Response to R' Jeremy Stern's criticism

 Guest Post:

If Jeremy Stern claims [noted on this posting] that there is anything false or misleading with the summary of the case as posted on this blog, or as described in greater detail with citations at stuffandnonsensesaidalice- let him say specifically what is not true. 

From the beginning of Ora's involvement in this case, Jeremy Stern has acted in a matter best described as immature, dishonest, inflammatory, and irresponsible, seemingly designed to achieve maximum publicity for himself and Ora. Indeed, one might question whether Ora and Jeremy Stern are acting with any regard for whether Tamar actually receives a get. Ora has done everything it could to turn a very personal matter that could and should have been settled privately into a national and international news story, without any regard whatsoever for the interests of the parties' child. He acts out of his own self interest and has twisted all the facts of this case from the beginning.

He also claims he has the backing of R. Schachter - This is true on paper, but R. Schachter made it very clear Thursday night at the YU symposium that he does not look into the details and basically lets Jeremy Stern do what he wants. The day after (Friday), after reading the article by the mediator Rosenfeld, R. Schachter told a talmid of his "maybe I was all wrong in the Epstein Friedman case - maybe I should have looked into the facts, and not just relied on R. Kaminetsky doing so" So much for completely destroying a person, and THEN looking into the facts.

Please see the following email (the text of which is still at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcor/message/2429) that for some reason, is not currently on Ora's website.

How can anyone believe that Jeremy Stern and Ora have any credibility whatsoever? He states clearly (see below):

 "From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media."

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Rabbi Jeremy Stern
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Response to the New York Times
To: Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot
Reaffirming Our Values:
A Response to the New York Times
Friday, January 7th, 2011 / ב' שבט תשע"א

Dear ORA Supporter, An article in the New York Times this week has brought national attention to the Epstein-Friedman agunah case and the plight of agunot. From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media. To that end, ORA did not solicit the article, we declined to comment to the reporter, and we turned down many requests for interviews from other major media outlets. The NYT article contains one important factual error that warrants clarification, available here. The article has provided us with an opportunity to reflect on ORA's core values. Though some non-profit advocacy groups are focused on promoting the cause, our concern at ORA is with resolving each case. With that in mind, we advocate and raise awareness according to what is most effective for the cases at hand. We work very diligently in every case to verify the facts and perspectives, under the halakhic guidance of our posek, Rav Hershel Schachter, shlit"a. Divorce is tragic and challenging under almost all circumstances, often entailing much he said/she said. However, as a matter of public policy, in order to preserve the beauty and integrity of our Torah, a get must never - under any possible circumstance - be used as leverage to negotiate the contentious issues of a divorce settlement. I want to personally thank you for supporting our efforts on behalf of Tamar and the 60 other agunot whom we currently are assisting. Please feel free to contact me via email or at our office (212-795-0791). All the best, Jeremy

Dana Melnik: It’s Not All About the Get

Guest post by Dana Melnik

The concept of a Get, a Jewish religious divorce, in today's day and age has intrigued enough people to make national headlines, such as the New York Times, but the media has lost focus of what is really important here.  The child.   I am not an expert on paper, not a psychologist, not a lawyer and I don't have any fancy degrees.   I write this as a mother and a daughter.  Withholding a Get has been used throughout history, the majority of the time, to oppress the woman in which case I support organizations, such as ORA (Organization for the Resolution of Agunot), efforts and attempts to try and break this trend, but in the Epstein-Friedman matter this is not the case. The divorce rate today is high. It's unfortunate for the parents but even more unfortunate for the children. People fail to remember that when kids are involved, the stakes are quite high.

For the most part, growing up, my understanding of divorce was that when a mother and father split, the mother always got full custody of the kids with the father having visitation and maybe seeing the child/children every other weekend.  It seemed pretty straightforward to me.  The father wasn't as attached as the mother and he was simply able to pick up, move on and establish a new life with minimal contact with his children.  It seemed like the norm to me.  After all, I had friends and even family whose parents divorced and this seemed to be what always happened.  However, all that changed when it came to my own daughter.

