Friday, September 21, 2012

Friedman-Epstein: Get war continues

Washington Jewish Week   A huge photo of Aharon Friedman, the Silver Spring resident who has become famous for his adament refusal to give his former wife a get, was posted in the Wheaton metro station earlier this week.

The photograph of his face is accompanied with the message, which is written in all capital letters, "AHARON FRIEDMAN GIVE A GET NOW!"

The advertisement is sponsored by ORA, Organization for the Resolution of Agunot. It was paid for by a sponsor and out of the organization's operating budget, noted Rabbi Jeremy Stern, executive director at ORA.


  1. ORA and Epstein's tactics are clearly not working. They've tried all sorts of radical measures in their crusade against Friedman, and yet all these years later Epstein is still wasting away without a functionaing marriage or divorce.

  2. Drudge you think their tactics are not working because you assume that
    Tamar Epstein wants a "get" and ORA wants to help her get it.
    If however we assume that Tamar wants to continue to be a hero , poster-child "agunah" and ORA wants money and fame that comes with being a knight in shining armor their tactics make total sense.
    If Tamar Epstein really wanted a "get" she would get it years ago peacefully.
    By the way what kind of fool do you think will marry her next knowing what she put Aharon thru?

    1. Unfortunately, both of them will ultimately be hurt by the entire saga, but I am pretty sure that she has more of a chance of getting remarried than he ever will.

  3. It's a reminder he should give the get.

    Do you consider this undue pressure?

    1. why do you think he needs a reminder - you think there is moment in the day where he doesn't feel pain from this relationship? Yes I do consider it undue pressure - but more important is that the public relations campaign has totally failed. She needs to do something else. It is important to note that if the pressure had worked it would be a get me'usa and thus she would have lost. Instead she [and ORA] has just increased the likelihood that psychologically he can't give into the pressure - and therefore instead of battle she needs to negotiate and even compromise. Several years ago when Aharon's side suggested negotiations - Rav Shmuel was quoted as saying -"There is no need for negotiations because Aharon will be giving a get soon[as the result of the pressure Rav Shmuel encouraged]."

    2. What exactly constitutes pressure in this poster?

    3. what happened to the assault claim? Were the perpetrators traced?

    4. Hum - did you read my question?

      My question was: what exactly constitutes undue pressure in this poster?

    5. Brad,
      Your question is a valid one. However, one must look at things in the 21st century outlook. ORA claims that withholding a get is psychological abuse and thus spousal abuse. Whether that is true or not is not why we are here. Let real rabbis fight over it. However, based on that assumption, this psychological tactic is also forcing him to give the get.
      Unfortunately they have chosen this tine of year to do this. Perhaps they think Aaron feels he needs a reminder to repent but I think it is more that the sponsors don't believe in the awe of these days. It hurts to write anything against a fellow Jew and Jeremy is still a Jew. I hope he and his goons will repent and I hope Tamara and Aaron, as well as other couples facing this horrible predicament, will all be saved from further pain. I just don't think that the last part will ever happen as long as there are people and organizations that are as wicked as the sponsor and all their "endorsers ".

    6. I think this is a good time of the year to remind a ex-husband he should not pressure his ex-wife by withholding a get.

      It seems quite strange that publicly reminding him that he should do t'shuva and give the get is considered "undue pressure", while withholding a get to change a divorce agreeement is apparently considered legitimate by the same persons.

    7. Brad you apparently did not read the many posts I have made on the issue of get me'usa including translations of major rabbinic sources. Is it that you are unfamiliar with the halacha of get me'usa in a case of ma'us alei or in this case it is not even that - or you don't think it is is relevant?

      Aharon Friedman does not have a halachic obligation to give a get so there is no need to do teshuva. If you want to claim it is the right thing to do when a marriage is beyond repair and all issues have been resolved - I would agree. However in this case there are unresolved issues.

