Thursday, June 28, 2012

Defending Rav Gestetner's bitul seruv

Rabbi Tzadok recently wrote about wrote the difficulties  he had with what Rav Gestetner wrote in his nullification of the seruv  See Rabbi Tzadok's   post here where he  strongly attacks the language of the fourth paragraph for too strongly criticizing the beis din of Machon l'Hora'ah and by inference - the gedolim who agreed with the seruv.
In fact this fourth paragraph makes little sense taken in isolation from the context of the rest of the letter. Consequently because Rav Tzadok ignored the context of the rest of the document he ended up mistranslating "gate of fraud" rather than "gate for those who are tormented by the words of others." In fact the fourth paragraph follows logically from the preceding paragraphs

Let's go back to the beginning paragraphs. First paragraph: Rav Weiss (the husband) received a summons from Machon l'Hora'ah at the instigation of his wife who is in the middle of a suit in secular court against him. Rav Gestetner explains that according to the halacha the husband is not required to go at the same time to beis din until she pays him for the expenses incurred in secular court... Nevertheless the husband acted beyond what he was required to do and responded to the summons and informed Machon l'Hora'ah that he was prepared to participate in a din Torah with his wife and specified two dayanim who were prepared to judge for his side[and thus he responded correctly according to halacha]. Second Paragraph:In spite of this compliance ,Machon  l'Hora'ah responded as if he had ignored their summons and reversed what Rav Gestetner understood to be the facts of the case and claimed that the husband - and not the wife had initiated the lawsuit in secular court. Based on what Rav Gestetner claims were these false claims the beis din issued an invalid seruv which publicly slandered Rav Weiss - despite his total innocence of these claims and he had fully complied with every halachic requirement of the original summons. Rav Gestetner lamented the injustice done to the husband. Third paragraph: Rav Gestetner states that he has the obligation from lo ta'amod" to forcefully defend Rav Weiss and declare that he is a kosher Jew who has in fact complied with the demands of the beis din - beyond that required by the halacha. Consequently Rav Gestetner asserted that there is absolutely no basis for issuing a seruv - which by definition is an assertion that there was a failure to comply with beis din. Thus the issuing of the seruv constitutes slander and therefore the seruv by definition can have absolutely no validity and is null and void.

It is in this context of declaring that Rav Weiss  has been unjustly subjected to public disgrace and ridicule based on false charges that Rav Gestetener wrote the fourth paragraph. It is simply a collection of statements of Chazal regarding the consequence of those who embarrass and torment other Jews with words. This includes 1) malbin pnei chaveiro - extreme embarrassment, 2) slander which Chazal say causes loss of Olam HaBah. 3) that they are deserving of nidoi since they are placing an innocent man in nidoi (seruv). 5) He notes that Chazal also say that all gates to Heaven are blocked except from those who cry out because of being tormented by words and these victims are answered immediately.

In sum - there really isn't anything unusual about Rav Gestetner's nullification of the seruv issued by Machon l'Hora'ah.  The seruv is issued for failure to comply with beis din's summons - and in fact Rav Gestetner says that there was more than full compliance. The language that Rav Tzadok is upset about - are  simply citation from Chazal. An additional point is that Rav Gestetner - despite Rav Tzadok's claims - is not a one man beis din. There are in fact other dayanim.

87 comments:

  1. Rabbi Eidenson,

    I am surprised that you are unaware that this Beis Din seems not to be well respected in Beis Din circles in the US or Eretz Yisroel.

    have you not done research?\Sincerely,
    rabbi d

    ReplyDelete
  2. I want to thank you for clarifying the situation with Rav Gestetner. I am not familiar with the particulars of the Weiss case, but I spent some time with Rabbi Gestetner today and he gave me a lot of his seforim. He has tremendous expertise in areas such as GET MEUSO that very few even rabbis are experts in. Thus, whatever is going on with the disputes of rabbis, a big Talmid Chochom deserves respect. Rabbi Gestetner does not charge money but puts in many hours of aggravation for free. He is a fearless fighter and takes on everyone in his defense of the laws of GET MEUSO etc. This is why he has enemies, but he just goes forward.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Response to Michael Tzadok's False and Misleading Claims Against Rav Avraham Gestetner and Against the Bitul Seruv Letter from Rav Gestetner's Bais Din

    1. Michael Tzadok's claim: "ONE MAN Beit Din, put AN ENTIRE B"D AND FOUR GEDOLEI YISRAEL IN NIDUI. "

    Response:

    A. Rav Gestetner in fact works with other dayanim. Its well known that the corrupt ORA organization and its supporters committ vicious harassment against their opponents. The other dayanim are not mentioned in the "Bitul Seruv" letter so as to protect them from the vicious harassment likely to occurr should their identities become public. Rav Gestetner himself has already been subjected to harassment.

    B. Rav Gestetner's Bais Din never imposed an actual cherem on the other Bais Din or on the Gedolei Yisrael. No one today is actually put in cherem. The "Bitul Seruv" letter referred to the other Bais Din as "bar nidui", meaning that they are deserving of cherem for imposing a bogus seruv, based on Yoreh Deah 334.

    2. Michael Tzadok's claim: "Gestetner invented facts as the court documents submitted by Weiss' attorney on March 18 2010 list him clearly as the Plaintiff and his wife as the defendant..."

    Response:

    A. Avraham Weiss received a heter from Rav Wohlhendler Z"TL to initiate legal action in archaos to obtain visitation time with his child, which had allegedly been denied to him by his wife. This was necessary to preserve Mr. Weiss' legal rights to see his child. This situation was very similar to the Aharon Friedman case, where Friedman filed an action in court to legally preserve his relationship with his child, while intending to allow the Bais Din issue a decision on all matters.

    B. Mrs. Weiss then allegedly responded with counterclaims in the court, and then sent Mr. Weiss a hazmana to the other Bais Din. Mr. Weiss answered the hazmana al pi halacha that he was ready to appear before Bais Din SharHaMishpot, or else utilize a Zabla. The other Bais Din then issued a pasul seruv against Mr. Weiss, who had no obligation to appear before Mrs. Weiss' Bais Din. There's no Bais Din kifiyah in new York today, see Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat Chelek Bais, Seman Gimmel.

    3. Rav Gestetner is Only Stating the Facts of this Case and No Koach Bais Din is Needed to State the facts of a Case:
    Rav Gestetner is stating that Mr. Weiss is not a Sarban. It makes no difference whether Rav Gestetner represents a Bais Din or not, because he is simply stating the facts as a Rav. Koach Bais Din is not needed to state facts about a case, its only a gilui daas. As an example of a gilui daas - ten rabbanim give out a Kol Koreh that Shimon is a mechalel Shabbos because on parshas Korach the store was allegedly open all Shabbos. Now Reuven, a next door neighbor comes by and says its a lie that Shimon is mechalel Shabbos and its a lie that the store was open on Shabbos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the numbers:
      1Yes I assert that Rav Gestetner is a one man beit Din in clear violation of halakha

      A) The Shulhan Arukh Siman 19 states that ALL Dayyanim must sing on psak halakha of a Beit Din.  Cowardice is no excuse for violation of halakha.

      B) I disagree, and so do the Rabbanim I have shown it to.

      2)Yes he did because he clearly states in his Bitul Seruv that the wife went to Arkaot against her husband which is absolutely not the case

      a) You like to wave around the Kol Kore(upon which both Rav Gestetner and Rav Wohlander's signatures appear) that says that a single Rav MAY NOT give a heter for Arkaot only a Beit Din can do that.  Double standards when it suits you is corruption of the worse kind.  Further this was not necessary to protect Mr. Weiss' legal rights as Binding Arbitration has the power of a court in the State of New Jersey.  It was completely unnecessary.

      b) A defendant has the halakhic right according to CM 26 to file counter claims and defend themselves in Arkaot, especially if they are trying to bring the case back to B"D, which is what the Hazmana will do.
      C) He doesn't state that he is willing to go to Shaar HaMishpat, nor would any sane Dayyan expect that someone would go to a Beit Din that is univerally considered to be Possul(even the Satmarer Rebbe wrote against them) let alone one that run by a single man.  Second to that you have repeatedly stated that you consider ZABLA to be halakhicaly invalid, and Rav Gestetner has written that in other of his phoney Piskei Din as well.  You can't have it both ways as it suits you and neither can Gestetner.

