Ranking Republican Member Of The House Ways And Means Committee Has Staffer Who Refuses To Give His Wife A Get

Aharon Friedman, an Orthodox Jew, won't give his wife a get, a Jewish divorce, even though he initiated civil divorce. Friedman is using the get as leverage to try to overturn custody arrangemnts made by the civil court.

 

Rabbis, including Hershal Schachter and Shmuel Kaminestsky, have ruled that Aharon Friedman must give the get immediately, but Friedman refuses to do so.

This week, a demonstration was held in front of Friedman's residence:

Protesters Rally in Support of Tamar Epstein
More than 100 people protested Sunday outside a Wheaton apartment complex for a local man to give his ex-wife a religious divorce.
By Taylor Kate Brown • WheatonPatch

More than 100 people gathered along University Boulevard near the high-rise apartment building the Warwick on Sunday afternoon, to protest Aharon Friedman's refusal to give his former wife, Tamar Epstein, a Jewish decree of divorce, also known as a get.

"Aharon Friedman, give Tamar the get!" the crowd chanted at the foot of the building's driveway.

Cars slowed down as they drove past the intersection of University Boulevard and Arcola Avenue. The crowd started to spill over into the apartment's driveway, as police tried to move the protesters off private property.

About 50 people from Philadelphia, where Epstein currently lives, arrived on a coach bus at the beginning of the rally. Without the get, as an Orthodox Jew, Epstein may not remarry or date.

Friedman has refused to give the get, citing a problematic custody arrangement settled by the state of Maryland at the time of their civil divorce. The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, an international group that advocates for the get, set up a rally on Sunday to try and apply pressure to Friedman. Groups of people also walked over from Kemp Mill and other parts of Wheaton to hold signs demanding the get be granted.

Lew Joseph, a Silver Spring resident, stood at the rally because he supported Epstein and ORA's efforts to bring attention to her and other women in similar situations.

"People are coming here from different shuls," Joseph said, adding that he noticed protesters from local Conservative synagogues and neighborhood Orthodox synagogues.

Epstein herself was in the crowd.

"It's a mixed feeling," she said about the protest's effect on her. "It's hard to come to terms with my life being public in this way, but I'm gratified for the turnout."

After consulting with several rabbis in Baltimore, Epstein said she believes that she does not need to go to the Bet Din, the Jewish court, to change the custody arrangement. Both Epstein and ORA argue that Friedman should not use the get as a way to gain a more favorable custody arrangement.

Rabbi Jeremy Stern, executive director of ORA, spoke first.

"We did everything we could not to come to this rally," he said, citing four months of mediation between Friedman and his supporters.

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of Ohev Sholom, the National Synagogue and Rabbi Avraham Shmidman of the Lower Merion Synagogue in Pennsylvania also used the megaphone to speak to the assembled protesters.

"Aharon Friedman walks around Capitol Hill as a religious Jew," Herzfeld said, mentioning Friedman's job with Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee. "But this is not what a religious Jew does."

Herzfeld reasserted that the community would be there to support Epstein.

Friedman did not appear at the protest. In the past few days, letters have circulated supporting him, arguing that the original custody arrangement was unfair and that Epstein acted in bad faith. Beyond the fact that the two are civilly divorced, the two sides disagree on almost every aspect of the case.

David Butler, a Kemp Mill resident, said he attended the rally because he felt the situation was unjust.

"I feel pretty strongly that what's going on is wrong," Butler said. "It's a generally quiet community, and the interest speaks volumes."

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld is considering holding a demonstration near Rep. Dave Camp's office:

Jon [Traub, Friedman's boss]:

It has been reported to me by your Republican colleagues on the Hill that you, and Dave Camp and Eric Cantor have all been made aware of Aharon Friedman’s refusal to give his wife a Get.

What this means is that even though Aharon and his ex-wife Tamar are Divorced according to civil law (for 8 months now), he is still “chaining” her and preventing her from remarriage according to Jewish law.  This is in effect a psychological terrorism which is brutal and cruel.

Your response to me that “this is not a matter for the committee” is unacceptable and weak.

Great rabbis have investigated this matter personally for many hours and have concluded that Aharon needs to give the Get immediately.

I believe with all my heart that every day he works for you and with you, and for Dave Camp and with Dave Camp, he is a direct reflection upon both you and the Congressman.

It is your ethical and professional responsibility to tell Aharon to give the Get immediately.  If you do not do that you are indeed complicit in his behavior.

Yesterday a rally was held in Silver Spring in front of Aharon’s home and more than 200 people attended.  I do believe it is appropriate to also rally in the vicinity of Aharon’s work place.

I am bccing this to people on the Hill so that this matter becomes more widespread and a topic of every day conversation.  Anyone who has the ability to convince Aharon to give a Get should do so.  It is a great mitzvah to help Tamar receive a Get.

If you and Aharon would like to meet with me in person to discuss this, I am, of course, always available.

Here is a link to more information:

http://www.getora.org/PDF/Silver%20Spring%20Rally%20-%20Friedman.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agunah

Sincerely

Shmuel Herzfeld
Rabbi
Ohev Sholom--The National Synagogue

[Hat Tip: critical minyan.]

 

Comments

[critical_minyan]

what a shandeh these republicans are. its nice to see so many people trying to help this woman out.

[SJ]

Funny how none of these dickfaces who are protesting are simultaniously calling for a fairer custody agreement.

SJ officially supports Mr. Friedman and hopes Mr. Friedman is able to stand strong while the masses of un-fairminded braindead ortho-turds try to pile up on him.

If the idiot braindead protesters were SIMULTANIOUSLY calling for a fair custody agreement and a get, then I'd be more sympathetic to their cause.

[Well what about this...]

10 Tevet, 5771
December 17, 2010
To the Members of the Greater Washington Jewish Community,
We, the members of the Rabbinical Council of Greater Washington, are fully cognizant and aware of the communal concern and polarization of opinions surrounding the dissolution of the marriage of Tamar Epstein and Aharon Friedman. While we truly empathize and understand the feelings on both sides we must follow the objectivity of Torah values and halakhic principles as our guide if we are not simply to react to the powerful emotions of the moment. These emotions, though legitimate, may or may not lead us in the proper direction, while halakhah can always serve as our roadmap in times of trouble.
In that regard and as is appropriate, we and others have been and are continuing to make diligent efforts to facilitate a resolution to this situation and have been gathering the appropriate information so that we could act and comment appropriately. It was only during the past week that we were able to meet with the Baltimore Bet Din (the Rabbinic court that has dealt with this case) to understand their perspective on this issue.
Though some things are inappropriate for a letter of this type there are some points that we wish to share with the community.
First, at this time there is no Bet Din order for Mr. Friedman to give a get.
Second, there is no Bet Din statement indicating a refusal to comply with a Bet Din’s order to give a get (a siruv) that exists at this time.
Third, the Baltimore Bet Din considers the matter of the get to be part of the original case. If a get is requested from that Bet Din they will then rule on that request.
Fourth, at one point, for a period of time, the Baltimore Bet Din relinquished its jurisdiction of the case but when petitioned to reconsider did so and reasserted its jurisdiction.
Fifth, during that period the Vaad took several steps to take jurisdiction but those efforts were halakhically precluded from continuing once the Baltimore Bet Din made its decision to retake jurisdiction.
The Vaad, therefore, hopes for the following and will do all it can to facilitate these steps.
Both parties should return to the Baltimore Bet Din to resolve the issue of the get as quickly as possible.
If both parties agree, another Bet Din can deal with these issues (the Baltimore Bet Din has agreed to relinquish jurisdiction if both parties agree to another venue).
If this agreement is possible we stand ready to help facilitate arranging that change of venue.
This situation has created immeasurable pain and anguish. We hope and pray that the parties will accept one of these alternatives and that we can all see a rapid resolution to this tragic circumstance.

