Friday, September 9, 2016

Time to Give an Unconditional Get to the BDA and ORA - the case of Donny Novick


Baruch Hashem

Guest post by Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver

Let us discuss the current "agunah" case of Donny Novick and Sherri Essrog-Novick and the detrimental involvement of the BDA (the Beth Din of America) and ORA (the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot) in their dispute. I will argue that Sherri is not in fact an agunah because at no point did Donny refuse to give her a get. Rather, the wrongdoings of Sherri from both a halachic and human standpoint have delayed the get. Moreover, the BDA is culpable for miscarriage of justice and ORA is culpable for defamation. All are in violation of established Jewish law, and these travesties should move the Jewish community to ostracize these organizations.

ORA’s False Accusation of Get Refusal
On their Facebook page here, ORA posted an image (under the headline "Facts:"!) accusing Donny of refusing to give his wife a get for three years. On its face, this means that ORA claims to have solid proof that three years ago, Sherri went to beis din and requested a get, and that beis din instructed him to give one, yet Donny refused—out of misogynistic, vengeful, spiteful "recalcitrance".

It further states that the BDA placed on him a seiruv (issuance of contempt of court) for get refusal.

These are bold-faced lies. Donny did not refuse to give a get for three years or at all, nor did the BDA place him in seiruv for get refusal.

What are the facts?

Let’s look at the BDA’s letter supposedly issuing a seiruv for get refusal. A basic reading of the letter shows that that is simply not what it says. The relevant text from here:

…Daniel Novick has failed to appear in front of the Beth Din of America or an alternative beth din for the purpose of giving a Get or submitting to beth din adjudication of Sherri Novick’s request for a Get. Daniel Novick is thus deemed a mesarev lavo ledin, one who declines to appear in front of the Jewish courts according to Jewish law, and Sherri Novick is free to pursue any remedies permitted by secular law…

This letter is written in guarded language in comparison with other such letters. It was plainly issued not for get refusal itself but for failure to appear at a beis din. It did not recommend public pressure and punitive measures against Donny; it merely stated that his wife is not obligated to go to beis din and may use civil courts (we note that this dispensation is absurd, as the BDA was fully aware that Sherri was using civil courts without rabbinic permission long before this letter was composed; more on that below).

We wonder how ORA construed this letter as a green light for a public shaming campaign against Donny. In addition to the inherent sin of embarrassing a fellow Jew without sufficient warrant, such coercive actions without solid rabbinic approval cross the line into the grave issue of forcing a get without sufficient warrant according to Jewish law, which would invalidate any get given, rendering the offspring born from Sherri’s future unions illegitimate (mamzerim), G–d forbid (cf. Rashba 7:414, Radvaz 4:118, Bais Yosef Even Ha’Ezer 154, Chazon Ish Even Ha’Ezer 108:12).

Thus, ORA is guilty of making a false accusation against Donny.

It is not enough to state the superficial fact that a get was not given for three years. "Context is everything". Was Donny refusing to give a get or even refusing to cooperate with a beis din for three years, or at all? No.

The BDA’s Negligence
In reality, Donny's wife brought this case to be tried in two different batei din of her choosing, each of whose advice or ruling was not to her liking, until she took the case to secular court (in 2014) without rabbinic dispensation (a grave sin worthy of excommunication; see Gittin 88b, Shemos 21:1, Rashi and Ramban ibid., Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sanhedrin 26:7, Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26:1).

This means that in fact, the delay in the delivery of the get was the fault not of Donny but of Sherri, making her the get refuser and him the agun, the husband "chained" in a marriage against his will. If anyone should be the subject of a seiruv, it would be Sherri.

Then while the case was still in civil court, Sherri brought it back before the beis din—two separate batei din, in fact—yet once she learned that both those batei din require both spouses to sign a shtar chiyuvim, a legally binding contract requiring that matters of custody be settled by those respective batei din, she refused. Why would she do that? After all, she was already getting full custody using civil court and on her way to winning big bucks on a final settlement.

Yet Sherri did not have everything she wanted—she still needed a get. So she needed a beis din that would overlook her sinful use of civil courts and allow and therefore enable her to keep the custody and financial settlement cases there, yet push for and preside over the get at the same time. So she went shopping still further until she found a "beis din" that would ignore her halachic wrongdoings and thereby essentially aid and abet them—the BDA. Indeed, they agreed to push for a get without demanding that Sherri first take the custody dispute out of civil court and have them adjudicate it. Nor did they insist on even trying to mediate or negotiate the custody issue, as any decent rabbi involved in a divorce case would have required. 