      3) Gilui Daat?  Did you take a blow to your head and think it is Purim?  No single Rav can give a Gilui Daat that a Beit Din is in error.

      Delete
    2. Tzadok, your long winded flim flam is not going to persuade any intelligent individuals.

      As I've already stated, Bais Din Shar HaMishpot did not issue a "psak", but rather it stated its view of the facts of the Weiss case, and such a statement does not require koach Bais Din.

      Contrary to your halachic obfuscations, a single rav, in the Weiss case Rav Wohlhendler Z"TL (a widely respected authority in Gittin), has authority to issue a heter for the father to obtain a temporary visitation order in archaos protecting the father's access to his children.

      In case after case (Friedman, Kin, and many others) you and your ORA henchmen blatantly disregard the pain and suffering of Jewish fathers denied access to their children by their vindictive wives. Your halachic perversions encourage these women and their corrupt rabbinic supporters to continue with their abominable and disgustingly un-Jewish behavior, and are the major factor preventing these women from obtaining kosher Gittin.

      Delete
    3. Oh by the way.  In a comment on this post you claimed that the bitul seruv did not mention that the husband had a heter, and stated quite firmly that he did not, but rather that it was the wife who was the plaintiff.  You would even later claim to have inside information indicating that.

      Now that the actual court documents are in the hands of the blog owner, suddenly, unlike what you told us earlier, there is a heter, and you have inside information confirming that.

      *sniff**sniff* I think I smell fish.

      Delete
    4. As I've already stated, Bais Din Shar HaMishpot did not issue a "psak", but rather it stated its view of the facts of the Weiss case, and such a statement does not require koach Bais Din.
      Yes it does. Only a Beit Din can Mevatel the act of another B"D as is made explicit in the Shulhan Arukh in Hoshen Mishpat.
      First you say that it was a Beit Din with three judges. Then when that is shown to be a clear violation of Halakha, now you claim that it was something for which a B"D isn't necessary.
      I suggest you take a look at Siman 20 of Hoshen Mishpat. Only a B"D can mevatel a decision of a B"D and only when it is a B"D with greater wisdom, based on Ediot 1:5, Megillah 2a Gittin 36b A"Z 36a.

      Contrary to your halachic obfuscations, a single rav, in the Weiss case Rav Wohlhendler Z"TL (a widely respected authority in Gittin), has authority to issue a heter for the father to obtain a temporary visitation order in archaos protecting the father's access to his children.
      Really? Then do you mind telling me why he affixed his signature to a Kol Kore that says if a single Rav issues such a heter the Rav and the one using it should both be put into Nidui?

      Or perhaps you would like to tell us why in a previous post you claimed to have insider knowledge that the husband needed no heter because the wife was the moser?

      Or maybe you would like to explain why the Bitul Seruv clearly states that the wife was the Plaintiff?

      Oh I know I bet you would like to explain why the court docs not only list Mr Weiss as the Paintiff but also have him asking for FULL custody as well as Alimony. That is a lot more than just visitation I would say.

      In case after case (Friedman, Kin, and many others) you and your ORA henchmen blatantly disregard the pain and suffering of Jewish fathers denied access to their children by their vindictive wives. Your halachic perversions encourage these women and their corrupt rabbinic supporters to continue with their abominable and disgustingly un-Jewish behavior, and are the major factor preventing these women from obtaining kosher Gittin.
      Actually supporting corrupt Batei Din like this one does more than I or ORA(which once again I absolutely do not support) or anyone else ever could to do just what you are saying.

      Delete
  4. Which Eidensohn wrote this post?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the one who writes this blog - in fact this is always true unless I state it is a guest post

      Delete
  5. I agree with rabbi Eidenson. I too was viciously attacked by ORA for no good reason. My wife went immediately to civil courts, had me gagged by court order barring me freedom of speech at any bais Din and responded to all hazmonos even though i was not required to, and still had illegitimate seiruvim placed upon me.Incidently, the last forged seiruv signed by avrohom union, nochum sauer and herschel schachter was issued without following any halachic protocol meaning no hazmonos sent leading up to this seiruv. Rather it was done in a retaliatory fashion against me within days of Bais Din Kedushas Levi issuing a seiruv against Gershon Bess. for failing to answer the hazmonos sent to him to appear at a Bais din for my claim that he publicly humiliating me.See
    http://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2010/06/seiruv-issued-against-gershon-bess.html. Rabbi Gestetner had defended me as well. see http://mishpattsedek.com/Justice-Denied-LA.htm for all his letters. A GET has been waiting for her at the bais Din since 2008, but unfortunately corrupted rabbis have been advising her not to pick it up with all the excuses that the GET is possul while Rabbi Gestetner, a Talmid Chochom witnessed the entire GET and certified it as 100% Lemehadrin. The wicked rabbis would prefer to make a woman an AGUNA than to let their competition survive. Ladies and Gentlemen , this is why we have Agunas today, they are self made Agunas that are being advised to attack their husbands in the Civil Courts, take all their rights to their children and dont respond to hazmonos or letters issued by Rabbi Abraham or Gestetner . For all those of you that make the claim, "why do no rabbis support Abraham and Gestetner"? The answer is why did many jews burn the books of Mesilas Yeshorim and the Rambam thinking they were heresy? Because they were mislead thru Motzi Shem Ra!! This is why the Torah forbade Motzi Shem ra, because of the destructive path that it can create! When a woman goes to civil court against halocho, coupled with legally gagging her husband so he cant speak certain facts at ANY BAIS DIN, how can you justify this womans actions and at the same time villify her husband?????????????????????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Meir to hear your story. The problem with that Beis din seems to be many Rabonim don't accept them. Will she be able to get married with such a get? Again, I don't know your story but I will give you some advice from my experience. My daughter was married to someone who had a medical condition which was hidden from us.i consider it a מקח טעות , because it not something one can live with. The Halacha in such a case is we force a get and he has to pay a kesubah . The other side didn't want to give a get unless I pay thousands of dollars. I spoke to many Rabonnim including the author of this blogs brother. They all told me, my main goal is to get a get. I should be mevatter. As my rebbe told I won't lose at the end. I paid and she got a get from a Beis din everybody recognizes. Being in limbo is worse. Time to move on. Same applies with Weiss. He should give a get and move on. He is ruining his chances of ever remarrying again. Who in the world will have anything to do with someone who holds back a get! Time for both of you to move on. You will be much happier.

      Delete
    2. Sam,

      Rabbinut, Hisachdus HaRabbanim(which is under the Satmarer Rebbe), numerous other Batei Din and Roshei Yeshivot have repeatedly said that Gittin from his B"D will not be accepted. That the woman who remarries will be over Ishet Ish and her future children will be mamzerim.

      Delete
    3. GUess what Tzadok according to many rishonim, achronim and current poskim ,hold that the tactics ora use fall under the category of a forced get. Either way she ruined her life and her ex!

      Delete
  6. Rabbi Eidenson you wrote:
    First paragraph: Rav Weiss (the husband) received a summons from Machon l'Hora'ah at the instigation of his wife who is in the middle of a suit in secular court against him.
    A court case that he instigated, that is what the Plaintiff is, and that without a heter from B"D that Rav Gestetner has signed on a Kol Kore saying is absolutely necessary.
    Rav Gestetner explains that according to the halacha the husband is not required to go at the same time to beis din until she pays him for the expenses incurred in secular court...
    Please show me a siman and seif anywhere in the Shulhan Arukh that say the Nesirah has to pay the costs that Moser accrues while violating halakha by going to Arkaot.
    Nevertheless the husband acted beyond what he was required to do and responded to the summons and informed Machon l'Hora'ah that he was prepared to participate in a din Torah with his wife and specified two dayanim who were prepared to judge for his side[and thus he responded correctly according to halacha].
    However Rav Gestetner has written elsewhere in those various Piskei Din that I sent you, that ZABLA is not halakhically valid. A fact that his supporters Stan and Emes L'Yaakov have pointed out previously when discussing the cases of Meir Kin and others. How can he now say that it is halakhically valid?
    When he has not ceased his issur court case how can ZABLA be considered a valid halakhic approach.