Rabbi Hillel Klavan, President
Rabbi Dr. Barry Freundel, Vice President
Rabbi Dovid Rosenbaum, Secretary
For the Rabbinical Council of Greater Washington

[Shmarya]

Funny how none of these dickfaces who are protesting are simultaniously calling for a fairer custody agreement.

SJ officially supports Mr. Friedman and hopes Mr. Friedman is able to stand strong while the masses of un-fairminded braindead ortho-turds try to pile up on him.

If the idiot braindead protesters were SIMULTANIOUSLY calling for a fair custody agreement and a get, then I'd be more sympathetic to their cause.

Posted by: SJ | December 21, 2010 at 07:40 PM

What makes the custody agreement made by civil court wrong or "unfair"?

Past that, what gives Friedman the right to use a get as extortion for changing the custody agreement?

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Well what about this... | December 21, 2010 at 07:41 PM

In other words, he wants to void the court-ordered custody agreement and the rabbis are, as usual, allowing extortion to achieve it.

[Well what about this...]

Or alternatively, the rabbis are concerned about halachic integrity, Tamar is avoiding the beit din and Ora is using the press (read: you) and the mob to intimidate and "extort" (as you put it) Aharon.

[Shmarya]

Or alternatively, the rabbis are concerned about halachic integrity, Tamar is avoiding the beit din and Ora is using the press (read: you) and the mob to intimidate and "extort" (as you put it) Aharon.

Actually not.

Friedman is trying to get a better custody deal by withholding the get and the rabbis are, as usual, too incompetent to stop it.

He initiated the divorce. He is mandated halakhicly to give the get.

He wants a better custody deal? Convince a judge.

[SJ]

The man says it's problematic, what troubles me is the protesters ganging up on Mr. Friedman without finding out for sure whether or not the custody agreement is indeed equitable.

I simply don't like ganging up on one party in a situation without being informed of the situation and while it appears that both parties are in fact in the wrong.

AT LEAST gang up on both Mr. Friedman and his soon-to-be former wife equally and I would respect that.

I'm against not allowing women to divorce, but as far as gets and divorces are concerened, if the woman wants to play dirty I'm ok with the man playing dirty, as long as no laws are broken by either.

[Shmarya]

what troubles me is the protesters ganging up on Mr. Friedman without finding out for sure whether or not the custody agreement is indeed equitable.

The court already ruled on that.

[SJ]

Courts aren't always right. I do say that this guy can do a better job making his case that it's problematic.

[Shmarya]

But courts are the law of the land, and he brought the case to court first.

[nobody]

If you had your kids taken away from you, wouldn't you use everything in your power to try to get them back? Good grief, you self-righteous a-holes.

[Well what about this...]

First off, in the name of all that is holy can you please set that video up top to play if you click "play" and not go off automatically when you enter the page. Every time I hit refresh I have to pause it and it is annoying.

Second, Aharon did not sue for civil divorce. Your assertion he did is false.

Third, it is Tamar avoiding the halachic process that leads to a get. Aharon is not compelled to give a get until an appropriate bet din says he is. Two batei din that Tamar has applied to in this matter - Baltimore and Silver Spring - both say the Baltimore bet din is where she must seek her get (unless both parties agree otherwise). Yet she avoids it and then, together with Ora, has the nerve to claim that it is Aharon only in the wrong.

Fourth, a secular court could not be expected to realize the implications of requiring a Friday night pick up in one city when the frum husband works 150 miles away. But Tamar knew when she submitted that recommendation to the judge.

Fifth, the court order whose impartiality you cite to, states that Tamar's “indifferent approach to [their daughter] having a mutually rewarding relationship with her father [Aharon] is rooted in spite and is not beneficial to the child.”

Sixth, the order explicitly states the only reason that Tamar gets custody in Philadelphia is because of all the time that passed since she left the marital home. The only reason the time passed is because the parties were both in the midst of proceedings with the beit din of Baltimore. And the only reason those proceedings ended is because Tamar refused the beit din's instructions to sign an agreement that would allow the civil case to drop. In other words, Tamar manipulated the situation that led to the order in its current form.

Finally, the court most certainly did not approve ganging up on Mr. Friedman. That was approved by the goons at Ora. Until this matter I thought Ora was respectable and made efforts to contact both parties before they did their thing. Here they were hanging up attack posters against Aharon before the first contact threatening him.

[Shmarya]

The facts as you state them are interesting.

Perhaps you should share the supporting documents with us so we can ascertain your statement's validity.

[state of disgust]

SJ:
Your assumptions in this case are unfounded. If you have evidence that the civil divorce was unfair, please share it. Otherwise Mr Friedman is asking for visitation rights that a fair and impartial Judge has determined not to be in the best interest of the children. In determining visitation rights Judges have an obligation to determine what is in the best interest of the children, not just the parents.
Assuming that religious courts, which have a poor history of looking out for women and children, is a better arbiter then civil authorities is specious at best.

[John Doe]

I generally agree with many of the sentiments expressed on this website, but you've got this case all backwards. This is a case of a well respected, popular, and well-to-do Philadelphia Yeshiva affiliated family beating up a less-connected person. The wife left the state with the child under the pretense of abiding by the beis din, but then pressed for the court resolution when she saw she could get a good result there. The beis din asked the parties to dismiss the court case and she refused. He went to court only to avoid waiving his rights under guidance from a legal and get expert...Rabbi Yitzchok Breitowitz, whose letter to the community you should now be able to obtain.

The irony here is that the same yeshivish people who ordinarily believe in the issur of going to a non-Jewish court are today citing the Maryland state court in support of pressuring Aharon to give the get. Since when does Reb Shmuel hold of going to a secular court?! Answer: When a family with whom he is close asks him for help.

I agree that the batei-din often cause more chillul Hashem than any two orthodox Jews do in resolving disagreements in a regular, good old state or federal court, but the wife's family are only trumpeting the state court ruling because they won there. Had Aharon prevailed they'd be protesting at his house for not going to beis din.

Here's the ultimate irony -- what the heck does the state court have to do with a get?!? Whether a get must be given is a religious legal question, not a secular one. As far as the state court is concerned, Aharon's done nothing wrong. So, the only proper question is whether he has a halachic obligation to give a get now or whether he may wait for a beis din to finally resolve the matter. According to the local vaad and R. Belsky and others, it seems that Aharon has a right to the beis din's ruling BEFORE giving a get.

Finally, here's one thing we can probably all agree on. These issues wouldn't be a problem if rabbis permitted the use of prenupts (and other rulings) to simply avoid the agunah problem to begin with.

[John Doe]

STATEMENT BY RABBI YITZCHAK BREITOWITZ ON THE AGUNAH
CONTROVERSY
In recent weeks .the community has become increasingly concerned
about the plight of a young woman who was civilly divorced in April
2010 and has not yet received her get.Because my role in this matter
has either been intentionally misstated or inadvertently
misunderstood,I feel it is necessary to offer a clarification. I have no desire to interject
myself in a bitter and emotional dispute nor do I want to engage in possible lashon
hara or rechilus but here are several points to consider:

(1)It has come to my attention that some people are
asserting that I support the refusal of a husband(H) to grant a get to his wife and in fact I
am the counsel actively advising the husband not to divorce his wife.
Nothing could be further from the truth..I have written an entire
book(400+pages) on how agunot can and should be protected.I am
sympathetic to the plight of these unfortunate women and over many
years have devoted much time and effort to do what I could to assist
them. I do not support the right of a husband to withold a get in
order to secure negotiation advantages. I have urged H explicitly
to give a get immediately

(2).At the same time,I believe he has been wronged --he has been deprived of
meaningful access to his infant daughter which is all he seeks to obtain-and I believe it is
essential that a beis din be convened to adjudicate his claims. and create a workable
schedule that recognizes the importance of both parents having a strong bond with their
child. The present schedule of weekend visitation is preposterous and
literally not possible for a shomer shabbos man living in Maryland to
keep.