I moved to Maryland from New York with my husband, for my husband actually, with our 6 week old daughter.  For whatever the reasons were, our marriage didn't work out and we began the process of separation. There was a lot going on at the beginning and of course things were tense.  They are ALWAYS tense at the beginning.  Separating and getting divorced is NEVER easy, and there were bumps in the road, but we were determined to work on a good schedule that would accommodate both of us for our daughter’s well being.  Of course, the thought crossed my mind numerous times to move close to family since I had no one here to help me out.  With a full time job and a toddler, things can get really difficult, but how was I going to move away, when she had a father who loved her so much.  How was I going to explain, when she got a little older, that I intentionally took her away from her father just to make my life a little bit easier for the short term? What goes on between husband and wife should not affect the relationship a daughter deserves to have with her father.  I can tell you from personal experience and seeing the way my daughter interacts with her father and the relationship I have with my father, that there is NO substitute for that!  The child deserves two parents, not necessarily who are together, but who realize the importance of keeping things amicable and working together to raise the child. There seem to be two main factors that come in to play when parents get divorced and children are involved. The legal aspect in the court system and 2)  The emotional aspect. Unfortunately many states and their court systems don't take the idea of co-parenting, shared custody, into account when deciding custody.  Family law has left a lot of room for interpretation on custody and what is really best for the child, allowing the Judge, in every case, to pretty much determine a child and parent’s destiny. This has become an issue which affects not only the parents in very long drawn out custody disputes but affects the child tremendously. The idea from the beginning should be to involve both parents in the child's life equally.  Ron Henry, a children’s advocacy attorney in Washington, D.C.,  has focused his efforts on trying to "demilitarize" divorce.  He works on the legal reform level to try and get laws passed which make courts start every custody case with the idea of co-parenting.  Unfortunately, every state is different when it comes to its family laws and no state is perfect in protecting the child’s right to have two actively involved parents but there has been progress. The District of Columbia, for example, has a statute that creates a presumption of joint custody that Mr. Henry helped to write.  Maryland has no such statute and judges sometimes allow one parent’s manipulation to squeeze the other parent out of the child’s life.  In the case of Aharon Friedman, Tamar, took their child to Philadelphia and the court allowed her to keep the child there, making it extremely difficult for Mr. Friedman to establish a relationship with his daughter or even a workable custody schedule (he works a full time job).  This makes no sense to me as a mother who understands that a fathers right to an equal amount of time should never be taken away from him barring egregious circumstances, which is not the case here.

The second issue here is the emotional aspect of the parents.  The consistent argument here is that this issue has inflicted emotional pain on both sides, thereby not allowing the parents to think clearly for the child and what is in the child's best interest.  To that my answer is, grow up!  If the court has limited the father’s time with the child it does not mean that the mother shouldn't see the consequences a weak relationship with the father will have on the child down the

Most mothers don't believe that I have shared custody with my child’s father.  Our child spends half the time with her father and half the time with me.  I know my child’s father is an excellent father and my daughter loves him, so why should I fight for having more time?  Because I want more child support?  Because I'm her mother so naturally she should be with me?  Is it for emotional reasons?  I can't separate from my child?  All these reasons are selfish.  Most mothers fight out of guilt.  If I don't fight for my child and have them a majority of the time, what kind of mother am I?    What kind of mother is able to be away from her child half the week and be okay with that?  Well, how about a mother who is confident the daughter is being well taken care of by her father and if she didn't have a strong relationship with both parents in her life there is the concern of what might happen down the line.  Children want love and need two parents.

Mr. Friedman is holding on to what he believes is his last hope which might allow him to establish a relationship with his daughter.  Who can blame him?   Every man is the "tough guy" until they are actually put in that situation.

"Forcing a get if there is a civil divorce is evil!"

A close friend of my was speaking with a godol in Yerushalayim yesterday and mentioned that there are rabbis who claim that once there is a civil divorce and no chance of reconciliation - that the wife has the right to demand a get. His reaction was that such a rabbi was a rosho and was causing others to sin.

ORA's coercing a get: Publicly Humiliate family

Fliers are regularly distributed in Brooklyn where Aharon Friedman's family lives. Don't know of any halachic justification for publicly humiliating family

One of the involved parties requested that I take off the poster

Friedman-Epstein Facts: Beis din's involvement

 [update: 4/3/12  Just had a long talk with R' Jeremy Stern of Ora regarding this post which he strongly questions the accuracy of the assertions.