    Since you seem to want to say that Gestetner's Bitul Seruv is halakhically valid I eagerly await your response.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rabbi Tzadok, excuse me but my case is a case of FULL THICKNESS RABBINIC CORRUPTION.Is Rabbi Gestetners Bitul Seiruv in my case also posul in your eyes??? There is absolutely no way justify what Lonna has done to me!! There was no claims of abuse etc...she has gone to civil courts immediately and had me gagged. You will never know the real facts about my divorce because she had me gagged in court to prevent the EMES from leaking out!!! I will leave your imagination to think what really happened that lead to the divorce. Yet ORA defamed me in public! Your comments appear to defend ORA's actions in all cases and this is problematic for your credibility.The fact is if ORA lied about my case, they cannot be trusted in other cases! You and they are human and are fallable and can make mistakes, but they wont admit it at the expense of public humiliation of another jew. Ora wants the world to think that the AGUNA crisis is at a all time high, but they fail to acknowledge that Loshon hora/ Motzi shem ra which destroys more lives than just an aguna, is an issue at all.This is not Judaism at work but rather political expediancy at its best!The AGUNAS of the past were real, but today we have "self made agunas" a new concept in the feminist driven world!! Your repeated attacks on Gestetner show that you dont care about the truth,but just promoting the same hateful agenda of ORA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anything that comes out of Rav Gestetners B"D is possul in the eyes of every Av Beit Din and Gadol I have spoken with. This latest Bitul Seruv shows the reason why.

      Delete
    2. Meir Kin, even if Rabbi Gestetner has been slandered, why don't you give your wife a GET in a valid Beis Din accepted by the world at large, so you and your wife can get on with your lives. What do you have to gain at this point? The machlokes has ought to end for your sake as well, so you can break yourself from this terrible situation. Your young and could remarry and live a beautiful life...Don't let this sitaution ruin more precious years of life. Free yourself and move on!

      Delete
    3. Find us one BEis din that hasnt been slandered. Another lame excuse by lonna/ora supporters. She is obviously not interested in receiving her get! Otherwise she would have picked it up long ago.

      Delete
    4. Meir, Tzadok has no interest in seeking the truth. Although he denies his support for ORA, he indeed is a closet ora supporter. Unfortunately, either he is not learned or intentionally mistranslating key aspects of the bittul seruv. (i.e. onas devarim etc. as r'eidenson has pointed out). In addition he has condemned people before getting all the facts repeatedly. He lives thousands of miles from the USA and really has no clue who the gedolim here are or the inner politics that go on. He does not bother to speak to both sides. Instead he will just ramble his nonsense. When people have outright proved him wrong he will never admit it. (i.e. his claim of Israels population).

      Delete
  8. Michael Tzadok is on the rampage making once again absolutely zero sense. Michael Tzadok 2 months ago had not even heard of Rav Gestetner. Now he is an authority on him.

    The truth of the matter is that far from me being the racist it is actually he that is the racist. I told him to stick to his fez rabbis and rabbinic literature because that is all he seems very remotely familiar with. hardly racist.


    He cannot fargin the fact that rav gestetner has exposed Amar and his other sefardi elite cohorts in the rabbanut as corrupt. So he comes out like a raging bull against him all with bluster but zero substance. His comments are as follows: The charge of corruption against R Moshe green clearly for taking bribes in his yeshiva journal for all to see is not "official" but a stupid letter from the rabbanut is official. So basically a letter from the Nazi Party ids recognized because it is "official" but a letter from the Steipler is not because he held no official position. Well Moshe Green holds an official position and his journal showing the receipt of bribes is also official.

    Tzadok's claims that rav gestetner and rav abraham are signatories to the 70 kol koreh are not just totally irrelevant but an utter lie. Please find them for me.

    Which Satmar Rov put out an official letter against Rav Gestetner? Please post it for us - and don't tell me to google it. last time you told me to google something i found that it was punkt fakert from what you alleged - in exchange for volvos shas sold the jewish people down the river. No such letter and it were from aharon who is in arko'oys himself, well thanks a lot.

    Please expain to us what "notei keilim" means. Please also explain to us what Nesirah means?

    Rav Gestetner brought 7 sources for paying legal fees so what are you talking about. Yours are pure inventions - even the BDA disagrees with you. Bring the exact maareh mekomos siman se'if koton etc.

    Your other claims were that if someone feels he has a valid claim then if he goes to arko'oys he does not have to pay legal fees. Who decides that? Bais din? do they are ask the plaintiff? of course he will say he has a valid claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rav Gestetner brought seven sources for the Moser(in this case Mr Weiss) paying legal fees. Not the other way around.

      Delete
    2. On your own blog you said about called Sephardim  poor, ignorant and very very primitive.(also a comment you put through here).   Yet somehow you think that is not racist?  Do the guys in white jackets treat you nice and make sure you get plenty of sunlight between your meds?  They obviously allow you internet access.  Do they have kosher kitchen there in the asylum or is the food catered in special for you?

      Delete
  9. Now onto the halachik part. It has been explained over and over again to tzadok on this blog that r avrohom weiss had a valid heter arko'oys for a very limited purpose - to allow him access/custody to his child. Tzadok concludes that it was a single man Rav Gestetner who gave that hetter. From where does he conclude this, only he knows. On fact it was from rav Wohlhandler's bais din. Please explain to us tzadok why this is invalid, and don't use that nonsence a letter from the corrupt rabbanut, no one except your BDA soul mates will buy it.

    That his wife may have used the same docket number to ask for money out of him, proves nothing other than the fact that tzadok is very naive. This does not prove that Avrohom Weiss is the plaintiff in arko'oys at all. This is elementary to understand for most of us, but somehow eludes tzadok.

    Furthermore since since the siruv by machon le'horoh was fake for at least 3 reasons:
    1) avrohom had a valid hetter for a limited purpose
    2) he offered 2 borrerim
    3) his wife therefore had no hetter but was in arko'oys
    all rav gestetner did was 2 things:
    1) he made note of the fact that the siruv never existed in the 1st place i.e. was retroactively null and void and hence does not require a bais din to invalidate it sinve it never existed in the 1st place.
    2) he stated that these guys at machon le'horoh broke halochoh which is exactly what they did.

    Frankly I was very surprise dhwen you allowed tzadok to write such nonsense as a posting on your blog. I think you just gave him the rope to hang himself publicly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Furthermore since since the siruv by machon le'horoh was fake for at least 3 reasons:
      1) avrohom had a valid hetter for a limited purpose

      You also claimed in a previous post that you had the actual court documents and that the wife was the plaintiff. Now you claim you have inside information that Weiss had a heter. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
      2) he offered 2 borrerim
      You have repeatedly argued that you consider ZABLA to be halakhically invalid, and have said that Gestetner says the same. So now we see that you like Torah custom tailored to whatever situation you like.
      3) his wife therefore had no hetter but was in arko'oys
      She didn't need one as the Shulhan Arukh says. Since she was defending herself while trying to get the case brought before a Beit Din.
      all rav gestetner did was 2 things:
      Actually he did three things. First he invented the fact that the wife took the husband to Arkaot, and was the Plaintiff, which means he never looked at the relevant documents.
      1) he made note of the fact that the siruv never existed in the 1st place i.e. was retroactively null and void and hence does not require a bais din to invalidate it sinve it never existed in the 1st place.
      Right so on the basis of his invented facts and ever changing Torah he declared something null and void.
      2) he stated that these guys at machon le'horoh broke halochoh which is exactly what they did.
      Again based on his invented facts and his ability make what the Shulhan Arukh says is ossur muter, and muter ossur, he claims that the Mechon L'Hoyroa broke Halakha. Forgive me if I don't buy that one either.