(3)The allegation that he somehow forfeited his rights by initiating
litigation in secular court is groundless.He went to court because of a
deadline filing that had to be met in order to preserve legal rights in
the future in the event the beis din system broke down..This step was
taken with the stated intention of obeying a beis din decision and foregoing whatever
legal benefits the court proceeding would give him..I know this is the case
because I discussed this with him at the time..This type of legal
action is halachically permissible and commonly practiced.It was never
intended to circumvent halacha and the beis din process. If H was in
error in taking that step,the error was mine(though I do not consider
it an error) for which I take full responsibility..He certainly should
not suffer by my mistake.

(4)There is no conceivable reason why a beis din cannot hear the matter
and come to its own conclusion.And any statement that the beis din’s
hands are tied because of a court decision is equally specious.The
parties are perfectly able to ignore or modify any court visitation by
mutual consent and Jewish law requires that they ignore the court
schedule by agreeing to go to beis din.This is the duty of H and W and
there is nothing in any court order that inhibits them from doing this.

(5)H's behavior in witholding a get is wrong.He is acting totally improperly
-repeat,totally improperly-but his behavior is the pained and
desperate response of a helpless and distraught father to the loss of
his only child through the unilateral decision of the mother to move
out of state.. .Basic morality teaches us that two wrongs do not make a right but the
community should at least know there are TWO wrongs,not only ONE.

(6)This is why I was not an enthusiastic supporter of the rally.(though I did not
voice open opposition).The parties still need to work out
very important details,a proper beis din needs to be constituted,both
parties bear a share of blame for the unfortunate impasse,and
shame/humiliation tactics are not necessarily the best way to break the
impasse.I am unfortunately not in a position to actively work on this
matter and do not want to be embroiled in yet another controversy but
sincerely hope and urge not only that H give a get but that both
parties resubmit their dispute to a beis din as soon as possible,agree
to abide by whatever decision is issued and modify the visitation
schedule accordingly..

May Hakadosh Baruch Hu bring peace to this couple for the good of their
child and may the fires of machloket in all its negative forms be
extinguished,Yitzchak A. Breitowitz
PS I am simply clarifying my position but do not intend or desire
to engage in any debate or discussion about this.I respect the fact
that others may differ strongly with my views but given the fact that I am not
presently involved with this case, I will not be commenting further.[END]

[norm]

I have no sympathy for the wife. If you belong to a religious cult like orthdox Judaism either obey the rules or get out. Its frankly none of secular Jews business what these midevil bearded shaman's do or think. Just another reason not to support any of their institutions, here or in Israel.

It's like a women wanting to be a Catholic priest-if you don't like the rules become a "Pro testant"

[Shmarya]

(5)H's behavior in witholding a get is wrong.He is acting totally improperly
-repeat,totally improperly-but his behavior is the pained and
desperate response of a helpless and distraught father to the loss of
his only child through the unilateral decision of the mother to move
out of state.. .Basic morality teaches us that two wrongs do not make a right but the
community should at least know there are TWO wrongs,not only ONE.

That's the crux of the matter.

Friedman doesn't have the right to withhold the get.

As for his custody problems, the proper place to deal with them would be in civil court.

If the current arrangements use Shabbat to prevent visitation, it would seem to me Friedman would have a strong case, and would have many rabbis supporting him, and I find it difficult to believe a civil court would let stand custody arrangements that force one party to violate Shabbat.

So why isn't Friedman pursuing that route?

[Well what about this...]

I am not against providing you the order but the copy I received was given in confidence. I assume it is a public record though. It was an order/memorandum opinion issued July 2, 2009 in Montgomery County. Case 71624-FL.

That both parties are fit parents is on page 4.

That Tamar "has made minimal efforts to foster the relationship between [Aharon] and his daughter," and the statement I already cited above are 4-5.

That the fact that the daughter was in Philadelphia for 14 months since Tamar left the marital home led to the outcome of the order is page 6.

[Shmarya]

Nothing personal, but if you don't share the entire order and any other documents, then it is difficult to believe you.

[Well what about this...]

I can't send you the copy I have and whether you'll trust me or not I can't change that. I am anonymous here so why should you trust me? Obviously, I am not asking you to believe me about the order though Tamar certainly has a copy as well so if I'm lying they can call me on it. But I'm not lying.

[John Doe]

Shmarya-- I love your stuff but you quoted the best excerpt of Rabbi Breitowitz's letter that favors the wife. Rabbi B says that she's obligated to go to beis din; all but concludes that she manipulated the court process vis-a-vis the beis din process; and provides an ample moral justification for Aharon's actions. If anything Rabbi B's letter begs the question -- how is Aharon supposed to get a religious resolution to his problem WITHOUT the leverage of the get?

You cannot contend after reading Rabbi B's letter that Aharon has not been terribly wronged... I agree that he should give the get for a variety of reasons, but where in God's name was the community and rabbinic outrage when she all but kidnapped his kid! Did Reb Shmuel say, "listen, Tamar, I know that life will be much easier for you at home in Philly, but you made a baby and lived in Silver Spring, so while life sucks as a single mom, you can't move out like that."

And what is the basis for righteous, **religious** indignation about not giving a get -- the entire issue is itself a religious one. And there appears to be significant disagreement about the extent of Aharon's obligation to get give a get at this point.

The fact is only an idiot plaintiff litigates to the point where the former bankrupts the latter. She has left Aharon with no option but the current course. If he were asking for a cash payout, that'd be disgusting and immoral, but all he's asking for is better visitation with his kid. We'd all do the same thing in his situation, although I'd never have bothered with beis din and I would've gotten a warrant for her arrest immediately when she left the state. Aharon's patience and optimism about his marriage in the end cost him.

Bottom line -- many of Aharon's sympathizers are telling him he should give a get. Who is telling Tamar to do the right thing or is she just listening to the echo chamber?

[Shmarya]

I can't send you the copy I have and whether you'll trust me or not I can't change that. I am anonymous here so why should you trust me?

Seriously?

Because you are anonymous and because I have no reason to trust you.

[Shmarya]

You cannot contend after reading Rabbi B's letter that Aharon has not been terribly wronged... I agree that he should give the get for a variety of reasons, but where in God's name was the community and rabbinic outrage when she all but kidnapped his kid! Did Reb Shmuel say, "listen, Tamar, I know that life will be much easier for you at home in Philly, but you made a baby and lived in Silver Spring, so while life sucks as a single mom, you can't move out like that."

Again, I find it hard to believe the civil court intentionally set up custody for him that forces him to violate Shabbat.

Past that, rabbis and beit dins have a very bad track record in the modern era (and probably earlier) with regard to protecting women's rights.

And beit dins do not trump civil court judgments,

So, again, where is the proof the civil court did what you claim it did?

[micaela]

rabbinical courts should change the get law and should give a dead line - one year of separation should automatically grant divorce to the wife .
for what reason should the husband be the only one to grant divorce ?

[IH]

Gevalt! They were married in 2006. Why in God's name didn't they have an RCA Prenuptial Agreement?

http://www.rabbis.org/Prenuptial_Agreement.cfm

No RCA Rabbi should be mesader keddushin without one being signed. Haven't we learned yet!!!