To clarify issues that might be misunderstood.
First of all this is a guest post - it was not written by me.
Second Ora has an alternative scenario which can be accessed by this link
Thirdly - Rabbi Stern and I have strong disagreements on the halachic level as to the acceptability of ORA's tactics but as he says he is not a posek and just accepts that of Rav Schachter and others.]
===============================================
Epstein filed for divorce in civil court, not Friedman.  Friedman never agreed to a civil divorce; it was imposed by the court at Epstein's demand.

It is true that Friedman brought an emergency child custody motion, but that was only after Epstein had abducted the child, violated an agreement with Friedman regarding custody, severely limited the child's time with Friedman, (for example, Epstein had refused to let the child spend time with Friedman on Shabbos or Yom Tov for more than two months) and refused to negotiate or go with him to a rav to find a way to adjudicate their dispute.  Epstein's continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would transfer jurisdiction over the matter to the Pennsylvania court, unless Friedman filed in Maryland.  In addition, Epstein’s continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. 

What else was Friedman supposed to do if he wanted the child to spend time with him?  Get into a physical tug-of-war by grabbing the child back?  Spend months trying to get Epstein to come to a neutral Beis Din, during which time Epstein would continue to severely limit or entirely eliminate the child's time with him, and then Epstein would file in the Pennsylvania courts at which time Epstein's abduction of the child would be a fait accompli?  So Friedman asked a shai'la, and received a psak  to bring an emergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that he would bring the matter to Beis Din after the emergency hearing, before any further proceedings, such as a trial, in Court. 

And the key point regarding whether Friedman tried to have custody decided in civil court or Beis Din is that Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 civil trial to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din only because that was required by the psak and he wanted to follow halacha.  Friedman followed the psak to cancel the trial even though it was to his own severe disadvantage as: (1) Friedman had every reason to believe that the Court would have ruled in his favor at the October 2008 trial (based on the comments of the judge at the emergency motion and the severity with which the Comment to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act regards the abduction of children; even Epstein's lawyer, after lying as to whether Epstein had abducted the child, acknowledged that if she had abducted the child, it would look very bad at trial); and (2) even if Friedman prevailed in Beis Din (or the Beis Din would not ultimately decide custody), he would be at risk that the Court would ultimately decide the issue at a later date (the Court may not show deference to a Beis Din decision in custody cases, even if the parties have agreed to binding arbitration), and Friedman would be severely prejudiced in such a later proceeding by the fact that the child would have been in Pennsylvania for a much longer period.

And that is what happened.  The Baltimore Beis Din held several hearings into the case.  Epstein refused to follow the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case.  Thus, the civil trial was held in June 2009.  Epstein asked the court to rule that the child should stay in Pennsylvania because the child had been there for so long, which was the basis for the Court's decision that the child stay in Pennsylvania.  In fact, Epstein specifically argued that the child's time in Pennsylvania should be prejudicial because Friedman had agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial (in order to bring the case to beis din).  The Baltimore Beis Din has never ruled that a get be given.

Epstein and the rabbis supporting her are making a total mockery of the beis din system. 

Rabbi Schachter told Ami Magazine: "That we can’t have a bais din system that works is an embarrassment, a shanda and a cherpa."  Rabbi Schachter's actions in this case support and encourage the very manipulation and abuse of the beis din system he purports to oppose.

For those who are interested, a detailed summary of the case is at www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com

ORA's rally to force a get

Friedman-Epstein: Tamar's "matrydom" & R' Schachter folly!

I did a bit of investigation into the case and would like to convey what I have found. Contrary to the publicity of ORA and Rav Schachter who is the adviser and supporter of ORA - the Friedman-Epstein case is a very weak case - and is not that of an actual Aguna. A real case of Aguna is one in which husband disappeared and it is not known what happened. Another real case is one in which the husband is prohibited to the wife and yet he refuses to give a divorce. The present case is simply one in which Tamar decided she didn't want to be married to Aharon - also known as a case of ma'os alei.