      Delete
  10. Meir,

    I have no doubt that your divorce was painful and ugly. If you really want to give your wife a GET, why deposit one in a BD that some people do view as legitimate?

    Anything short of that and I am left to conclude that you are using the GET as leverage.

    How would you be damaged by giving a GET at Machon L'horaa?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now to some further points. I have been told that Nota Greenblatt was mevatel a marriage for no reason - ask Ariel haKoehen. he allowed his wife to remarry without a get. Why? No one knows.

    Kotler, Wachtfogel and Kamenetsky were not that bais din that issued the siruv, so for tzadok to somehow presume and then conclude that rav gestetner's comments applied to them for issuing a false siruv is plain nonsense but par for the course.

    However they relied on their friendship with Dodelson to assume that machon le'horoh was telling the truth. What does this prove? They simply did not do the required due diligence, after all they have far bigger issues to deal with, which is totally unacceptable but hardly new. It does not make them nearly as wicked as Machon le'horooh for issuing a fake siruv.

    For Tzadok to claim this is not about revein feinstein is again false. The letter of wachtfogel, et al was addressed directly to reuvein feinstein, so what is he talking about?

    furthermore why would the feinstein's destroy their reputation by going to arko'oys without a hetter? forget yiras shomayim, just focus on credibility. surely they would not put their reputations on the line.

    in any case r reuvein and rav osher yosef weiss (avrohom's father and a massive talmid chochom) oppose conclusions of malkiel et al. so its my gedolim against yours?

    i googled over and over yitchak meier morgernshtern. i found nothin about hjim opposing rav gestetner on the bloom case. provide a link tzadok. rav gestetner never heard of this person. i found a mekubel by this name not a dayan but nothing to do with blum. supply a link.

    In any case tzadok, please explain how the pope himself can make a forced get in the bluhm case valid? Only the corrupt rabbanut would do this.

    Lastly explain your support for the corrupt rabbanut:
    1) in briskman's case, rav shlomo fisher who was and may still be on the rabbanut called the dayonim forcing a get reshoim.
    2) Toledano ruled that no get can be forced in the meyerson case going against his colleagues.

    so even some of the rabbanut's employees come out agisnt its practices.

    Explain a smicha issued by a senior rabbanut dayan that you can take home and ask your buddies for help to write the answers for you. Is this honesty tzadok?

    I was told of a case where a senior police official got amar personally to invalidate a ruling of the rabbanut in favor of an agunah because he was his buddy.

    Later i will challenge you on the us botei din. enough said.

    you owe all your readers and rsav gestener an apology for what you spew on this blog.

    I also have you know that rav elyashiv's position on gittin and rav gestetner's are identical -mo'yus olai is not accroding to both of them a reason to force a get and any forced get is invalid. so by calling rav gestetner corrupt, all those people are really saying rav elyashiv is corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, do you know how to read? Tzadok stated the facts and you never refuted them.
      You seem to really enjoy hurting people and hoping people stay agunos. I guess for you,that is your goal in life. If Mr. Kin wants to give a valid get accepted by all batei din, he should give one elsewhere . No where did I say he has to give, but he should give one to be a mensch. Same with Weiss . Better to be smart then right. If the Weiss family doesn't want to give a get and hurt a young lady from remarrying, and you feel that's ok, well then there is no reason for me to answer you again.

      Delete
    2. sam, this site is not the yu beacon. please take your yu ora propaganda elsewhere.

      Women who act the way epstein and kin have are not victims. on this blog many of the readers follow halacha. not every case is a woman entitled to a get as in the epstein case. she has made a mockery of the beis din system by walking out of the baltimore beis din, had ora harass the silver spring beis din before and after the bogus seruv from the hebrew national rabbi issued after one hazmana. All while trying to destroy aharon. She is a MOREDES. I know you probably never ever heard of that term becuase ora doesnt believe in that part of the mesorah.

      As for kin, guess what not everyone holds R' shachter is kosher either. some of the things he lets his student jeremy stern do are viewed by r' elyasav and r' sterbach as completely against halacha. The fact is a get has been written enough is enough already if she wants it its their for the taking. If she doesn't that's her problem. She still wants to be an or like poster girl. The fact is meir is a mentch because probably most men would have never given her a get ever for all the damage she caused.

      Delete
    3. While I'm not sure if Rav Eliashiv has spoken out again ORA or not. Rav Shterbuch when questioned said that it was up the American Gedolim to decide and that he wasn't going to involved. So you cannot say that Rav Shternbuch believes to be completely against halakha or else he would have said so.

      You don't have to take my word for it, ask the blog owner.

      Delete
    4. Tzadok, you are spinning again and avoiding the issue. You claim not to support ORA yet you stick up for them time and time again. Even according to the way you interpret r' sternbach, there is till not one chareidi rav in America that has openly supported Ora!

      I challenge you to call up R' sternbach and inform him of how Jeremy Stern got up on fox news and said that he wants to change halacha and Rabbanim arent ready to go along. or the fundraisers in treif bars getting singles drunk in the middle of the night. while your at it tell him about the men and women singing together at protests and women going around half naked. Or the public harrasment of the silver spring beis din when they told ms epstein to go back the original beis din she walked out of. Or the harrasment of a powerful government figures which could be detrimental to jews in america and israel. Dont forget to mention Jeremy sterns support of child abuse by encouraging them to be used as tools. Please let us know if R' sternbach supports this?

      By the way since you are a fan of the rabbanut, I suggest you call up Rabbi dahan as well and ask him how ORA listened to him? HE called Ora up and told them not to protest in regards to the friedman case in the past.

      Delete
    5. P.S. Ora lists Rabbi Dahan as someone who endorses them.

      Delete
    6. Actually I'm just keeping you from committing the sin of Genivat HaDaat. You made a statement in Rav Shternbuch's name that simply was not true. Rather he refused to rule, said it is a complicated matter, and that the American Gedolim would have to decide.

      You can keep trying to spin and make things up, but it will just be more lies and Genivat HaDaat.

      Delete
    7. did you call rabbi dahan?

      Keep spinning. call r sternabch and ask. The chutzpah you have that you would try to get people to think r sternbach would endorse a koifer like Jeremy stern is so outrageous. Stern openly has mocked rabbanim and made said something completely keneged halacha that no normal talmid chahcam that is shoimer torah umitzvahs would agree to.

      Delete
  12. I, too, tried to Google Morgenstern and Gestetner (using their hebrew spellings). Didnt find anything.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It is simply a collection of statements of Chazal regarding the consequence of those who embarrass and torment other Jews with words."

    This is where your critique of Tzadok falls apart.

    Noone doubts that they were employing statements of chazal. The question is a matter of context. Which texts and how do you use them. Ein lo helek l'olam haba is a statement of chazal. That doesnt automatically make it benign.

    Gestetner is using language that is highly inappropriate. Why cant he just issue the bitul seruv and deal with the facts? Every seruv is a public embarrassment. Does that mean that every bitul seruv should employ this sort of language?

    ReplyDelete
  14. because he is reminding the ora sympathizers like yourself how seriously chazal views this issue.

    but then again motzei shem ra and being mevayesh someone is an aveirah that doesn't exist in ora's list of sins. Jeremy stern is too busy saying how he thinks marriage and divorce in halacha need to change. Apparently he thinks chazal is misguided like he claimed r' belsky was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. huh?

      A bitul seruv is no place for inflammatory language. Let him deal with the facts.

      This has nothing to do with ORA. The seruv was not issued by ORA rabbanim (there are no ORA rabbanim, anyway). They are all haredim, each one more radical than the next.