[John Doe]

Shmarya -- I agree with you about the track records. That's why it's amazing that Reb Shmuel and some feminist organizations are on the same side here and that's the part of the story you're missing.

Your contention that "beit dins do not trump civil judgments" is a non-sequitur of the first order. What does your statement mean? Aharon is not in violation of the court order. The issue is a religious one -- is Tamar, pursuant to halacha, required to return to beis din to resolve these issues? Don't answer with the court order because the court has nothing to say about halacha. And if you say that you don't care about the halacha here, well, I don't much care for the rules on the get issue either, but then don't invoke the religious obligation to give a get. You can't have it both ways.

If you're going to invoke Aharon's moral obligation, then what about her moral obligation to allow Aharon more access (read: feasible access) to his daughter?

Finally, let me conclude with a moshul because Jews seem to love them. What if I steal $10,000 from you and then you sue me, but one day late under the applicable statue of limitations. The court therefore dismisses your suit for lack of jurisdiction...you're late after all. Does that mean that my theft of $10,000 becomes approved by the court? Not at all; the only thing the dismissal means is that the court cannot order me to return the money.

Just because a court concludes that, in its assessment, the best of interests of a child lies in allowing the mother and kid to remain in Philly hardly equates to a ringing endorsement of her conduct.

And, again, I ask -- where was the community outrage at her conduct? WHere is the current outrage? If we're talking basic morality, I'd say her leaving town with his daughter is pretty low, along with emailing Aharon's boss. What's up with that? Is the best interest of her daughter really in denying her father a livelihood? There's been no allegation of Aharon's failure to pay child support? Should he lose his job, how will he pay Tamar? Unless the answer is that Tamar hardly needs his money...

Please accept the possibility that you'd do exactly what Aharon is doing in this case.

[John the Baptist]

The Washington Vaad letter seems to be as rational a statement as could be...if both the Baltimore and Washington people are on the same page, and there is a clear path forward (which is to have the Baltimore Vaad finish what it started) why not do that? If the Bsltimore Beit Din issues an order for him to divorce, and he refuses, fire up the protest wagons - that's where this needs to go...

[critical_minyan]

I always trust Rabbi Herzfeld. He always seems to be on the right side of the issue.

If I was the husband, I would give the Get on the condition that if a competent Rabbi rules otherwise the Get is reversed and she is an Aguanah again.

[itchiemayer]

This is the first I have heard about this case. It does not appear to be a slam-dunk, no brainer. Having gone through a nasty divorce, I know what a huge difference the lawyers can make. Perhaps she had a good one and he didn't. I don't know, but I don't think we know the truth in this matter.

It sounds like Reb Shmuel Kaminetzky is a Nogeah b'davar in this matter, so his opinion can be taken with a grain of salt.

[John Doe]

I like Rabbi Herzfeld too. But he is simply misinformed in this case. If Aharon was extorting money, by all means, email his boss. If the court found him to be abusive, and he was still withholding a get, protest, sure.

But, with these facts? And the number of reasonable rabbis on both sides? Where the Baltimore and Washington beis dins actually agree with each other?? Against Reb Shmuel even??

There are simply not enough facts cutting against Aharon to justify emailing Aharon's bosses. That's nuts.

[Menachem Mendel lll]

Nice to see there are some Jews out there take an genuine real interest in the plight of others.

That said, this also demonstrates to what level of some religious,orthodox, Jews of
Frumkite are able to sink to for money, money....money.

Their favorite MO is the Beit Dean vs Civil Court Double Play.

If the distungihsed Beit Din rules in their favour they demand that the remedy be acted upon forthwith.

If the lowlifes of the Beit Din rule against them they say tell the Rabbi to go pull on his sagging scrotum while runnig across the street to file papers in Civil Court for a 2nd kick at the katz demanding justice be carried out forthwith.

Ha'shem punished me to be part of this group of bloodsuckers, scammers and parasites.

As a believer and student of deh toy-reh my Neshuma was recycled and needed to be cleansed. It's gettin' a really good scrub and rise amongst my Jewish brethren.

Moshiach Uber Alles!

[sk]

Perhaps the jerk should get better custody.

If he's such a jerk, the courts will certainly take not of this in future visitation arragements. His behavior is causing his reputation more harm.

Tamar could remarry and have more children.

[ML]

Isn't the simple solution for Aharon to give the get and have his attorney challenge the civil court's judgment (on the Shabbat grounds or whatever grounds he feels unjust)?

Tell me where I'm misguided.

[Jane Doe]

Family court judgments are so fact intensive that they're virtually impossible to overturn on appeal. I believe he already exhausted the appellate options. Which in any event are never foolproof no matter how good you think your appeal is.

[ML]

Family court judgments are so fact intensive that they're virtually impossible to overturn on appeal.

That's not my personal experience. Can you point us to some study or is this just your opinion?

I believe he already exhausted the appellate options.

You believe or you know? Has this been stated by him or his attorneys? Where?

Which in any event are never foolproof no matter how good you think your appeal is.

It really depends, doesn't it? How good have Rubashkin's appeals been? It seems to me that there are appeals and there are appeals. And behold, that's what judges, courts, etc are for, both religious and civil. Everyone in prison must have got a raw deal, huh? A bad lawyer, a bad law, a bad judge. Yep.

[Anonymous]

I can't send you the copy I have and whether you'll trust me or not I can't change that. I am anonymous here so why should you trust me?

Seriously?

Shmarya, see http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=71624FL&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCI

the last line says "The complete case file can be obtained from the Circuit Courthouse." Good reporters go to the source - please get the case file yourself and don't ask some anonymous commenter to do your job.

[Chani]

It is amazing to see each time there is an ora protest how many stuppid gullible people there are out there. I mean come on, anyone with a half a brain can see that Jeremy Stern is the Jewish Al Sharpton. All he knows how to do is just spin a story and leave out the other half. How else is he going to get attention and the $$$? As the saying goes there is a sucker born every minute.

[A E ANDERSON]

From the video, these RCA crazies seem as looney as the Lubavitchers! Is the guy singing some kind of "give me a get" niggun? It's all a bunch of pseudo-mystical claptrap. For all I care, the stupid ex-wife deserves not to get laid for actually believing in this medieval obscurantism. Needless to say, the American legal system has no place to require people to adhere to whacky religious rituals. What if the subject matter were halitzsah (or yevoom, hehe). Would the courts be ordering the brother-in-law to don a funny shoe and let the widow take it off and spit at him? Or maybe order him to shtoop her?!

Sorry if your buddies don't want to play your religion game the way you like it, woman. But damned if we're going to allow America to become a Sharia-halakha state and compel your funny, peculiar religious observances on people who don't want to play your religion game with you.

Again, as I have argued elsewhere, an act of a duly constituted court of law serves, as דינא דמלכותא דינא, as a גט by virtue of the halakha's self-subjugation to the prevailing sovereignty. If the haredim have a problem with that, let them re-enact the principle with 100 rabbis, 1000 rabbis, a Sanhedrin, or a flock of sacrificial goats with a few dozen red heifers thrown in for good measure.

[A E ANDERSON]

These haredi rabbis are such drei-kups!

[ML]

But A E, they are all playing the game. No US court has anything to do with the get. Dude can either man up and give the get, or deal with protests and crazies. It ain't costin' you nothing.

[Well what about this...]

I thank Anonymous who pointed out the case summary online which provides Shmarya access to the documents if he so desires.