Tamar made no complaints of being abused by her husband - she simply wanted out of the marriage. The claim of abuse is solely a circular one. She is abused because he won't give her a divorce and she wants to be divorced because he is abusive!

Aharon was in fact ready to give a get - he had one condition. She was to live in an apartment in Silver Spring so that he would be able to have access to his daughter. He said he would pay the rent. He was only asking for her to do this for one year - after that she was free to do what she wanted. She walked away from the deal and refused to negotiate. One of the most critical facts to understand this case of chilul haShem is that Tamar has consistently refused to accept mediation. It is her way or the highway.

The above facts make clear that there is absolutely no basis in halacha to require Aharon to give a get. Rav Shachter insists that the mere fact that Tamar wants out of the marriage is sufficient basis that Aharon must give a get. There is such a view asserted by Rav Chaim Palaggi - but apparently no one accepts this view. To give approval to ORA to persecute Aharon based on this principle - is simply outrageous. In addition the involvement of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky in this case is viewed as a major mistake - both politically and halachically - by those familiar with him and with the halachic issues. Rav Belsky and Rabbi Ralbag collectively represent a problematic duo when it comes to gittin - that is for a later post.

Tamar is her own worst enemy and has created a prison of her own making - with the enthusiastic assistance of ORA and Rav Schachter and the passive compliance of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.

On the other hand, what is Aharon benefiting by not giving a get? The issue of custody is not clear. There are clearly halachic views that a daughter belongs with her mother and that the father has no basis to demand custody or even regular visiting rights. A simple answer is it is a case of spitting on a person who has tried being fair and going beyond what is required - despite the personal pain. When you galvanize the press and orchestrate demonstrations against him as a "monster" - I don't know too many people who would lie down and say "please step on me again". 

In sum, Tamar could have had a get on very favorable terms from the beginning. Instead she has gotten wrapped up in being a martyr and is primarily focused on the cheers and adulation of ORA.  She is more focused on beating Aharon into submission and humiliating him - than she is on getting divorced and starting life over again. At this point it is up to Tamar whether she wants to change what she views as most important.

Allegations of major extortion operation against Chareidi world

Haaretz

"This is going to be one of the biggest extortion scandals in the history of Israel," a senior ultra-Orthodox figure told Haaretz Sunday, following the arrest of four directors of the popular Haredi website Behadrey Haredim. 

 

The four senior directors of the website were arrested Sunday morning at their homes and the website's offices in Tel Aviv, and taken for questioning in Jerusalem. 

Some of the website's employees told Haaretz they were completely taken by surprise by the arrests, but rumors circulating in Haredi circles for the past year describe a system of extortion by the website's directors against dozens of Haredi figures, some of whom are very well known. According to the rumors, the directors would approach well-known figures and demand a sum - anywhere from several thousand dollars to NIS 100,000 - in return for withholding publication of potentially damaging information. On Sunday, the police interviewed dozens of people who revealed various details about the website in past few years.

Prohibiting Archaos (Civil Courts) & Mesirah

http://www.mishpattsedek.com/KolKoreh-70Rabbis.htm

Suicide-murder after mistaken child abuse allegations

Denver Post

Photos and memories are all that the families have of Tiffany and Dave O'Shell and their daughter, Alyssa, a beautiful baby with green eyes, a mop of red hair and a great smile. At three months, child protection workers took Alyssa and handed her to a foster mother.

"I know he would never hurt her intentionally," Tiffany O'Shell told a Commerce City police investigator about her husband and his treatment of their daughter, Alyssa. "He loves her to death."

Two weeks before, on June 17, 2008, Adams County child protection workers had taken Alyssa and handed her to a foster mother. They did so after a hospital found 11 broken bones in Alyssa's 3-month-old legs, but no bruises or other signs of abuse.

Dave and Tiffany had been allowed to see their daughter just once in those two weeks. Tiffany's lawyer was advising her to divorce her husband if she ever wanted her baby back. Clouds of suspicion swirled around Dave. Police were about to arrest him, he thought, for felony child abuse. He had grown more despondent day by day.

Nobody seemed to hear the family's pleas that there must be some other explanation for all those broken bones. [...]