      Delete
    2. if you have a problem with it, take it up with the shulchan aruch or is that another radical rabbi?

      R gestetner repeats what is in his sources.

      This has everything to do with ora because they are involved with this case!

      As for you bashing "radical" chareidi rabbis. Take a look in your own backyard the modern orthodox are not too be desired with their pick an choose which halachos to keep.

      First YU accepts money for homosexual clubs. next thing you know you have "frum" yu boys who are proud of their sick disgusting toeivah habits demanding acceptance to them being oiver an issur d'orysa in a public forum!

      Delete
  15. Wow that is a lot of rambling barely literate hate and mevazeh talmidei hakhamim while you attempt to obfuscate and deal with none of the issues.

    Let's see the husband/Plaintiff's name is WEISS, not Feinstein so I'm not really sure how you expect the Feinstein family name to be damaged by Weiss' illegitimate venture into the court.

    Four Gedolei Yisrael wrote Rav Reuven a respectful letter asking him to help resolve the issue. That is what Rabbanim do. Nor is there any reason to believe that Rav Reuven didn't do everything within his halakhic power to help. HOwever what ORA want(him to throw the guy out of the Kollel) is not halahkically allowable as Rav Shteinman just ruled.

    As far as his father supporting him. Of course he does, that is why the Shulhan Arukh won't let a father be a dayyan over his son.

    The rest of your nonsensical ranting has nothing to do with the case at hand or the flagrant halakhic violations that are evident in this Bitul Seruv.

    Now you say that Rav Eliashiv and Gestetner's positions are the same, so somehow insinuate that people are saying Rav Eliashiv is corrupt. Here's the difference NO ONE HAS EVER HELD UP COURT DOCUMENTS THAT RAV ELIASHIV HAS CLAIMED TO SEE AND BASE HIS PSAK ON THAT SAY THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT RAV ELIASHIV CLAIMS. It's not about halakhic positions, it's about actual corruption. The court docs say the opposite of what Gestetner claims in his Bitul Seruv. FULL STOP So he invented facts.

    Just like you are now inventing facts by claiming a heter which in a previous post you were certain didn't exist because, lying, you claimed to have seen the court docs and have insider information.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 2) he offered 2 borrerim
    You have repeatedly argued that you consider ZABLA to be halakhically invalid, and have said that Gestetner says the same. So now we see that you like Torah custom tailored to whatever situation you like.

    rav gestetner was not involved in this case from the beginning. he was taking over for rav wohlhandler who was niftar in the middle. while this is the 1st sensible point you have raised in a very long time, in comparison with the corruption of machon le'horooah zabla may be preferable. in answering this corrupt bais din, which holds of zabla it is good enough. he is answering leshitosom.

    the problems with zabla are well known. nice try tzadok but you still haven't answered any of the points i raised including the pervasive corruption of the sefardi part of the rabanut.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you agree that Gestetner rewrites Torah as it suits in him the moment. Great. You don't call that corruption? It think the rest of us do.

      Aside from your accusations of corruption in Rabbinut being completely unfounded and without any physical evidence, and thus not worth answering. They are not at all related to what we are talking about.

      You said in previous posts to show you one case where Gestetner violated halakha and demonstrated corruption. Again look at this supposed bitul seruv in which he fabricated facts. PHYSICAL COURT DOCUMENTS directly contradict his claim(and basis for his psak). That is corruption.

      He claims that the wife, who was the Nimseret has to pay Weiss', who was the moser, legal fees. Despite the fact that as you claimed you knew for certain based upon your inside information, had no heter to go to arkaot, you wrote so on your blog, and stated thus on this blog.
      Furthermore in previous posts, you have quoted, these seven sources of Gestetner, here and on your blog as well , and supposedly that BDA that, at least according to you and Gestetner the MOSER ALWAYS HAS TO PAY the legal feels of the Nimsar(et). Once again corruption.

      All you are demonstrating now is that you are just as corrupt.

      Delete
  17. I do not agree at all to the nonsense you wrote which plain and simply makes no sense. we have already explained to you over and over that weiss had a hetter. so if you don';t follow, we cannot really help you.

    weiss is a grandson/ son-in-law of r reuvein feinstein - so of course the family name would be tarnished if something against halochoh was done.

    Your ramblings are full of nonsense tzadok. i gave you two cases of corruption of the rabbanut. address them. what is "physical" evidence (same as your official/ non-official garbage)? meyerson and briskman where 2 rabbanut dayonim protested at the get meuseh, one even from your tribe. answer charges instead of rambling tzadok.

    just like your official, non-official nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So YOU Are trying to pull Rav Reuven into this so as to make Weiss look better, I got it.

      weiss is a grandson/ son-in-law of r reuvein feinstein
      If Rav Reuven married his grandson to his daughter, as you have suggested here, that incestuous relationship would ruin the family name. Do you even think about the BS you spout before you say it, or do you just say it?

      Delete
    2. tzadok you are a walking chillul hashem. how could someone with the title rabbi use such profanity as you just used? Please remove the title rabbi from your name. People on the web might be confused and think that real rabbis use profanity.
      Like I said before you are the chamor in the lions costume!

      Delete
  18. As usual the Tzadok builds mountains out of molehills. If the complaint of machon le'horooh was that Weiss was offering to go to Zabla was the issue then why did they not say that?

    They said something completely different - they claimed he was in arko'oys kneged halochoh when he was not. So the one obfuscating again is Tzaddok.

    Explain Tzadok:
    1) the corruption of the rabbanut and why r shlomo fisher and dayan toledenu of the rabaanut both condemned its rulings?
    2) why the rabanut throws men in jail and creates mamzeirim with gittei meuseh all the time?
    3) why a big shot in the rabanut runs a private semicha program for those who can't pass the rabanut exams and allows students to ask for help? is this semicha? or a joke?

    answer these charges already tzaddok and stop with the official, unofficial, physical obfuscations please already. they impress no-one.

    you call me cuprrupt. kol haposel be'mumo posel. i am not part of the family called abuchatzeh that takes money from poor uneducated sefardim and enriches itself or the black volvo driving crowd of shas that sold the jewish people down the tubes. sick!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again a bunch of nonesense while not addressing any of the flagrant violations of halakha by this Beit Din.

      Delete
  19. Tzadok explain:
    0) Shachter's false siruv on meir kin when his wife went to arko'oys day 1 and has never left?
    1)the BDA's position on using secular law?
    2) never issuing a siruv on a woman for going to arko'oys?
    3)allowing non-shomer shabbos lawyers who are often corrupt because they are corrupt (not because they don't keep shabbos which you claimed i said previously) to act as toeni rabbabim when they teach their clients to lie?
    4) Gedaliah Schwatrtz's hafkoos kiddushin?
    5) Belsky's hafko'oas kiddushin and rav elyashiv saying he needs to stay away from gittin?
    6) the disgusting violence against rabbi avromi rubin allegedly with the above involved?
    7) Ralabg's involvement in the kin case.? etc etc etc?
    8) Moshe green's open acceptance of bribes?

    a little knowledge is very dangerous. you prove the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does any of this have to do with case at hand? NOTHING. Another feeble attempt to distract.

      8) Since when is a newspaper/magazine selling add space "taking bribes". You will conflate anything to attack Rabbanim you don't like, even Chareidi ones. Yet you have the chutzpah to say kol haposel be'mumo posel. Look in the mirror, if they allow them in the asylum.

      Delete
  20. Bottom line tzadok, stop ranting and raving! You have no proof that r avrohom weiss did not get a valid hetter from rav wohlhandler's bais din. until you can prove otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, you are only making a joke of yourself.

    you tipify avrom yeshou of brisk's reverse question of the netziv: when you get to shomayim, they are going to ask where the shoes are?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bottom line tzadok, stop ranting and raving! You have no proof that r avrohom weiss did not get a valid hetter from rav wohlhandler's bais din. until you can prove otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, you are only making a joke of yourself.
      Sure I can. You and your buddies and sock puppets said that with your inside information that you KNEW that he didn't have one, and that you KNEW that the wife was the Plaintiff.