1. You can see that Tamar was the one who raised the divorce in civil court in the title to docket 17.

2. The court order is dockets 88 and 89.

[ah-pee-chorus]

regardless of the relative merits of this specific case, one thing is clear. orthodox judaism ,with the torah as their guide, trounces on any semblance of equality for women. the get issue is but one excellent example.
husbands start with 2 bullets. beit din and civil court.
wives have but one bullet. and its a really small caliber bullet.
if they go to civil court , only the husband can win. if the wife wins, he goes to beit din for round 2 before giving a get.
if they go straight to beit din either can win, but considering that those adjudicating are all men, and follow the torah, which is a guidebook for male dominance and female submission, this option is stacked in his favor as well.

yet women choose to remain within this system that considers them property.

[Chani]

As a woman I normally would stick up for the woman but in this case this woman is ruining it for real agunots. ML when someone kidnaps your child and then wages a public campaign against you. Let us see how fast you would be willing to give up your child.

[ML]

I wouldn't.

But it seems quite obvious that the religious issue of the get is quite independent of the custody issue. A bet din cannot over turn a US court. The reverse may be true, and that's irrelevant.

Kidnapped? Is that being alleged?

[Chani]

If this is a religious issue so it should stay with Jewish courts. As for kidnapping leaving the state with your child, without your permission seems like kidnapping to me.

[Sarah]

Lots of bitter and resentful divorced men on this post.

The whole Agunah issue is primeval.

I'd like to know, if the roles were suddenly reversed and a woman were able to halachically keep her ex from remarrying, what her fate might be.

I'd give it two days max before the first death threat arrived with various 'shtarkers' of various denominations hot on her trail.

But hey, men are insatiable right?

Can't let a man go for a week without giving him the opportunity to hunt for a bride.

G-d knows what could happen.

He might rape someone or something and then the crime would be blamed on his ex wife.

I'm dreaming of a mass exodus.

Let all the Orthodox women of the world go forth from their bondage and find amongst the common masses, partners who will love them.

Then in 3000 years time, we can all celebrate the day, when the nation of Israel, was a light unto itself.

[Well what about this...]

Again, I find it hard to believe the civil court intentionally set up custody for him that forces him to violate Shabbat.

What does that mean? It wasn't set up on purpose by the court to force him to violate Shabbat and I don't think anyone is alleging that. On the other hand, in that Tamar's attorney suggested that portion of the order, I and others believe it was their intent to de facto deprive Aharon of those days (which worked).

The judge probably thought he was allowing Aharon 3 weekend a month with his daughter, 2 in Philadelphia and 1 in Silver Spring. The judge explicitly wanted to limit the daughter's travel time which was the basis for the Philadelphia limitation for 2 of those 3 weekends. However because it starts at 6:00pm on a Friday and because it is so far from his job, Aharon could never take advantage of the majority of that weekend option without being mechalel Shabbat. There is no travel restriction on Tamar.

Aharon thereby loses over 36 days a year that he is supposed to have access to his daughter according to the court order because of its conflict with Shabbat laws.

The arrangement has survived one appeal so far.

[Shmarya]

On the other hand, in that Tamar's attorney suggested that portion of the order, I and others believe it was their intent to de facto deprive Aharon of those days (which worked).

The judge probably thought he was allowing Aharon 3 weekend a month with his daughter, 2 in Philadelphia and 1 in Silver Spring. The judge explicitly wanted to limit the daughter's travel time which was the basis for the Philadelphia limitation for 2 of those 3 weekends. However because it starts at 6:00pm on a Friday and because it is so far from his job, Aharon could never take advantage of the majority of that weekend option without being mechalel Shabbat. There is no travel restriction on Tamar.

Aharon thereby loses over 36 days a year that he is supposed to have access to his daughter according to the court order because of its conflict with Shabbat laws.

The arrangement has survived one appeal so far.

Posted by: Well what about this... | December 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM

That tells me two things:

1. The way you represent the case is false.

2. Friedman could, I presume, arrange a place to stay inside the eruv close to his daughter and pick her up that way.

I feel sorry for the guy and for the daughter, but it appears to me there are other issues here that you are hiding.

[Shmarya]

As for who first did what to whom, the record shows that Friedman first went to secular court asking for this:Docket Text: PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED EX PARTE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY, FOR ORDER MANDATING THE RETURN OF MINOR CHILD TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND AND FOR ORDER ENJOINING REMOVAL OF MINOR CHILD FROM MARYLAND, POINTS & AUTHORITIES, CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 1-351 AND ATTACHMENTS, FILED. Generally, the mother is presumed to have primary custody of minor children. In halakha, any child under school age – meaning less than 6 or 7 years old – automatically goes to the mother unless there are strong extenuating circumstances.

In other words, Friedman could not have won the custody issue in beit din. That's why, in part, he went to civil court.

That rabbis want to make the custody more amenable to Friedman is admirable – even though they don't have much in the way of halakha to stand on.

As I noted above, I think there is far more to this story than Friedman's supporters let on. The truth probably lies in those court documents that they all seem to have seen but refuse to share.

You want me to go to Montgomery County near DC to get those documents?

You're out of your mind.

Either share them or admit you're not telling the truth.

[barry]

No beis din should ever involve itself in child custody matters and no civil court should allow a beis din to do so.

In deciding a child's future, the court is meant to act in the best interest of the child. Any attempt by a third party, to undermine that decision by applying psychological pressure on any parent is against the interest of the child and the court should not tolerate such contempt of its decision.

Chani, I agree with you that any parent who had a decision go against him would take whatever steps he could to reverse it. I also understand why the father's employer is reluctant to get involved in an embarrassing mess.

What is inexcusable is that some third parties, a beis din, thinks it has the right to interfere or undermine a judicial finding.

The disturbing part of Rabbi Breitowitz's statement is :-

(4)There is no conceivable reason why a beis din cannot hear the matter and come to its own conclusion.And any statement that the beis din’s hands are tied because of a court decision is equally specious.The parties are perfectly able to ignore or modify any court visitation by
mutual consent and Jewish law requires that they ignore the court schedule by agreeing to go to beis din.This is the duty of H and W and there is nothing in any court order that inhibits them from doing this.
If you feel obligated to do something then you are not doing it by consent.
One of the most important righjts every Jew in the USA has is the absolute right NOT to go to the Beis Din. The Civil Courts must do its utmost to protect that right as it must be cognisant of the psychological and social pressures the community leadership put on individual Jews to give up that right. The civil courts must also not ignore the halachic bias and pre-modern against women. This is especially important when a child's best interests are involved.

As a matter of policy, the civil courts should regard any agreement reached by arbitration or consent by a religious court as prima facia tainted by undue influence and refuse to enforce it. It should not be afraid to hold dayanim as being in contempt of its rulings or require them to compensate those they have wronged by the standards of the civil law. It is the duty of the civil courts to ensure that Jews have the same rights as any non-Jew, in practice as well as theory despite what the rabbis claim

[the usual chaim]

"Isn't the simple solution for Aharon to give the get and have his attorney challenge the civil court's judgment (on the Shabbat grounds or whatever grounds he feels unjust)?"

word. if the ruling is unjust he may go to the court to appeal it. using the get as leverage is unethical even if all the things said in his favor here are true.

[Well what about this...]

That tells me two things:

1. The way you represent the case is false.

2. Friedman could, I presume, arrange a place to stay inside the eruv close to his daughter and pick her up that way.

I feel sorry for the guy and for the daughter, but it appears to me there are other issues here that you are hiding.

Huh? You are forgetting a few things.

Lets say that Aharon's work ends at, say, 5:30 pm in Washington. And that Shabbos begins at 8:00 pm. And you have to build in at least 3 hours for the drive to Philadelphia (which you do ... actually thats not enough time to account for very bad traffic). How do you get there to be within the eruv??? This is even more the case when Shabbos, like now, begins at 4:30pm in Washington. And you also need to build in the time to pick up the daughter and, possibly, strap her into a car to take her to another nearby location, lets say that would only take 20 minutes total but, truth be told, that would probably be even more.