Suicide rather than being old & gay

NYTimes

BOB BERGERON was so relentlessly cheery that people sometimes found it off-putting. If you ran into him at the David Barton Gym on West 23rd Street, where he worked out nearly ever morning at 7, and you complained about the rain, he would smile and say you’d be better off focusing on a problem you could fix.[....]

It was a topic he knew something about. Having come out as gay in the mid-1980s, Mr. Bergeron, 49, had witnessed the worst years of the AIDS epidemic and emerged on the other side. He had also seen how few public examples there were of gay men growing older gracefully. [...]

The inference was clear. As Mr. Bergeron saw it at the end of his life, the only right side of 40 was the side that came before it.

State religious school bans fathers from school party

YNET

The struggle for the face of state-religious education continues: Fathers of girls at the Noam-Haro'e religious school in Ramat Gan claim they were not allowed to participate in a school event for their six grade daughters' Bat Mitzvah on Sunday. The reason for the ban is modesty – a halachic prohibition on men to watch women sing and dance.[...]

The father, himself a graduate of the state-religious educational system, said classes were mixed in his day. Since then, he said, a radicalization process emerged introducing norms of modesty which he described as distasteful and unprecedented. Gal noted that in some cases separation was imposed as early as pre-school years.

Noam Haro'e is one of Ramat Gan's oldest state-religious schools. However, over the years the neighborhood's religious communities have been replaced by more Orthodox families who direct the school's religious character. According to Gal, "they eliminate the wishes of the silent, sane majority.

Chinuch as tochacha for teenagers & young adults

 The mitzva of chinuch is generally understood to be from about 5 years till bar mitzva. However there is another aspect of chinuch which is giving tochacha. Both are learned from the same verse in Mishlei (22:6).

Kiddushin(30a) says, Raba said to R. Nathan b. Ammi: Whilst your hand is yet upon your son's neck,[you should get him married] which is  between sixteen and twenty-two. Others state, Between eighteen and twenty-four. This is disputed by Tannaim. Mishlei (22:6) Train up a youth in the way he should go: R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ thereon]. One maintains, [Youth means] between sixteen and twenty-two; the other affirms, Between eighteen and twenty-four.

==============================

Rashi explains, When your hand is still on your son's neck - means when you still have power and influence over your son before he gets older and doesn't listen to your admonition you should get him married. ... Another explanation is that the time while you still have influence over him take care to teach him instructions & chastise him and this time is from the age of 16 until 22. Prior to this time he doesn't have the mental ability to accept your instructions & chastisements so much. On the other hand if you try chastising  him and pressuring him with punishments after the age of 22 there is concern that he might rebel - and this main understanding of this gemora. According to his way - meaning you should teach him in his youth the path that he should follow for the rest of his life. The time for this teaching is a dispute as to whether it is between 16-22 or 18-24.

Meiri (Kiddushin 30a), A person should always focus his attention of supervising his children and to continually give instruction and correction whether they are old or young. Nevertheless the proper time to make successfully reprimand him is from the time the mind starts maturing until it is mature. That is from the age of 16 to 24. Prior to 16 he doesn't have have sufficient maturity and after 24 he doesn't really listen anymore. So this is the best time to continually convey reprimands and instructions  regarding the son.:

Gang-raped, burned & murdered - police cover-up

NYTimes

The crime was shocking enough: an 18-year-old woman gang-raped, half strangled, set on fire and left for dead. But what sent hundreds of Ukrainians into the streets and rushing to her hospital to give blood this month was a police decision to free two suspects rumored to be politically connected. 

The uproar has shaken the upper echelons of Ukraine’s government. On Thursday, three weeks after the attack, the young woman died. Viktor F. Yanukovich, the president, and Nikolai Azarov, the prime minister, were among the first to offer condolences — along with vows that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. [...]

For Ukrainians transfixed by her ordeal, she came to embody long-simmering animosities over government impotence and impunity for the privileged in this former Soviet nation. It was only after the street protests and Mr. Yanukovich’s personal intervention that the police in the small southern town of Nikolayev re-arrested the young men. On Thursday, they and a third jailed suspect were officially charged with murder.