      Please read Rav Gestetner's discussion here

      what seems strange to you really is not when perceived through perspective of halacha.

    8. Except that Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky a bigger Talmud Chacham and Posek than you'll ever be, says that the Halacha is the opposite of what you claim .

  4. How do you think this looks to goyim that are curious to what "Give a Get now" means, and visit the website. I don't want to call it a Chillul Hashem, but it doesn't really put Judaism in a positive light either.

    I wonder how much money it cost to put an ad up like that. Mind boggling with all the Jewish Day Schools that need funding (Even in affluent Lower Merion). Kids going to Public Schools because families can no longer afford tuition and grants are simply not there. Mind boggling that money goes to ORA to support nonsense like this. Could either Aharon or Tamar really get re-married with the way they have behaved? I guess so, you read about death row inmates getting married all the time. Just seems this is beyond a stalemate, and any money put towards ORA for this nonsense is a waste.

    On the bright side, No one is beating anyone over the head.

  5. Here we go again.....

    Just to recap:
    1. Nobody, literally nobody, except the Eidensohn brothers and a few anonymous blog commentators accept Gestetner as a dayan. His BD is a joke.
    2. His "psak" was completely in violation of Halacha. He decided issues of fact and halacha on the basis of an unsubstantiated diary entry Tamar left behind when she left the house. That is in violation of shulchan aruch choshen mishpat 17 which prohibits judges from deciding cases without speaking to both sides. This sort of complete disregard for halachic procedure is but one reason he is not accepted.
    3. Not one respected posek has opposed ORAs methods in this case.

    Those are the facts.

    Moderator, would you publicly sit on a BD with Rav Gestetner?

    1. Not one posek supports ORA in any case.

      They are a disreputable, non-halachic, organization.


    2. Is james for real?
      Did kaminetzky, ralbag,belsky,schachter etc listen to both sides before issuing their "psak" that Aharon must give a get?
      The only BD that was accepted by both sides and heard both sides refused to order him to give a get.
      I am a Dayan in a well known, respected BD. Based on what I have read by Rabbi Gestetner I would not hesitate to sit on a BD with him. Suffice it to say I would not publicly nor privately sit with any of the above

    3. Yes, Belsky did hear both sides. Ask him.

      Given your alias, I suspect you would not publicly sit with Gestetner either. Why not get your respected BD to issue a letter of support for Gestetner's BD and then post it on this blog.

  6. James, here we go again you biryon. You can't even answer basic questions about the halachik violations of the BDA/YU/ORA et al. have you no shame? You claimed that you were not posting during Elul. Elul is over.

    All Rav Gestetner decided was that the siruv is fake which he is entitled to do. he does not even need to get onto what she wrote in her diary. However it was Tamar who failed to uphold the rulings of the Bais Din in Baltimore.

    Since it is before Yom Kippur I won't take your bait to disparage those who deserve to be disparaged other than to add 2 more thoughts:
    1) Rav gestetner with rav abrahm are the only 2 botei din in the NYC aresa who follow halocho completely. That is why he is reviled - he exposes corruption.
    2) Rav Elyuashiv alreadfy paskened that mo'us olai is not a criterion for a Get. Rav Gestetner simply showed that this isn't even a case of mo'us olai.

    Now answer the 5 questions I posed to you already since you know so much about shulchan oruch.

    1. 1. I thought I said that I would reduce my postings until YK. I have been much happier since then.

      2. Gestetner made a halachic determination that this was not a case of Maus without speaking to Tamar. That is a violation of halacha.

      3. If I recall correctly, one of your questions was which halacha did Gestetner violate. I contend he violated Chosen Mishpat 17. His BD violates halachic procedure.

  7. Rather hypochritcial how you claim Rav Gestetner violated a halochoh when the same halochoh was violated by the thugs who put the siruv on Friedman in the first place by not conferring with him and not having any authority over him.