      If he had one, why didn't the Bittul Seruv simply say that? Why did it say that the wife was the Plaintiff?

      Bottom line you are trying every dodge you can think of because the facts here clearly show that this Beit Din is corrupt and has flagrantly violated halakha.

      Delete
  21. tzadok is a fool who condemns people without looking into the facts. He thinks that all men would stoop as low as some of these disgraceful women who try to shame their exs in public by releasing a half story while using their children as tools for revenge. He lacks any sechel to realize that some of these men actually care about their children unlike their exs and have no interest is causing psychological trauma by fighting in public through releasing information about a private matter.

    According to him, a wife can conduct a smear campaign but when the husband fights back tzadok is running with a pitch fork with the rest of the ora mob and claiming abuse.

    Tzadok is not interested in the truth. all he is interested is condemning and promoting his skewed feminist agenda by perverting halacha through ora like tactics by misleading and spreading misinformation.

    Like an emotionally disturbed person he keeps repeating his lie of a one man beis din when others including r' eidenson who have proven otherwise, yet he still keeps repeating his nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So taking the time to get the court docs that contradict this supposed ruling of Gestetner's one man Beit Din. Admittedly my favorite of Gestetner's one man Beit Din's rulings is this one where he rules that Rav Gruber is required to pay $118k based on a Yesh Makom and Im Ken. In other words despite his own uncertainty he is still going to make another Dayyan Chayyav $118K. Now that is a laugh.

      Now you can say I that I don't hunt up the facts, but you are the one who claimed(which was a complete lie) to have the court documents and stated that the wife was listed as the plaintiff. Personally I think lying and inventing facts is far worse than making a statement on what you mistakenly thought was full information.

      Delete
    2. I am simply calling you out on the fact that r' eidenson caught you lying when you claim that r' gestener is a one man beis din when he is really not.

      as for you , you have condemned people before looking into the facts. As you did in this case. a true person who has the fear of heaven would never condemn someone before he has the facts. the fact that you continue to be mevazeh reb reuveins family without even speaking to someone from their side is completely reckless. The fact that he is a grandson of reb reuvein and his father is a tremendous talmid chahcam he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I am quite sure that reb reuvein would have spoken out if he felt his grandson was doing something keneged halacha.

      As for your straight out lie that I claimed to have the court documents or that the wife is the plaintiff. Where did I say that please show me.

      Keep spinning with your stupidity!

      Delete
    3. The fact that someone is a tremendous Talmid chacham can not change the facts. Here is somebody that beis din issued a ksav seiruv, in other words he refuses to go to beis din and could not answer himself up as to why not,and he took the other party to secular courts.
      The only beis din that spoke up for him is a beis din that many Gedolim and other Batei Dinim do not accept.
      They have of late been mater cherem dRabeinu Gershom, and spoke out very strongly against Reb Shlomo Miller who told him that he must follow the Rama.
      Now take a look at the chofetz Chaim hilchas Lashon Haroh, kllal 4 halacha 8, and you will understand why there is nothing wrong speaking about this. I couldn't find a heter if your grandfather is a gadol, maybe you will point it out to me.
      As far as Reb Tzodak, he always backs his words with proven halacha. Let see if any of you can.

      Delete
  22. Like an emotionally disturbed person he keeps repeating his lie of a one man beis din when others including r' eidenson who have proven otherwise, yet he still keeps repeating his nonsense.

    No one has proven this. In fact your other personalities, when they come out and play, have taken to saying the he doesn't need a full B"D to issue these various Piskei Din(oh wait, what was that again, they are not piskei Din they are Gilui Daat). Because it is a flagrant violation of halakha to issue a psak din not signed by all three Dayyanim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. once again r'eidenson has stated that he is a not a one man beis din. unlike you, so far no one here has caught r'eidenson lying as you have been caught several times already. So therefore it is his word against yours!

      Delete
    2. So then you admit that Gestetner flagrantly flaunts halakha by not having the other Dayyanim sign the piskei Din as is required by the Shulhan Arukh.

      I'm perfectly willing to accept that a B"D that invents facts and makes a Nimseret chayev to pay the moser's legal fees against halakha and clear halakha in the Shulhan Arukh also flaunts Halakha in other ways.

      Delete
    3. No I do not, please stop putting words in my mouth.
      The only one who has flagrantly flaunted halacha is you by spreading motzei shem ra and various other lavim you have been oiver. Get over it, R' eidenson has exposed you for the fraud you truly are!

      Delete
    4. Fraud what fraud.

      Simple:
      Does or does not the Bitul Seruv list as it's basis that the wife took the husband to court? Here I will quote you Rav Eidenson's words:
      Rav Weiss (the husband) received a summons from Machon l'Hora'ah at the instigation of his wife who is in the middle of a suit in secular court against him. Rav Gestetner explains that according to the halacha the husband is not required to go at the same time to beis din until she pays him for the expenses incurred in secular court...

      So according to Rav Eidensohn:
      1) The wife went to court
      2) The wife is Chayev to pay the Weiss' legal fees.

      The problem is that the court docs specifically state that Weiss took his wife to court.

      With or without a heter, the Nimseret is not required to pay the moser's legal fees according to halakha.

      So what we have are:
      1) An invention of fact against documentary evidence
      2) A flagrant(amongst many) violation of halakha.

      As far as Rav Eidensohn supposedly proving me a fraud, he chose to bury this post rather than answer those questions when put to him. So why don't you email him and ask him what he thinks of those problems. Then you can say whether or not:
      1) He thinks I am a fraud(because right now you are genivat hadaat again, since he doesn't).
      2) Whether he thinks they are valid objections.

      Delete
    5. The issues you raise are solid ones and have not been answered. I do not think you are a fraud. There are various conjectures that have been offered - but no one has directly and convincingly answered your objections!

      Delete
    6. Thank you for the support Rav Eidensohn.

      Delete
  23. Stan, Emes, Meir, and others,

    Yashar koach for exposing rabbinic corruption, for exposing the vicious YU feminist organization ORA and for exposing ORA's troll - propagandist Michael Tzadok.

    Tzadok's little shell game goes like this: Tzadok will pretend to reject ORA's vicious halachic violations, so that casual readers will erroneously conclude that Tzadok is not an ORA propagandist - troll. Then when a case is discussed involving ORA aggression and injustice against a Jewish man in a divorce dispute (such as Aharon Friedman, Avraham Weiss, Meir Kin, etc.), Tzadok will then back to the hilt positions which justify and validate ORA. Tzadok will then also denounce the man's legitimate attempts to secure his halachic rights (such as obtaining a temporary court order for child visitation being denied him, or depositing a kosher Get in Bais Din), while utterly ignoring the wife's mesira against her husband in archaos and her refusal to comply with halacha.

    So which Tzadok is the real Tzadok? Depends on which shell you happen to be looking under.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So let me understand this. You have no answer to the valid halakhic issues and evidence of corruption that I have brought against Gestetner. So you attack me?

      So once again I say to you, obfuscation and logical falllacy.

      Delete
    2. emes le yaacov we learn "to teach a naar accoding to his way." Tzadok is obviously a very disturbed person. His actions of rushing to judgement without gathering all the facts, inability to learn simple pshat, his being mevazeh talmedei chachamim who are much greater than him shows his true character. There is no point in debating an ora troll that has no yiras shamayim or derech eretz. Ora and their supporters pick and choose which halachos they want to keep and anyone that doesn't go along with them they will conduct a smear terror campaign.

      Tzadok reminds me of the famous mashal r' miller said over. There once was a donkey who wanted the respect that the lion got from the animal kingdom. The donkey decided to dress up in a lions costume, when all the other animals saw him they gave him respect thinking he was the lion. The donkey was so happy that he spoke and said hee haa hee haa. When all the other animals heard that the charade was over. Here too he calls himself a rabbi makes himself as a tzaddik throws out a couple of sources to look legit. However as soon as he opens his mouth with his nonsense and shows everyone who he really is he reminds everyone that he really is the chamor in the lions costume.

