Chairman Of The House Ways And Means Committee Staffer Still Refuses To Give Wife A Get

A social-media campaign is being waged to pressure Rep. Dave Camp to encourage a top staffer to grant his wife a Jewish divorce, and the lawmaker restricted public posts on his Facebook page after a flood of comments about the issue.

Representative Dave Camp (R)

Camp pressed on aide's marital woes
Tim Mak • Politico

A social-media campaign is being waged to pressure Rep. Dave Camp to encourage a top staffer to grant his wife a Jewish divorce, and the lawmaker restricted public posts on his Facebook page after a flood of comments about the issue.

Camp, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, employs a staff member, Aharon Friedman, who is the subject of intense anger from some in the Orthodox Jewish community for refusing to provide his wife with a Jewish divorce decree, known as a “get,” despite the finalization of their civil divorce nearly two years ago.

Friedman, a tax counsel for Camp who has worked for the Michigan Republican since 2007, must consent to the get in order for his ex-wife, Tamar Epstein, to remarry, have additional children or even for her to wear her hair uncovered as unmarried Orthodox Jewish women are permitted to do. Friedman’s detractors charge that his behavior amounts to “domestic abuse.”

The couple have engaged in a bitter custody battle over their daughter.

After the failure of years of quiet efforts in the Jewish community — including a nonbinding request from D.C.’s rabbinical court for Friedman to consent to the get and a national rabbinical court’s “declaration of contempt” against him — Epstein’s supporters have increasingly turned to more public methods, including openly pressuring the congressman to intervene.

The situation is awkward for Camp because it is rare that the personal lives of congressional staffers become political issues for members of Congress. But the influential committee chairman is being dragged into the highly unusual situation now that Friedman’s opponents have decided to thrust it into the public sphere.

Toward that end, an online campaign unfolded last week, encouraging Camp to pressure Friedman to agree to the get.

“We aren’t asking Dave Camp to fire Aharon Friedman. All we want is for Camp to require that Friedman stop abusing his wife. It is a pity to be known as the congressman who employs and encourages abuse of women,” reads a petition that has steadily increased the number of signatories over the past few days. As of Sunday, nearly 1,500 people have signed the petition.

Those supportive of Epstein also rushed to Camp’s Facebook page to demand he intervene.

“Representative Camp fails to recognize that get-refusal is not just a religious matter, but an issue of domestic abuse. Aharon continues to cruelly control Tamar’s life and constrict her freedom,” the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, a Jewish organization dedicated to resolving get issues, said in a Wednesday email to its 3,000-member mailing list.

“We urge you to join our campaign and post a message EVERY DAY from now until Pesach [Passover] on Representative Camp’s Facebook wall,” the email continues.

“Withholding the Jewish divorce is about abuse because domestic abuse, at its core, is about control and restricting the personal freedom of another person,” ORA Executive Director Rabbi Jeremy Stern told POLITICO.

Camp’s Facebook wall was inundated Wednesday and Thursday with posts from those backing Epstein, but many posts have since been removed from the congressman’s page.

On Thursday, Camp’s office turned off a public posting feature on the Facebook page and declined to answer questions about why it did so. Public users can no longer add original posts to Camp’s wall, but can still comment on existing posts.

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, the rabbi for Ohev Sholom, an Orthodox synagogue in Washington, D.C., that serves more than 300 families, told POLITICO that he will go further than the online campaign and intends to write a letter of complaint to the House Ethics Committee.

Herzfeld pointed to House Rule XXIII, which broadly states that an “employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”

“He is acting in a way that is bringing shame to the House, and I think that’s a violation of House ethics rules,” said Herzfeld, who knows both Friedman and Epstein but is not directly involved in their legal cases. “He has chained her to a dead marriage. It’s cruel. It’s just cruel.”

A spokesman for Camp declined to comment, as did Friedman. Epstein could not be reached.

Petition In Support Of Tamar Epstein.

 

Comments

[Eli]

ok, so the ex-wife got a civil divorce finalized two years ago?
here's a novel idea for Ms. Friedman: instead of hounding her ex's employer (which makes her look as bad as him), she could take away his leverage by simply showing she doesn't care about the get, and move on with life. she already accepts that it's wrong that her ex can unilaterally withhold her divorce, so why stick by those rules?
Lady, there's a life beyond those walls.
Here are more radical notions: you don't actually need a get to wear your hair uncovered, remarry, or have more children.

[JesusWasANigger]

What's the husbands side of the story? There's always two sides to every divorce story. I didn't say he's right. Just wondering.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

Eli, what's I learned from my divorce- which, at the time, also involved orthodox issues- is that it's all about hate and anger, and how much you can use the legal system to lash out as much as possible against your ex.
The Get issue is one such convenient excuse for both sides to use to harangue one another.

I don't know how religious the woman is, and if your recommendations would work for someone who psychologically can't break out of the orthodox mindset, even when that mindset is all about controlling her as a woman.