While in email contact with the BDA, Donny told them (and he has the email trail to prove it, which he is willing to share upon request) that he had brought his case before other batei din (and he included their names and phone numbers in those emails), and was then later taken to court by her without rabbinic permission. He also stated that he was willing to give a get along with the civil divorce, even if the ruling of the divorce court would not be in his favor.

The BDA sent email summonses to Donny, and although he apologized and explained that he could not appear at those dates due to work restraints, they refused to work with his schedule and issued a seiruv against him for his failure to appear, along with giving permission to his wife to sue him in civil courts (knowing full well that she was doing so already regardless, without rabbinic permission). The seiruv was enough for ORA to go public and launch yet another shameful social media shaming campaign, this time against Donny.

The blame here lies with ORA:
·     *  for their zeal in going beyond the words of the BDA’s letter, which did not call for a public shaming campaign 
·        * for waging a public shaming campaign against a fellow Jew without sufficient warrant, committing the sin of shaming a fellow Jew 
 ·     * for willfully disregarding the fact (that Donny communicated to them directly when they contacted him) that Donny had been involved with several other batei din with which he had fully cooperated, and instead libeling him as a "get refuser" 
·       *  for creating halachically unwarranted communal pressure that could potentially result in a coerced and therefore invalid get (cf. Rashba 7:414, Radvaz 4:118, Bais Yosef Even Ha’Ezer 154, Chazon Ish Even Ha’Ezer 108:12)
But blame also lies with the BDA itself:
·              *   for taking up Sherri's request for a get in the first place, despite the fact that she was suing in civil court, in which case Jewish law rules that the Defendant in civil court need not respond to a summons to appear before the beis din, nor may the beis din impose a seiruv on the Defendant (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26:1 
·       *     for ignoring Donny’s requests to delay the meeting with the BDA to a later date so it could fit in to his work schedule 
·     *      for publicizing a letter falsely accusing Donny of neglecting to come before beis din (he was willing to, just not at that date) when in reality it was Sherri who was guilty of that very wrongdoing by abandoning the earlier batei din that she herself chose—which had the effect of falsely implying that he is a get refuser 
·      *       for failing to issue any statement at all holding Sherri accountable for committing the grave sin of using civil courts (even alongside the seiruv against Donny, which would at least have demonstrated a modicum of balance) and calling for her to return the custody and financial disputes to beis din immediately (especially considering the severity of her case against Donny—see following section) 
·      *     for issuing even such a limited seiruv knowing full well that ORA would use it as carte blanche to publicly pillory Donny, even though there was no halachic basis to do so
Financial Ruin upon Donny through the Civil Case
Bringing the case to civil court has brought great financial ruin upon Donny:
·         Donny has been paying alimony since their separation in 2013.
          Sherri's lawyer managed to require Donny to pay for Sherri's lawyer.

   ·         This case has left Donny hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

The legal conflict that Sherri initiated is the real reason that the get has been delayed for so long:

1. The conflict over custody. Even the conflict over temporary custody has drawn out interminably. Despite the fact that Donny has no history of poor parenting, Sherri has refused every offer toward a reasonable temporary custody agreement, resulting in his daughter only spending four Shabbosim with him since January. (Every month he is required to send a list of dates that he wants visitation with his daughter for Sherri to approve, only after they are reviewed and approved by her lawyer.) And who has been forced to pay for all these unnecessary, petty legal squabbles, and suffer the painful distance caused between parent and child? Donny.

2. The conflict over the final settlement. Why indeed is the court requiring Donny to pay so much money, if he is currently a medical resident earning very little? Because Sherri is now arguing in court (and the documentation is accessible on the public record) that Donny's wealth must be evaluated not on its own merits at present, but in context of his family and their wealth, and in context of his future earnings as a doctor—earnings he never earned and does not have. If she really would get her way and win a final settlement for support on that basis, Donny could well be rendered homeless. As it is, she collects 70% of his earnings. The gross unfairness, injustice, and greed in this lawsuit is self-evident.

Moreover, Sherri is suing for a settlement that would place Donny in a lifetime of debt and thus make it impossible for him to ever remarry, rendering Donny an agun. (And as far as ORA is concerned, their callous lack of concern for Donny's remarriage prospects due to Sherri's forbidden lawsuit clearly reveals their feminist, misandrist agenda and the phoniness of their pious concern for the "chained".)

Thus, Sherri is not only litigating custody in civil court, which is forbidden in itself (and a form of kidnapping, which is even worse than stealing property); she is litigating for a monetary award to which she is completely not entitled under Jewish law, and which thus constitutes extortion and robbery. This makes the BDA's and ORA's acceptance of Sherri's ongoing lawsuit against Donny all the more morally wrong and severe.

