
and all this using and abusing the court system by the woman is mesirah -it is not being motzi es shelo and it is miskaven le'hazik.
Ah once again, when all of your logical fallacies fail, you resort to the most common one ad hom.
DeleteWhat you are telling us that is because frum men who have been on the receiving side of a protection order say that they are innocent, that they must be. That the court didn't actually look into the evidence whatsoever.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that every criminal says that they are innocent. Jerry Sandusky says he is innocent. Mondrowitz says he is innocent. Would you let your children near either of them? Go to Sing Sing(or your State penitentiary of choice) and ask how many people are guilty. You are not going to get many who say they are. By your logic we should let them all free.
So you attack me. You attack the courts. You attack women, though strangely leave men who do things like sue for alimony out of it. You make a bunch of baseless attacks and back it up with no facts.
Admittedly my amount of first hand court experience in divorce cases is limited. Though I did work as a research assistant for a divorce attorney who was paying my college bills when I was still on track for a PhD/JD. That divorce attorney(operating in NJ) was quite convinced that everything presented to the court had to be solid fact, and provable.
Finally you are still horribly misunderstanding this Rema, and the various meforshim. There was no question that the plaintiff in going to secular court was going to extract more than they were halakhicly permitted(hence we shun them until they return the excess) however, the Rema says despite that, because their intention was to get what was their's even though they caused this great loss, they are not called a moser. Rather that a person is a moser when their ONLY reason for going to secular court is to ONLY cause damage to their fellow.
Please answer my question. Why is it assumed that a person who goes to secular court is seeking to extract more than what they are halakhicly permitted. Why do we not consider the tanaim that convey the rights to property and finances as 50/50. Why is that document irrelevent in the negotiation. Based on the tenaim a person who goes to secular court might very well be seeking their fair share (50% of all finances and properties). Just like an end-of-life distribution of gifts can override the halacha of a first born's claim to double portion, so should the tenaim override the lack of symmetry in claims to finanances of woman and man upon divorce.
ReplyDeleteText from tenaim:
ואל יבריחו ואל יעלימו לא זה מזה ולא זו מזו שום הברחת ממון בעולם אלא ישלטו בנכסיהון שוה בשוה ובשלום ובשלוה כדרך בני תורה ויראי השי"ת.
The signatures of renowned American Torah scholars who have signed the petition for repeal of this "Get" law are listed at the end.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.science-halacha.com/getlaw/getlaw_eng_D1.htm
Stan no point in arguing with Tzadok. He lives in an imaginary world where he invents facts or denies the existence of facts.
how he can even claim reb moshe supported wording of 2nd get law and the owner of the blog agree to publish this is beyond comprehension. he was niftar for many years already. is tzadok a navi?
IF that signature list is actually for such a petition that would definitely cause one to think about the appropriateness of said law. However, that does not mean that Rav Feinstein did not support it, as the above letter in Iggeret Moshe inidicates.
DeleteFurther Stan cannot rely on this list, as his favored B"D Rav Gestetner has possuled every one of the Rabbanim of the Batei Din listed there.
Finally that law would only affect those who actually had a secular marriage. Rav Birnbaum, and from what he told me the other Chareidi Gedolim, ossured that in NY.
Now when you can provide actual signed letters by these Rabbanim, I will consider your position, but please don't expect me to take anything that someone throws up on a website to be authoritative. Leib Tropper had on his website that Rav Eliashiv(as well as just about every other Chareidi Gadol) supported him. Track them down, and find out it was just an invention. Anyone can type a name into a website. For nearly a month "Stan" used my name on a website to attack me. So this, while giving pause, definitively proves nothing.
Oh and the one you are talking about is the first Get law.
Further to your point you ask:
Deletehow he can even claim reb moshe supported wording of 2nd get law and the owner of the blog agree to publish this is beyond comprehension. he was niftar for many years already. is tzadok a navi?
Where did I say that Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTzUK"L supported the 1992 revision of the Get Law? In fact if you were to look at the ocmments on the relevant blog post which I linked above you would see that I say specifically that I believe that he wouldn't have. Now I do not believe the Get law to be a problem primarily because the Chareidi Rabbanim as I stated above have for the better part of two decades instructed their followers not to obtain a secular marriage certificate, which means they would not need nor be able to go to the court for a dissolution of the marriage.
So once again Stan why don't you stop inventing things that I am supposed to have said.
So what is status of Steve Langert? Is he a moser, or not, and why.
ReplyDeleteI know none of the details of that case, nor do I care to try to investigate it. So I have no idea.
Delete"Ever hear of the NY GET LAW Tzadok?
ReplyDeleteWhich do you mean? The one that Rav Moshe Feinstein supported or the one that states: in a contested divorce, any applicant whose marriage was solemnised by a religious celebrant must file a statement that he or she has taken, or will take, all steps within his or her power to remove all barriers to the other spouse’s remarriage; or the other spouse has waived in writing the applicant’s obligation to file the statement. Considering that Rav Moshe Feinstein backed the first and the language of the second I don't see how either constitutes Mesirah."
Liar, liar pants on fire tzadok
Are you five?
DeleteLet's see. Orgiginal contention:
- Orders to deliver a GET or face incarceration = MESIRAH.
That only happens in Israel and it is by ruling of the B"D. If you can actually find me a posek that wrote against that, then we will talk.
Your response
Ever hear of the NY GET LAW Tzadok?
Even under the second or "New Get Law" one does not land in prison. The second Get law allows the judge to consider barrier to remarriage when considering equitable distribution and maintenance.
While extremely problematic in the sense of possibly causing a Get Meuseh(See B"Y 134:10) does not equate to Mesirah. Once again you have a situation of Motzia Et Shela. This law does not allow for imprisonment for not giving a Get.
You claimed that it did.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20776591&postID=8495698291000781557
ReplyDeleteWhat do you hope to prove by this? That a bunch of anonymous commentors can talk trash on the internet? Haven't you shown that here already?
DeleteI understand the letter of rav gestetner being mevatel the fake siruv against friedman was on your site temporarily but then removed. i respectfully request a reason for this. Was pressure/ threats brough to bear upon you to remove it?
ReplyDeleteThe reason was simple. there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether it is appropriate to publicize at the present time. If it is decided that publicizing it is best I have no problem putting it back on
Deletethanks. could you please elaborate? who is the difference of opinion between?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the end result in the Kolko case? Last I heard you were going to call some sources. Is it mesira or not, l'halachah?
ReplyDeleteI assume you mean in NJ. The father did the right thing by going to the police and it is not mesira
DeleteIs it correct to donate to the fund that is being done on behalf of Yosef Kolko, or is that misplaced rachmanus?
ReplyDelete