What I do know is that it will be one thing or another with her, in a never-ending crusade to make his life miserable. Today it's the Get. If he granted the Get, she will find another way to hound him. Does anything really think she will be satisfied and stop harassing him if he grants the Get?
Once the Get is given, she will go back to court and demand more money, next she won't let him see the kids, and on and on it will go.

Some ex's talk about how they want you out of their lives, and how they want to 'move on' and be free, but they will never let go of you and will continue to suck all the blood and all the marrow out of your bones.

Until the day she decides to act like an independent human being, this ain't never gonna stop.

Imagine if your ex started a media campaign against your employer in order to intimidate you to agree to a settlement. And that's all this is- an arcane antiquated system based upon a religion that cannot repair itself.

[zibble]

https://www.facebook.com/repdavecamp?sk=wall

[itchiemayer]

I spoke with a professional, modern orthodox woman from Silver Spring, Maryland, who knows these people. She was being very diplomatic about what she said of the parties involved, but her sympathy was clearly with the man.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

Itchiemayer, I know it's been awhile, but a belated congratulations on the St. Louis Cardinal's World Series win!

Too bad about Pujols.

[Dovid]

The Torah itself does not require a Get in order to permit the woman to get married. The idea of a Get is just mentioned in the Torah as matter-of-fact, while telling us the important issue, that a woman may not go back to her first husband, after getting devorced from a second husband. The "Get" in those ancient times, was just a custom, used by women, to prove to the world, that her husband agrees, that she is Free, just like signed receipt.

[Dovid]

Why should a Congressman have to follow the the Rabbis' interpretation of the Torah?

Should he also assert that the sun circles the earth?

[seymour]

Posted by: Dovid | February 28, 2012 at 08:31 AM

that argument won't fly 99.99% of halacha does not say in the Torah not even remotely it is all made up.

of course the powers to be came up with a solution the the problem that almost everything is not in the Torah

halacha moshe m'sina and then they can make up whatever they want and say moses gave it to to Jews but simply decided not to write it down

[effie - actress and model]

Any sympathy I had for the woman I now lost.

[Lubavitchers are Christians]

Why involve a congressman in this? If he fires his employee, won't he be sued on the basis of freedom of religion?

[itchiemayer]

WSC - Thank you so much. Not even the Yankees have won a WS in such a manner. As for Alberto, I believe he has made a very big mistake. He could have been another Stan Musial in St. Louis, beloved and revered forever. In the end he'll still be a Cardinal, but it won't be the same. He's a dime a dozen in the SoCal. His agent is a huge sleezeball who no doubt didn't remind Alberto that the California taxes, and much higher cost of living means he really won't make more money. So there is no more money than in STL, he'll never be in LA what he was in STL, and instead of being Stan Musial, he'll be more like Lou Brock in terms of the love. Still excellent, but he could have been "El Hombre". Alas, the big winner is the agent who gets his percentage off the higher amount of 254 million as opposed to the 220 million offered by the Cardinals which was too much to offer anyway. We did get his best years, so good luck in Anaheim.

[true]

actally lubavitchers are the TRUE christians as tanya supersedes matthew, luke mark and john. it was acknowledged by the supreme head of the the otisville jewish inmates committee at the 2012 election of the supreme head,that gets should be given automatically on a ad hoc basis to the wives of all new olim to the bop who wished to receive a GET. so for dave Camp there is a precedent for him to interfere if his employee ever lands up in the bop system. Hurrah for tanya!!

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

itchie, agreed. He will be to LA what A-Rod became to Yankee fans.

[Waiting4Moshiach]

Torah does not require this man to give his wife a get. End of story.

[njprincess]

".. or even for her to wear her hair uncovered as unmarried Orthodox Jewish women are permitted to do."
Who fed this lie to Politico author Tim Mak?
Everyone 'knows' that haircovering starts immediately after the wedding (some have moved it up to pre-Chuppa) and never ever ends. (I'm not sure if women are buried with their hair covered but certainly until then...)
In any case a mere get cannot undo this requirement. Sometimes when there are no kids, Rabbis will give a heter based on the possibility that the marriage in fact was never consummated but even then might forbid the woman from revealing the name of the Rabbi who gave her the heter. (I personally know of one such case). Of course women on their own sometimes choose to stop covering their hair when they are divorced but before or after a get would have no halachic difference.
If the woman's family is putting this notion out there then it makes the rest of their tactics and story too suspicious for me to take at face vaue. If the woman itchimayer had spoken to in SS had been more forthcoming we might know, but alas...

[Sol]

What's the husbands side of the story? There's always two sides to every divorce story. I didn't say he's right. Just wondering.

Posted by: JesusWasANigger | February 28, 2012 at 08:12 AM

There is always another side, it may be weak but there is always another side. So until I hear it I will not comment.

[Puzzled]

“Representative Camp fails to recognize that get-refusal is not just a religious matter, but an issue of domestic abuse. Aharon continues to cruelly control Tamar’s life and constrict her freedom,”

A string of absolutely false statements. It is entirely a religious matter. What is the source of the get? Religion. Why must she cover her hair? Religion. Who forbids her to get remarried? Rabbis, for religious reasons.