Conclusion
In summary, Donny is no monstrous "get refuser" (which is anyway not wrong or forbidden in itself—see here) and Sherri is no "agunah". On the contrary, Donny was the one obediently submitting to Jewish law, willing to accept the rulings of a beis din following the standard procedure of negotiating his settlement and presiding over the giving of the get, enabling him to move on with his life. Donny did not refuse to give a get or demand anything outside the norm and he fully cooperated with four other batei din of Sherri's choosing. Rather, it was Sherri who rejected their authority and went on to commit a series of acts that neutral bystanders, as well as the arbitrators of those batei din, found to be totally beyond the pale.

Although a detailed account is beyond the scope of this article, Donny is only the latest in a long line of Jewish men who have been the victims of such treatment. The public must realize that despite the apparent worthiness of their cause, both the BDA and ORA are morally corrupt institutions with a long, sordid history of persecuting and victimizing Jewish men: The BDA, for issuing unwarranted seiruvim; and ORA, for knowingly libeling Jewish husbands as malicious "get refusers" guilty of "domestic abuse" while knowingly covering up the crimes and lies of abusive wives, all in order to promote their misandrist, feminist agenda (and harming the legitimate cause of true agunim and agunos—those unable to remarry because of the truly malicious refusal of their spouses to accept or give a get).


It’s time for the Jewish community to give an unconditional get to the BDA and ORA—with recalcitrance.

19 comments:

  1. “The public must realize that despite the apparent worthiness of their cause, both the BDA and ORA are morally corrupt institutions with a long, sordid history of persecuting and victimizing Jewish men: The BDA, for issuing unwarranted seiruvim; and ORA, for knowingly libeling Jewish husbands as malicious "get refusers" guilty of "domestic abuse" while knowingly covering up the crimes and lies of abusive wives…”
    Rabbi Oliver, God bless you. Your piece is well researched and documented, with Torah sources. I agree with you, from my personal experience. I quote:
    “A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else’s quarrel Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears. Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows, Is one who cheats his fellow and says, “I was only joking.” For lack of wood a fire goes out, And without a querulous man contention is stilled. Charcoal for embers and wood for a fire And a contentious man for kindling strife. The words of a querulous man are bruising; They penetrate one’s inmost parts. Base silver laid over earthenware Are ardent lips with an evil mind. An enemy dissembles with his speech, Inwardly he harbors deceit. Though he be fair-spoken do not trust him, For seven abominations are in his mind. His hatred may be concealed by dissimulation, But his evil will be exposed to public view. He who digs a pit will fall in it, And whoever rolls a stone, it will roll back on him. A lying tongue hates those crushed by it; Smooth speech throws one down.” (Proverbs 26:17-28).

    ReplyDelete
  2. FedupwithcorruprabbisSeptember 9, 2016 at 3:29 PM

    ORA is also "stuck" on the Lonna Kin case. They tried to torture Meir in any possible manner with their final blow of having him kicked out of the shul like was done with Aharon Friedman. But guess what? It did not work Meir remarried, and Aharon has moved on. The men are starting to rebel against the corrupt establishment! GEHINOM TO ORA/BDA!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. BDA and ORA =
    BAD & OR RA OR BOTH
    This hopping Kangaroo BD is a Piccadilly 4 ring circus consisting of Beis Din Chotzuf, Ziknei Mamre, with rabiners Peeping into Saunas in absentia, aka a BAD joke. Just ask the fedSting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The BDA has a history of corruption in several matters. They need to clean house or shut down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver for a wonderful write-up on this complex topic. It is very difficult to discern truth and the torah perspective in these kinds of cases. It is obvious from the detailed article you wrote that you are not only extraordinarily knowledgeable, but you have the facts of this case and they do not support the "helpless Aguna" perspective that is being portrayed by Ora.
    Ora has a history of silencing any support for husbands regardless of the facts. Most recently by deleting Facebook comments on their page to "clean up" any ideas or thoughts that did not support their biased agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No idea of who is right on the facts in this case, but I love the name "Yehoshiphot Oliver." Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver for bringing this case to light. What you wrote is well stated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's all you have to say? This one is a vintage post, .....perhaps to the point of being quoted in a court of law!......

    ReplyDelete
  9. If Donny is in fact not refusing to give the get, then let him immediately give the get and be done. If the woman wants the get and the man is not giving it, then he is using halacha to chain a woman. All who make excuses then support halacha being abused in this manner. Let the get be given and let custody and money be argued about without the issue of get.
    And please do not suggest that a man is an agun. The halachic difference between a d'rabanan and a death penalty violation is very serious.