    Rav Gestetner did not even need to get onto the statement of Epstein because even if it was mo'us olai she is not entitled to a get so not really much of a violation at all.

    answering even 1 out of 5 is a failure but the issue here is not whether rav gestetner is valid it is whether it is the BDA and ORA which are invalid. you have answered out of 4.

    If the Biryon James is allowed to refer to Rav Gestetner without Rav in front of his name and not be censored then from now on I will refer to schachter, kamenetsky and belsky.

    1. Wrong. Belsky did confer with Aharon. Ask him.

      "from now on"?? When have you ever referred to them with honorifics?

      Once again, what the BDA does is not relevant to this case. They were not involved. I dont want to discuss irrelevant issues. I will only discuss this case.

    2. One more thing. I almost always refer to people by the title they wish to use. As you can see above, I referred to him as Rav Gestetner. At times, I slip and just write last names, as I did with "Belsky", a man I was definitely not trying to demean. I do not mean any disrespect when doing so but will try not to do so in the future.

      That said, I would never pervert names "(der Shlachter?!) and I would never refer to you as "Biryon". It is just plain rude and not the appropriate way to refer to someone you are conversing with.

      I appreciate that the moderator lets people comment freely but is there really a need to allow insults directed at people like myself? I am a guest to this blog. If anything should be moderated it should be insults directed at other blog participants. The moderator hosts this blog and as a host he has a duty to make sure his guests aren't insulted.

  8. This was stated before, but bears repeating - One Beis Din, the Baltimore beis din heard this case in its entirety. The Av Beis Din has told many people that there was absolutely no grounds for ordering Friedman to give a get, and has stated to many people that the only reason this was not publicized is because of the political power being wielded by the Epstein family. I think this answers all questions.

    1. That isnt entirely true. Rav Belsky heard from both sides and his remains the only BD claiming jurisdiction.

      By all accounts the Baltimore BD compeltely messed up. They were incompetent.

    2. What does it mean that Rav Belsky's beis din is the only one claiming jurisdiction?!

      Sorry - your last statement is false and slanderous. On what basis are you claiming they "messed up" . In what respect were they incompetent? Are you basing your accusation on the fact that Tamar Epstein didn't listen to them?!

  9. Clearly james does not understand the fundementals of Bais Din.because one "rabbi" allegedly heard before the bais din he subsequently became part of was in session from a party how does that:
    1) mean that the other dayonim also heard the testimony.
    2) informal testimony is not part of bais din in most cases unless there is a raglaiyim l'dovor. what is it james here?
    3) ie when friedman spoke to r belsky it was not in the form of bais din and how does that give the 2nd bottei din the right to get involved if aharon was tzias dina.

    the 1st bais din according to james is incompetent. the 2nd plainly corrupt. who goave it jurisdiction over aharon? talk about violations of halocho james.

  10. PS: Baltimore should have stood up to the $$$ of the epsteins and their supporters and come out with a written psak that tamar would not listen to bais din and that there was no chiyuv for aharon to give a get.

    james claims that "gestetner" does not follow haochoh, that his bais din is a joke and that no one recognizes him are equally slanderous.

  11. James yom kippur is over. answer the 5 questions about the violations of the BDA already please or did you mean next yom kippur.

    and please explain to the readers why you are not interested in the violations of the BDA and that they are irrelevant but are only interested in the one alleged violation of Rav (yes Rav) gestetner which you tried to point out but were answered on?

  12. I believe the vast majority of men would give a get voluntarily if a marriage is over even though there is no halachik requirement to do so. Those that don't are usually the vicxtims of the most vile smear campaigns that include preventing them access from their kids using arko'oys by demonisinf them falsely that ends up bankrupting the men emotionally if not financially as well.

    Then we have these feminist biryonim who in serious violation of halocho put seruvim on them that aqre not worth the paper they are written on. I frankly am not sure what purpose Yom Kippur serves when we have such rabbinic incompetence and corruption with such widespread prevelance.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.