      Delete
    3. Yet for all of that you have failed to produce a single texutal rebuttal to anything that I have said.

      Delete
    4. no need to since stan and emes lyaccov have been doing a fine job so far.

      In addition you are incapable of learning basic pshat as you have demonstrated already. So let me help you out with the basics.

      1) Derech eretz kadmah ltorah

      when you have that one figured out come back to me.

      For someone like you who claims to be a rabbi, its pretty embarrassing that you cant control your temper and avoid profanity in your previous post.

      Delete
  24. Tzadok's "halachic" positions are even more feminist and deviate even further from halacha than the YU feminist organization ORA.

    A few months ago, Tzadok posted a comment as follows ( http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/04/mechooh.html ) :

    "Rabbi Michael Tzadok said...

    Mamzerut claim is really and truly a false claim that is meant to be more incendiary than it is helpful. It is pure propaganda ...That is what this is, it is a lie that keeps getting repeated.

    M'doraitta, we can force a husband to give a Get ... Thus a forced Get(never mind R"T), an actual forced Get, is only possul m'd'rabbanan.

    You throw on top of that Bitul Modaah, then what you are left with is a Get that is sofek possul m'd'rabbanan(at best, and then only by the stringent opinions which the B"Y rejects). But let us say that you have a sofek d'rbannan. Since when do we not rule sofek d'rabbanan l'kula? ..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually posted the same thing here several times. You should know, you copied over onto your own blog. Oh and dear reader, please check out the identity theft blog that Emes L'Yaakov, Stan and their buddies have set up. You will be hard pressed to find lower literacy or more racism on StormFront.

      Yes I did. It is based on a pshat reading of the Beit Yosef, siman 134(if you have one of the printings with seifim, seifim 7-9).

      Now if you think that you have a different reading of the Beit Yosef, and can bring textual proofs, I would be happy to listen.  The problem that you are going to run into, is that even the blogowner admitted, that at least according to a Sephardic reading, which does not give later authorities the ability to override earlier authorities, I am right.


      Now you can say that Rav Shternbuch and other Israeli Gedolim have ruled differently. However, then you have to take Rav Shternbuch's words that, he does not rule for Americans and American Gedolim need to issue their own rulings.

      Delete
    2. Tzadok, I reviewed Beit Yosef, siman 134 and I could not find the slightest hint of your claim that a forced Get is "sofek d'rabbanan l'kula".

      Please answer the following:

      1. Where exactly does the Beit Yosef state that a forced Get is "sofek d'rabbanan l'kula?"

      2. Even IF the Beit Yosef paskened as such, what right do you have to impose on Ashkenazi Jews the psak of a Sefardi posek which severely conflicts with the psak of the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazi poskim?

      3. If you hold that a forced Get is "sofek d'rabbanan l'kula?", what possible objection could you have to the forced GET policies of the YU feminist organization ORA?

      Delete
    3. So I just want to get this straight. You didn't understand the B"Y, and have no textual rebuttal to anything that I said. Your problem is that the B"Y(a universally accepted opinion) is Sephardi? Ok... See the Darkhei Moshe there.

      Further to that I am pretty sure the Tzitz Eliezer was also Ashkenazi.

      Delete
  25. Confused by emesJune 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM

    I dont understand weiss is in court suing for split custody and legal fees and other financial stuff. The wife isnt asking for anything! She didnt even request that weiss get less custody (he currently has the kid 2 times a week and every other weekend). How can you claim she went to court?!?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PLease show me where I calimed she went to court?

      Any fool can see that there is much more to the case. Any woman who gets an org that stand for anti torah values is already speaking volumes of her and her family's true character.

      There are people who are claiming she doesn't let him see them. If that is the case then he for sure has every right to sue for leagal fees. as for suing for split custody whats wrong with that? IS he not a parent also? Ora doesn't believe fathers should have meaningful relationships with their kids they actually promote child abuse by encouraging women to use their chilren as tools.

      In addition, Are you c'v claiming that r' wholender z'l or yabd'l that reb reuveiin is corrupt? R' wholender z'l was a tremedous gaon, tread carefully with your fake simple question.

      Delete
    2. If you agree that she wasn't the one who went to court(as the court docs prove) then you have to agree that the basis for this Bitul Seruv(i.e. that she went to court against her husband) is in error.

      Delete
  26. EmesLeYaacov-

    I appreciate your attempts to come across as elgant even when you really aren't saying anything at all. It keeps R Tzadok in the game and entertains me.

    Oh. And having 'emes' in your name doesn't make anything you say true. Ditto for the 'Emes' that that doesn't have a last name 'Le'Yaacov'.

    As for the S.T.A.N? Well he's really a secret YU'nik trying to make the 'frum oylam' look stupid. Need I say more?

    ReplyDelete
  27. further confused by emesJuly 1, 2012 at 5:37 AM

    i claim that r rueven is his grandfather and yes wollhander and gestetner are defintley coruupt- you yourself agree she didnt go to court yet they say she did.
    furthermore- i stand in the mighty shadow of machon l'hora r shmuel r nota r elya ber r shachter r willig and all their "anti tora values"
    please no sain person, rav, doctor or judge believes in split custody- and you defintley cannot claim that she is withholding the child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if you align yourself with r hershel shachter then there is no need to debate you further.

      Delete
  28. further confused, ora troll please stop faking your innocent confused persona.

    1) where did I agree or not agree about him/her going to court?

    2) as for you knocking a talmid chahcam who is no longer on this earth, that is a total disgrace on your part. as for knocking r' Gestetner that is your typical ora tactic, attack those who call you out. when you have written several seforim and are a master in this are then maybe your opinion will count. Keep discrediting those who do not see agree with your heresy it still won't change things. R' gestener says it the way it is. Deal with it, sometimes the truth hurts. In addition. R' eidenson has personally vouched for him that is good enough for our readers.

    Why did you leave out r' kotler? I am still looking for someone to confirm my questions.

    1)is r' kotler related to the dodelsons?
    2) How much money have the dodelsons contributed to the yeshivahs?
    3) Why has there not been any outward public support from the gedolim for ora?
    4)Why was their not one of the signators at the rally?

    As for your ridiculous claim of split custody. The only insane people who dont believe in that is ora. Guess what it takes two parents to have a child and contrary to what ora believes, every parent has a right to have a meaningful relationship with their child free of one parent denying visiting rights to another. I have never claimed she has or has not been claiming that she is withholding . Other posters have, if those claims are true then joint custody is a great way to help ensure that each parent is not denied their right to their child.

    By the way its r' gestener and r' wollhander why don't you have a little derch eretz? Oh wait , Derech eretz isn't required by Oras guidebook on which halachas to keep.

    last but not least Any fool can see that there is much more to the case. Any woman who gets an org that stand for anti torah values is already speaking volumes of her and her family's true character. No chareid gadol has outwardly called for oras support. The dodelson live in lakewood are not YU people. The only possible reason ora has become involved is a revenge smear campaign. Everyone in the chareidi world knows that Oras tatics create a question of get meusa!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ora is irrelevant to the disussion.

      Your four questions are irrelevant to the disussion.

      What is relevant is that there are court docs that say that the husband is the plaintiff contrary to what is written in the bitul seruv.

      That the husband is suing for full custody of the child(which would preclude the mother).

      That that the husband is suing for Alimony.

      Now if living in Israel, I was able to track down which of NJ's 21 counties this case was being tried in(Ocean), and then get a copy of the court docs. You should be able to do the same, if you live up to the screen name you have chosen for yourself.

      The problem is that Rav Gestetner based a bitul seruv on false information.