    ReplyDelete
  10. in negotiations it is universally understood that both sides have to compromise. For some reason there are some people like yourself who say that the man should simple surrender to the demands of the wife and beg her to please be reasonable and merciful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As long as the community supports using the get in negotiations for custody and financial, the community is supporting the phenomenon of women being halachically (in a death penalty violation manner) chained to a marriage that both parties agree is over.

    ReplyDelete
  12. cut out the posturing and still to factually discussion

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof: Rashi - haloch achar Beis Din Yoffeh. Pursue for a Good BD, and NOT for a BAD BD.

    Mi bikesh zos miyedchem remos chatzeroy.

    This is a band of Hooligans working in cahoots, ORA doing the ground work hounding the husbands all over the place, and then the recalcitrant rabiners going in for the Kill like a pack of wolves, YSV. It is all for the money as the Epstein et al fed sting has proven. They are responsibe for breeding the second generation of Imported *hired assassins* of Yodayim yedei Eisav, asher yodo bakol veyad kol odom bo. Not only their children, lifes toil and finances do they target, but would sink their teeth holding grip untill they strip them of their honor, respect, pride, and dignity robbing them of simchat haChayim.

    They should disband this corrupt organization rotten to the core, ban them from having anything to do with Tzedek uMishpot or otherwise, pull down the shutters and close shop for good. Sdom va'aMorrah was a tzadik next to these zift. They have no shame nor decency, all they have done is to bring shame on Yiddishkeit. No one should have anything to do with them, that is no maga umassa of any kind, veharchek kimtachvei keshes. For the Chilul haShem and agmas nefesh they caused for Fathers and their children, there is no slicho and no mechila and no Tshuva for them, ever. Not even Yom Kippur nor missa -eino mechaperes. May they all have the same fate as killelas Dovid al rosh Yoav, ad sof kol hadoros. Amen. Uviarto horo mikirbecho, velo yezidun od.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A husband had no halachic, legal or moral obligation to give a Get simply because his wife wants a divorce

    ReplyDelete
  15. As long as there community supports using custody, alimony, financial and non-Jewish courts in negotiations for divorce, the community is supporting the phenominon of men being halachicly violated and impoverished and alienated from their children.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Men need to stand up and be counted against the severe halachic and human rights violations of ORA and the BDA. Unfortunately the problem extends well beyond the BDA. R Gedalia Schwartz is well respected in Chicago by the hareidi establishment including R Zev Cohen and the Teshe Rosh Yeshiva Levin which needs to be stopped.

    Unfortunately it is no different in NYC. Chassidishe Botei Din, all for profit in violation of halocho, will write a Get for a woman in arko"oys even though they are told that the Get is forced due to the NY Get law. They could not care less. How much lower can many in thre rabbinate sink?

    The only Botei Din in NY which oppose the corrupt behavior mentioned above are Rav gestetner and Dayan Abraham zt"l (unsure if his son in Williamsberg is continuing the Bais Din or not). What is needed are other botei din to step up and expose the thuggery and corruption of Botei Din which write Gittin for women who are in arko"oys. These women need to understand that halachic violations come at a price.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And if nether side wants to negotiate, then, per IM, pick a bet din, etc. (Just stipulate no BDA. They don't negotiate, they don't rule on the issues. They only do get. Nothing else. So you have to go elsewhere.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. On strictly moral grounds (nothing to do with religion), I find Ora's use of public humiliation reprehensible. In my mind, the kind of ruin such humiliation brings upon its subject is perhaps on par, or worse than, an unlawful criminal conviction for a crime. If the facts as presented here are on mark, and if I were an interested party here, I would attempt to sue both Ora and the BDA. Perhaps if there are more than one victim (where Donny is the 'first' victim), a class action lawsuit could be brought.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ora is a big fan of using absolutist arguments, from what they think is the moral high ground. If you make an absolutist argument, then even a hypothetical exception disproves your thesis and your entire argument collapses. I propose the following scenario: A wife is abusive toward her husband. The husband is a gentle soul and has suffered throughout their marriage. They have 6 children. The wife hits her children and curses them regularly, while the husband is a wonderful father. During the course of their marriage, the wife engaged in a fraudulent business transaction whereby she embezzled money from the business they owned together, and then transferred the money to her parents. Some time after that business event, the couple is dead broke. The wife's parents are wealthy, while the husband has no financial backstop. The wife sues for divorce and sole custody of their children. The husband cannot afford a lawyer. His only possible hope for protecting his 6 children from their abusive mother is by withholding a get. You, arijess, were a friend of this couple and witnessed all of these events unfold and agree absolutely with my characterization thereof. Why exactly would you not strongly encourage the husband to withhold the get in order to protect his children (for the sake of argument, you, arijess, have no ability to provide for a lawyer for the husband)?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.