Aharon's job is not the kind where you can just leave at noon on Friday every week.

And, for your information, he knew nobody in Philadelphia BEFORE his name was dragged through the mud there ... its not like he can get a place down the block from her. [And, that also leaves open the question of whether he can actually afford an apartment rent or hotel fees on top of the expenses of attorney fees, child support and his own legal expenses. But lets put that aside for now.]

[Well what about this...]

In other words, Friedman could not have won the custody issue in beit din. That's why, in part, he went to civil court.

No. If those were the reasons Aharon would never have gone to bet din in the first place. Shmarya, you are taking your generic tidbit of halacha and misapplying it to the facts here. Just because you can think of some reason that seems rational to you does not mean thats the actual reason.

Aharon's custody matter was in front of beit din for 9 months. As R' Breitowitz wrote above, he gave Aharon permission to bring a custody case in civil court because not to do so, would totally strip Aharon of his rights in court, particularly if the bet din broke down. Aharon also had a jurisdiction concern that influenced how he had to approach things. Remember he lives in Maryland as did Tamar and Rivka before Tamar made a run for it and that is also the location of the Vaads of Baltimore and Greater DC (i.e. Silver Spring). Tamar and Rivka now lived in Pennsylvania. That meant that if Aharon did not assert his rights in the Maryland courts that Tamar could bring the matter in Pennsylvania, which also would prejudice the outcome against him. Tamar was never willing to waive that right so that Aharon could drop the Maryland case. That ended up being a very important fact. The issues you raised had nothing to do with anything. As it happened, because of the 14 months that transpired from the time she left to the time the case could no longer be kept in beit din, Aharon's case was already severely prejudiced. Had he just gone to civil court immediately he'd have done much better and the court basically said that. Instead he followed the halachic process.

[Well what about this...]

You want me to go to Montgomery County near DC to get those documents?

You're out of your mind.

Either share them or admit you're not telling the truth.

Shmarya, Anonymous told you how to get the documents. If you don't want to go yourself ask a friend in the Maryland area. Or even just call them up to see if you have other options. No one wants to deprive you of access to information. Just remember that we may owe duties other then the duty to immediately satisfy your curiosity.

[Well what about this...]

word. if the ruling is unjust he may go to the court to appeal it. using the get as leverage is unethical even if all the things said in his favor here are true.

Posted by: the usual chaim | December 22, 2010 at 05:50 AM

And that is the opinion of R' Breitowiz. So please, scream and cry over not giving the get but also scream and cry over the terrible custody arrangement.

[Shmuely]

michaela: "for what reason should the husband be the only one to grant divorce ?"

Umm, you're not from around here, are you?

[Menachem Mendel lll]

Sara

RE: "Lots of bitter and resentful divorced men on this post."

Do you really think so?

The only think I'm disgusted with is how Judaism has allowed this type of conduct to continue generation after generation.

Too bad Orthodox Jewish women doesn't have the "balls" to let the man rot without gettin' the get from him.

She should value her life a la pekuah nefesh and marry a Jewish Chippendale type Hebrew and the fuck with the Yiddishkite she valued, believed in and lived by that in the end failed her.

[John Doe]

"Rabbis, including Hershal Schachter and Shmuel Kaminestsky, have ruled that Aharon Friedman must give the get immediately" This is the real story!! Since when does Rabbi's Kaminetsky and Schachter agree on anything? I smell a rat. This has everything to do with power and influence.

[SJ]

>> Your assumptions in this case are unfounded. If you have evidence that the civil divorce was unfair, please share it. Otherwise Mr Friedman is asking for visitation rights that a fair and impartial Judge has determined not to be in the best interest of the children. In determining visitation rights Judges have an obligation to determine what is in the best interest of the children, not just the parents.
Assuming that religious courts, which have a poor history of looking out for women and children, is a better arbiter then civil authorities is specious at best.

I think the actual facts of the case are a better determinant to go on than anyone's word. Friedman says it's not good terms, and yeah he can do a better job saying why.

Chani is right, Tamar Epstein is helping to ruin the perception of real innocent agunot, which years ago already I've been doubting that this exists anyways.

[effie]

I agree whole heartedly with MM3. It's ridiculous for a woman to allow men to have this type of power over them. Get on with your lie and screw the get!

[N]

You want me to go to Montgomery County near DC to get those documents?

You're out of your mind.

That's a good point. Yes, you SHOULD drive all the way to Maryland to pick up the documents, but you can't pick them up until 6:00 PM on Friday.

Just find a place within walking distance of the courthouse where you can stay for Shabbat. Simple, right?

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, Anonymous told you how to get the documents. If you don't want to go yourself ask a friend in the Maryland area. Or even just call them up to see if you have other options. No one wants to deprive you of access to information. Just remember that we may owe duties other then the duty to immediately satisfy your curiosity.

Posted by: Well what about this... | December 22, 2010 at 06:39 AM
Well what about this...

Please.

You made claims based on what you say are the contents of those documents, and you say you have some (if not all) of those documents.

You have made claims based on the documents which you admittedly posses.

Further, you note the documents are public information and that anyone can go to the court house (thousands of miles away from where I live) and get copies.

My point, which you are trying unsuccessfully to avoid, is that you have an ethical obligation to share those public documents, but you refuse to do it.

That makes your claims suspect.

So either put up or shut up.

Share the documents or be resigned to the fact that most people will recognize your refusal for what it is, obstruction, and will assume rightly or wrongly that you are lying.

[Well what about this...]

Well if that was your point I certainly didn't get it. Sorry, I have to disagree. I have no such ethical obligation to give you exactly what you want. The fact that you say I do doesn't make it so. However, I have an obligation not to lie and I haven't.

You are an investigative reporter. I presume you can get your hands on the documents. You know where the document is. You know its identifying code. You know what page to look on. I presume Tamar's side can and will read this blog to and they have access to these documents in their own records. I have no incentive to lie because I can be called on it.

And frankly, I thought you were going to get the documents yourself and I'm a bit surprised by your unwillingness to do so.

[effie]

Oops! Get on with your LIFE...

[Shmarya]

Well if that was your point I certainly didn't get it. Sorry, I have to disagree. I have no such ethical obligation to give you exactly what you want. The fact that you say I do doesn't make it so. However, I have an obligation not to lie and I haven't.

I hope your friend isn't depending on your intelligence to save him.

Process: you cited a court document that you have in your possesion.

You note the documents are public and that I should travel almost two thousand miles to get them but you refuse to share the public document(s) you posses.

You may think your behavior is normal, but it is not.

You look like you're hiding something.

Past that, you made allegations based on the contents of that document (or those documents). Either you share them so we can all see if you are telling the truth or many of us will have no choice but to assume that you are lying.

So, put up or shut up.

[N]

My point, which you are trying unsuccessfully to avoid, is that you have an ethical obligation to share those public documents, but you refuse to do it.

What a load of garbage!
Just because Wikileaks posted classified documents on the Internet doesn't mean that they are no longer classified. They are still protected by all the same laws that protected them BEFORE they were leaked, and it is still against the law for people without the proper authorization to view them.

If "Well what about this..." was given the documents IN CONFIDENCE, then s/he is still bound by that promise not to share them. S/he has no "ethical obligation" to share anything.
Why would s/he bother lying about something that can very easily be verified by anyone who wants to take the time to verify it? What purpose does that serve?

There is a reason ORA is not telling the whole truth. It not only hurts their case, but would hurt their credibility, too.

The bottom line is that she took his child out of the state without his permission, and will only allow him to see her if he violates Shabbat! Why are you supporting that? How is that any different than demanding that he eat a Big Mac before he can pick her up?

[Well what about this...]