      Delete
  29. Confounded by emesJuly 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM

    Your tactic of harping on side points to confuse the facts Is stupid. Even if we take your wild claims to be right that they bought r kotlers support (which is just ridiculous heresy) it doesnt negate the fact that Weiss went to court that weiss is suing for full custody that weiss is suing for alimony.
    As for gestetner-even r feinstein who has dropped any notions of emes ro back his grandson will not tell people that he holds of gestetner.
    Your ideas about custody are crazy you obviously dont know any proffesionals in that area.
    Alas you are right- the woman did indeed align herself with ORA- i cannot deny it. If that is proof positive of her guilt then i am rendered speechless.
    (btw in your future blogs you shouldnt be so obvious abt your vendetta against women and ORA- your comments have a personal ring to them- they dont sound factual or case sensitive).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. confounded once again,

      spinning the facts, I never claimed that, but other people have posted allegations that have not been answered and unfortunately if those allegations are true then its a big problem and hurts her credibility. another person claimed on a different post that r' shmuel signed because r' malkiel told him to so if he signed without looking into the facts. Unfortunately, this has not been the first time that people have posted that reb shmuel has signed something without personally looking into the facts.

      Accusing reb reuven of not supporting r' gestetner is intellectual dishonesty. You have no proof of that he doesn't support him.

      as for your claims of custody, first you claim he is suing for joint custody now you are saying he is suing for full custody make up your mind. if you are relying on your ora professionals then yes you are right according to them a father should never have anything to do with his child!

      as for your opinion on joint custody that is quite pitiful and foolish. So you are saying that a father has no right to joint custody. Cite your wild claims with proof that "professional" think that a father should not have rights to his child.

      In the past if she has prevented him from seeing his child then he probably should get full custody. if those claims are true then she has shown that she is incapable of being responsible parent.

      As for aligning with a group that supports child abuse and has total disregard for halacha that is a big problem. as I have pointed out before if this was really to get a get why is she bringing in koifrim to get her a get meusa?

      "you cant handle the truth" claimed the rally was a tehillim rally if that was the case why did the dodelsons need to hire a a koifer like jeremy stern to have a tehillim rally? why could nt the rosh yeshivahs put up a sign in yeshivah to go say tehilim? The readers on this blog are not fools and they recognize the only reason jeremy stern was called in because he is hired pr to farshmutz the weiss family. This is not about getting a get, this is about revenge.

      Unfortunately you are either an ora troll or an ignoramus. all of the things that I have written up about Ora are unfortunately true and have and can be verified. If that isn't a reason of concern for you then you are obviously a halba ilui!

      P.S. Nice try but You have been caught spreading misinformation with flip flopping on whether he is suing for joint or sole custody. Keep up with the misinformation tactics! Another fraud busted.

      I have no personal vandetta against ora. I say it the way it is.

      Delete
  30. All tzadok's alleged taaynos on Rav gestetner have been answered over and over again. He is just deaf to the answers because his corruption, so I will just repeat the answers for him.

    "It has been explained over and over again to tzadok on this blog that r avrohom weiss had a valid heter arko'oys for a very limited purpose - to allow him access/custody to his child. Tzadok concludes that it was a single man Rav Gestetner who gave that hetter. From where does he conclude this, only he knows. In fact it was from rav Wohlhandler's bais din. Please explain to us tzadok why this is invalid, and don't use that nonsence a letter from the corrupt rabbanut, no one except your BDA soul mates will buy it.

    That his wife may have used the same docket number to ask for money out of him, proves nothing other than the fact that tzadok is very naive. This does not prove that Avrohom Weiss is the toveah in arko'oys at all. This is elementary to understand for most of us, but somehow eludes tzadok."

    That tzadok has the chutzpah to trash the chezkas kashrus of the Feinstein and Weiss families is despicable. Who does he think he is? A fake mekubel.

    He reminds me of the maskil who came to reb chaim brisker who said he would believe but he has questions. Reb chaim answered him - he is only interested in questions not answers - that is the tzadok.

    Post the documents to prove that this is not true. Don't give us the respect of the Dodelson's baloney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually they haven't been answered, see Rav Eidensohn's post above, he as well says that they have not been answered.

      Delete
  31. Please be so kind as to make a separate blog posting for this clear distortion of halochoh by michael tzadok:

    shulchan oruch/ rema choshen mishpot 388:5


    A twisting of the Shulchan Oruch Choshen Mishpot 388:5
    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 Michael, the fake mekubel, 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?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Sam June 28, 2012 8:34 PM
    Stan, do you know how to read? Tzadok stated the facts and you never refuted them.
    You seem to really enjoy hurting people and hoping people stay agunos. I guess for you,that is your goal in life. If Mr. Kin wants to give a valid get accepted by all batei din, he should give one elsewhere . No where did I say he has to give, but he should give one to be a mensch. Same with Weiss . Better to be smart then right. If the Weiss family doesn't want to give a get and hurt a young lady from remarrying, and you feel that's ok, well then there is no reason for me to answer you again."

    1. tzadok's invented facts refuted over and over again but both of you refuse to accept another side to the story.
    2. A woman only becomes an agunah when a valid, yes valid bais din paskens a chiyuv le'gareth. Not when you or tzadok or schachter or ORA decide that she is a fakeagunah.
    3. In most (not all but the vast majority of) cases it is usual in the US for the woman to be a moredes and hence not entitled to a get or not an agunah.
    4. Personal and baseless attacks that I like hurting people are pathetic. On the contrary it is ORA who violate halochoh who like hurting people. Even the woman ends up suffering as she is encouraged with her meridah, stubbornness and breaking halochoh by ORA and it gets her nowhere. Ask tamar the big, big faker.
    5. A woman who abuses her husband by preventing him from seeing his children should be prevented from remarrying. She is a menace to society.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks for posting this. I would appreciate a separate blog please. It is far more factual than the filth posted by the tzadok. I want all to see how tzadok twists the shulchan poruch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I am quite glad that he elevated it to a main post so that we can get back to the questions about R' Gestetner's B"D. As much as you claim to have answered them Stan, even Rav Eidensohn says that is not the case,
      Daas TorahJuly 1, 2012 1:41 PM
      The issues you raise are solid ones and have not been answered. I do not think you are a fraud. There are various conjectures that have been offered - but no one has directly and convincingly answered your objections!

      Delete
  34. I will not comment on specific cases of people (and batei din) that I do not know. But I would like to ask those commentors who seem to justify withholding a get as leverage in disputes over the finacial settlement how they square this opinion with what R. Moshe wrote in Igros Moshe E.H 4:3.


    הנה כבר מפורסם דעתי שהיתר דמאה רבנים אף במורדת הוא דוקא בהשלשת גט כשר אשר בכל זמן שתרצה האשה לקבל גט תוכל לבא ולקבל הגט ולהיות מותרת לעלמא, אפילו אם יש להבעל עליה תביעות ממון, כי ח"ו שהגאון רגמ"ה יתקן דבר תקלה לעגן בת ישראל איזו שהיא, ואף באופן שודאי חטפה משל בעלה איזה סך ממון לא תיקן ושום ב"ד דגאונים לא תיקנו ולא יתקנו באופן שיוכל הבעל לעגנה לגמרי או עד שתתן לו כמה שירצה, ובשביל עניני גיבוי ממון לא תיקנו ולא יתקנו שום תקנות שיהא ביד הבעל כח בעצמו לעשות כרצונו ולעגנה, וכשלא נעשה כן אין ההיתר של הב"ד שהתירו כלום אף אם יחתמו ע"ז אלף רבנים ויותר, ויש על הבעל איסור וחרם דרגמ"ה מלישא אשה אחרת אם לא יגרשנה קודם בגט כשר, ואני חתמתי רק שיתירו להבעל כדין דהוא אחר שישליש גט כשר שתוכל לקבלו בכל עת שתרצה, וכן אמרתי גם בעובדא זו ביחוד לקרובי הבעל שלא שייך שום היתר בלא השלשת גט כשר שתוכל לקבלו בלא שום עיכובים, וע"ז באתי על החתום למען האמת שלא יעותו דיני התורה.

    ReplyDelete

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