Yes, I have hiding a marked up copy of the Order. You caught me. When I told you to get it I had no idea about anything other then it was a public document. I don't even know where you live. BTW, there are companies that get you these documents so its totally false that I had an expectation of you to anything. Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.

[Well what about this...]

To clean it up:

Yes, I am hiding a marked up copy of the Order. You caught me. When I told you to get it I had no idea about anything other then it was a public document. I don't even know where you live. BTW, there are companies that get you these documents so its totally false that I had an expectation of you to do anything. Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.

[Shmarya]

What a load of garbage!
Just because Wikileaks posted classified documents on the Internet doesn't mean that they are no longer classified. They are still protected by all the same laws that protected them BEFORE they were leaked, and it is still against the law for people without the proper authorization to view them.

If "Well what about this..." was given the documents IN CONFIDENCE, then s/he is still bound by that promise not to share them. S/he has no "ethical obligation" to share anything.
Why would s/he bother lying about something that can very easily be verified by anyone who wants to take the time to verify it? What purpose does that serve?

Idiot.

The documents are P-U-B-L-I-C documents and therefore there is no expectation of privacy surrounding them.

The bottom line is that she took his child out of the state without his permission, and will only allow him to see her if he violates Shabbat! Why are you supporting that? How is that any different than demanding that he eat a Big Mac before he can pick her up?

No.

The "bottom line" is that she took H-E-R child home to her parents, that halakha supports that move, and that a civil court granted Friedman visitation that begins at a time that he says forces him to violate Shabbat.

The latter point was appealed, others have said, and Friedman lost.

That tells me that the issue is not as clear as you make it out to be.

And, because claims have been made supporting Friedman based on public documents the claimants refuse to share, one can only conclude that you and other Friedman supporters are, at the very least, inaccurate.

[Well what about this...]

The documents are P-U-B-L-I-C documents and therefore there is no expectation of privacy surrounding them.

Garbage. If I gave my word to someone then I keep my word. As it happens the information therein is not merely the Order which is a 2nd reason I won't send it.

[Shmarya]

The documents are P-U-B-L-I-C documents and therefore there is no expectation of privacy surrounding them.

Garbage. If I gave my word to someone then I keep my word. As it happens the information therein is not merely the Order which is a 2nd reason I won't send it.

Posted by: Well what about this... | December 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Please.

You cited the document and told me to go pick up a copy at the courthouse (which is almost 2000 miles away from me).

It is a public document. Lie it or not, there is no expectation of privacy regarding it.

You may not understand that concept just as you clearly do not understand much else, but the concept is true. In halakha and under civil law, a public document has no expectation of privacy. There is no lashon hara restrictions because it is already considered to be known.

The only claim that could be made is that you should not have cited it because your citation violated a trust.

That claim would not hold up in court or in beit din, though.

So, again, put up or shut up.

Share the document(s) now.

[N]

The "bottom line" is that she took H-E-R child home to her parents

Actually, he took THEIR child out of state to her parents, without his permission. Too bad her parents didn't live in Canada. She wouldn't have gotten across the border without a letter from the child's father giving her permission.

that halakha supports that move
Really? What halacha gives one person the right to KIDNAP another?

and that a civil court granted Friedman
visitation that begins at a time that he says forces him to violate Shabbat.

Oh, that's right. It is only his opinion that Orthodox Jews aren't allowed to drive on Shabbat. The rest of us say it is fine, right?

[Well what about this...]

Shmarya I was above and beyond helpful for you in terms of you being able to find this information. You know exactly what you need to get and where it is. And your only response to whats been given is aggressiveness, hostility and spite because you didn't get the document with a bow tie. Your attempt to browbeat me into providing the document simply won't work. I expected better from you as a journalist. Take a step back and take a deep breath.

[Shmarya]

Oh, that's right. It is only his opinion that Orthodox Jews aren't allowed to drive on Shabbat. The rest of us say it is fine, right?

Posted by: N | December 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Please.

It's his contention that he must break Shabbat to see her, but you and your friends haven't proved that, now have you.

[Shmarya]

hmarya I was above and beyond helpful for you in terms of you being able to find this information. You know exactly what you need to get and where it is. And your only response to whats been given is aggressiveness, hostility and spite because you didn't get the document with a bow tie. Your attempt to browbeat me into providing the document simply won't work. I expected better from you as a journalist. Take a step back and take a deep breath.

Posted by: Well what about this... | December 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM

No.

The truth is that you are not honest enough to share the public documents you probably misquoted.

You're dishonest.

Now slink off.

[N]

Formatting in previous post corrected:

The "bottom line" is that she took H-E-R child home to her parents

Actually, he took THEIR child out of state to her parents, without his permission. Too bad her parents didn't live in Canada. She wouldn't have gotten across the border without a letter from the child's father giving her permission.

that halakha supports that move
Really? What halacha gives one person the right to KIDNAP another?

and that a civil court granted Friedman
visitation that begins at a time that he says forces him to violate Shabbat.

Oh, that's right. It is only his opinion that Orthodox Jews aren't allowed to drive on Shabbat. The rest of us say it is fine, right?

[Shmarya]

that halakha supports that move
Really? What halacha gives one person the right to KIDNAP another?

Halakha grants custody of all minor children below school age (6 or 7 years old) to the mother.

Girls have that custody period expanded to 9 or so.

[P]

Shmarya -
I'm sorry that you live too far away. That must really suck for you.

Let's organize a rally in front of the courthouse, demanding that they hand-deliver the documents to you, because you "deserve" that. Withholding the court documents from you, for any reason (including the fact that you aren't willing to come and fill out the proper form to request them), is unjust, and amounts to emotional torture.

If you want, I could pick up the documents and fedex them off to you.
I just need your mailing address, a credit card number, your date of birth, social security number, and your bank account information.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: P | December 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM

"P" and "N" are the same person.

This is called sockpupeting and it's a big Internet no-no.

Past that, the point as you well know is that your friend has apparently been misquoting public documents that he is refusing to share with us.

When I do get the documents I'll make sure to point out every one of those "misquotes."

[Well what about this...]

I have not been misquoting but it is useless talking to you at this point with your sense of entitlement. You are righteous and I, for protecting a confidence for a MARKED copy, am clearly dishonest. In your eyes at least.

[Shmarya]

I have not been misquoting but it is useless talking to you at this point with your sense of entitlement. You are righteous and I, for protecting a confidence for a MARKED copy, am clearly dishonest. In your eyes at least.

Posted by: Well what about this... | December 22, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Stop whining. Photocopy it and then black out the notes you made. Then scan it and send it.

[corn popper]

Shmarya,
The saddest part of all this, is that someone else's heartbreak and agony is the muckrakers fodder for the day.
Please remember what was quoted above from Rabbi Breitowitz, "but his behavior is the pained and desperate response of a helpless and distraught father to the loss of his only child".

[Shmarya]

I think Rabbi Breitowitz is naive.

[aNonymous Person]

It's his contention that he must break Shabbat to see her, but you and your friends haven't proved that, now have you.

I will try to dumb this down for you as best I can.

1) According to my understanding of Orthodox Halacha, driving on Shabbat is generally prohibited. This is a very important point. If you disagree, then the rest of this post is meaningless to you.

2) Driving faster than the posted speed limit is a violation of the law (federal, state, or local, depending on where it is done). This is also an important point. If you disagree, then the rest of this post is meaningless to you.

3) The laws of Physics must apply (no Sci-fi rocket-ships, or transporter beams, or wormholes allowed. You also cannot yell "freeze" to stop time. It doesn't work that way).

4) Based on the public summary of the court case that is available online, he lives in Silver Spring, MD 20902, and she lives in Merion Station, PA 19066.

5) According to Google Maps, driving between those two locations would require a minimum of 2 hours and 34 minutes (not accounting for traffic, or the multiple bathroom stops that are usually required when traveling with a young child).

6) According to the Candle-lighting times calculated for Jewish Year 5771 by Hebcal.com, Shabbat begins BEFORE 6:00 PM in zip code 19066 from October 22nd through March 11th. So, unless he were able to find a place to stay within walking distance of her house, (and let's be realistic - nobody in that community would be willing to host him for Shabbat - her family would never stand for that), there is no way for him to pick her up AFTER 6:00 PM on any of those Fridays, because he can't take her anywhere without driving (which, according to #1 above, would be a violation of the Halachot of Shabbat.)

7) As for the rest of the year,(when Shabbat starts AFTER 6:00 PM in zip code 19066), there still isn't enough time to drive all the way to Silver Spring, MD 20902, where he lives, before the onset of Shabbat. According to Hebcal.com, the LATEST time that shabbat starts in zip code 20902 is 8:20 PM (and even that is only for two weeks in the summer). Even if he could drive non-stop, and hits no traffic, he would only be able to make it home in time for Shabbat if he were to drive faster than the posted speed limit (which (according to #2 above, is against the law).

8) Working within the bounds of Halacha, the applicable traffic rules, and the laws of Physics, I see no way for him to pick up his daughter in Merion Station, PA 19066, after 6:00 PM on a Friday, and bring her to Silver Spring, MD 20902 before the start of Shabbat.

Please tell me if you need me to clarify any of this further.

[Shmarya]

Please tell me if you need me to clarify any of this further.

Posted by: aNonymous Person | December 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

My. Aren't we so very unintelligent for someone so verbal.

Try to process:

1. You and your friends have NOT produced any documents to back your claims – in fact, you refuse to do so.

2. The court may have ruled that five to six hours of weekly travel was too uch for the child and set custody based on Friedman being in the Phily area.

3. Friedman certainly could find lodgings in the eruv there and that would allow him to keep Shabbat and see his child.

Now toddle off.

[aNonymous Person]

1. You and your friends have NOT produced any documents to back your claims – in fact, you refuse to do so.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't know anyone else on this board, so I'm not sure why you think they are my "friends."
Has ORA produced the documents they claim back up their version of the story? If they did, I haven't found them yet.

2. The court may have ruled that five to six hours of weekly travel was too uch for the child and set custody based on Friedman being in the Phily area.
I haven't seen the court documents, but that is a pretty big assumption you are making. From what I've been told, the custody agreement didn't give him EVERY weekend with her, so there wouldn't be "five to six hours of weekly travel", anyway.

3. Friedman certainly could find lodgings in the eruv there and that would allow him to keep Shabbat and see his child.
Now why didn't I think of that? I better go tell him right now. Perhaps he felt that the community where his ex-wife grew up and is being harbored would not be very "welcoming" to him for Shabbat.
How about you find him a place to stay within the Eruv, within walking distance of her house, and then present that as an option, okay?

Gosh, you really DO have velcro shoes, don't you?

[Shmarya]

Posted by: aNonymous Person | December 22, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Both smarmy and dull, I see.

Process:

1. Friedman's supporters cited publoc documents they posses which allegedly support their position, but Friedman's supporters will not share those documents.

2. Judges often rule that travel is not in the best interest of small children.

3. There is housing available within the eruv.

Now toddle off.

[Carpe Diem]

His salary, like his life, appears to be headed in the wrong direction. http://www.legistorm.com/person/Jeffrey_Eric_Friedman/57001.html

[Shmarya]

His salary, like his life, appears to be headed in the wrong direction. http://www.legistorm.com/person/Jeffrey_Eric_Friedman/57001.html

Posted by: Carpe Diem | December 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Not really. He hasn't been paid for the last quarter of 2010 yet.

[N]

Shmarya -
That was the first sensible thing you've said. Maybe you aren't a completely unreasonable person.

Keep it up!

[Well what about this...]

Shmarya,

When I do get the documents I'll make sure to point out every one of those "misquotes."

You as good as announced you intend to lie or, at least, distort the facts and then you continue to expect me to break my confidence to give you documents. Interesting thought there. I think I'll pass.

I stand by what I wrote. Sounds like you wont be able to say the same.

aNonymous Person |

1. Aharon would leave work from Washington DC, not Silver Spring. That is approximately 30 minutes longer, not including traffic (which would be more significant coming out of DC proper then Silver Spring).
2. He must generally leave after work on Friday afternoon.
3. He must stay in the general area of Philadelphia for the weekend.
4. 1,2, and 3 are not possible if you are Shomer Shabbat even in the summer. Shmarya keeps on talking about the eruv but that is irrelevant because it implies Aharon is already by a final destination at that point.

[Shmarya]

You as good as announced you intend to lie or, at least, distort the facts and then you continue to expect me to break my confidence to give you documents. Interesting thought there. I think I'll pass.

Please.

I have said repeatedly that I do not believe your representation of the documents.

You continue to refuse to share the documents, which only makes my contention stronger.

As for the rest of what you wrote, Friedman lost his appeal on the Shabbat issue, which tells me there is more to the story than you've told us.

Now share the documents or quiet yourself.

[John Doe]

Todays Washington Jewish Week "Currently, the Epstein-Friedman case remains open but dormant, as "neither party has approached" the Baltimore beit din, requesting that it reconvene, according to Rabbi Mordechai Shuchatowitz, a rabbi on the court.

"Right now," he said, "the ball is in [Epstein's] court" because, as the party seeking the get, she is responsible for reinitiating proceedings.

Since the court has yet officially to order a get, Shuchatowitz said, it's "a bit premature" to be holding rallies and other events meant "to pressure [Friedman] because he's not been given his day in court." After all, "you can't disobey something you've not been told to do."

[2 sides to the story]

see -
http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=14039

[John Doe]

"Other rabbinic authorities, however, have backed Epstein, decreeing that once a civil court resolves a divorce, there is no excuse for a man to deny a get.

"Despite the fact that a civil divorce is already final," Friedman is unethically holding Epstein hostage, wrote Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, a dean at the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia."

I though Rabbi Kamenetsky was an Orthodox Rabbi - Do his colleagues on the Mo'etzes know that his views border on Conservadox?

Is this Rabbi Kamenetsky's view in general or does it depend on if you are from Philadelphia? What an absolute disgrace.

He should be kicked off the Mo'etzes for his statement.

[Shmarya]

Other rabbinic authorities, however, have backed Epstein, decreeing that once a civil court resolves a divorce, there is no excuse for a man to deny a get.

"Despite the fact that a civil divorce is already final," Friedman is unethically holding Epstein hostage, wrote Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, a dean at the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia."

I though Rabbi Kamenetsky was an Orthodox Rabbi - Do his colleagues on the Mo'etzes know that his views border on Conservadox?

Is this Rabbi Kamenetsky's view in general or does it depend on if you are from Philadelphia? What an absolute disgrace.

He should be kicked off the Mo'etzes for his statement.

Posted by: John Doe | December 22, 2010 at 02:56 PM

The normative halakha is as Rabbi Kamentsky stated and is agreed to by Rabbi Breitowitz, as well.

It is your ignorance of the halakha that should be made note of.

[John Doe]

Since the court has yet officially to order a get, Shuchatowitz said, it's "a bit premature" to be holding rallies and other events meant "to pressure [Friedman] because he's not been given his day in court." After all, "you can't disobey something you've not been told to do."

Which halacha is it that you are refering to?

[John Doe]

Both the Baltimore Bais Din and Silver Spring Vaad have both stated that Friedman is under no obligation to give a get. What am I missing?