If this is abuse, it is self-abuse. Why listen to this silliness?

As to the absurdity of expecting a congressman to intervene in his employees marriage - his employees are probably the only people in the country whose marriage he has no interest in getting involved in. What would these rabbis say if Congressmen started firing Jewish staffers who refuse to take communion? What if they say "taking communion is not a religious matter - since Jesus really is God, and the cracker really is his flesh, it's a matter of basic decency."

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

Puzzled, I agree with you.

However, no politician wants this kind of publicity. The congressman loses no matter what he does. He will probably pressure Friedman into a 'leave of absence' until this matter is resolved. In other words, the POS ex-wife wins.

[casinojack]

http://privateinvesigations.blogspot.com/2012/02/bbc-report-licensing-scam-run-by.html

has anyone heard about this story yet???

[Eli]

WSC,
once again, we agree, and I also love Puzzled's comment about this being a form of silly self-abuse.
On further reflection, it seems to me entirely inappropriate and abusive to take these private complaints in a divorce to a spouse's employer. What lowlifes Friedman and this "Rabbi Stern" are. (Once again proving the maxim of rabbinical incompetency in matrimonial matters - they don't meddle when they should, and they do meddle where they shouldn't.)
I hope the congressman has the guts to stand up and say that this is a private matter that doesn't concern him.

[Eli]

I just checked ORA's website and they have this to say about their activities:
"ORA works around the clock to ensure that a get is not used as a means of extortion."
Ah, and this letter-writing campaign intended to embarass someone before his employer is what if not extortion?
Hypocrits

[blueberry muffins, hot and warm]

Jeremy Stern do you know the aggravation that Tamar caused Ahron when she walked out on him??? Do you know how she ruined his life? How even she acknowledges that he was never abusive - just that she wasnt interested. Do you know how she ran away with their daughter making joint custody untenable??? So now that hes trying to get a fair shake, and Tamar realizes that Ahron will not blink, and she has become a self made agunah - now shes crying!!!
Horrible horrible scum!!!

Get a life you ORA clowns!

[Steven W]

As a divorce lawyer friend observes:

In criminal law, you have bad people acting on their best behavior.

In divorce law, you have good people acting on their worst behavior.

[Barry]

blueberry, no fault divorce means that one does not need to prove abuse to dissolve a marriage. The courts did not find that she ran away with her daughter. She returned to her home town. The father's beef is that he loses half a day's earnings in travelling to visit his daughter and he wants the mother and child to travel to him or for the mother to live in his hometown which may not be good for the mother's mental well being and therefor for the child. He is being selfish and unreasonable.

The simple fact is that if the husband and wife are from different towns, then on marriage breakdown, the spouse without physical custody will have to do a lot of travelling at great expense and inconvenience to see the children.

[Big talker]

Anyway we can get Obama involved? These are govt employees and he is the top cheese in the govt.

[Leibel Schenkel]

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? BTW, who are the Rabbis of the couple?

[rebitzman]

@Leibel Schenkel

I was just thinking the same thing? This is a religious issue, involving a congressman is simply wrong.

[Shmarya]

Anyway we can get Obama involved? These are govt employees and he is the top cheese in the govt.

Posted by: Big talker | February 28, 2012 at 03:51 PM

Wrong branch of government.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

Also, wrong political party.

[Barry]

If a husband knows his wife has an irrational phobia of spiders then the courts might regard his dropping a little harmless spider into her bath as abuse, notwithstanding that most women would not find this as anything more than annoying.

Likewise the court is entitled to consider as abusive a husband's refusal to give a get notwithstanding that a rational woman would see this need for some piece of parchment recording her former husbands consent as being daft.

[Shlomo1]

WSC and others what with the new addition to your names WSC was confusing enough to get my head around

[itchiemayer]

The woman has the support of Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky although since her Father is a significant giver to the Philly Yeshiva he is certainly biased.

[Critical minyan]

I support rabbi Herzfeld. I'm a big fan. If he is supporting the wife in this dispute, I'm with him.

[disillusioned]

Blueberry muffins,

You are being disingenuous. I know Tamar very well and she absolutely maintains that her ex was extremely abusive. He is a very disturbed individual and she did not leave because she wasn't interested, rather because he is a dysfunctional person. The court awarded her full custody and allows her to reside in Phily - there were no stunts pulled here as some ignorant individuals are stating here. If you don't know anything about the case it's silly to act as if you do.
I think that those who are dismissive of her predicament due to her not receiving a get, stating that she should just rid herself of an archaic system, are being simplistic. You could disagree with her tactics, but the bottom line is that she is a religious Jew and its so judgmental to condemn her for her religious practices.People are entitled to their beliefs and its mean spirited to begrudge them that.
It's interesting that so many of you are so hard on her for putting pressure on her ex's employer. She feels desperate, has appealed to him in many ways on many levels, has absolutely no interest in getting anything from him other then a get, and is a very lovely and kind young woman.Why begrudge a woman for doing what she feels is right for herself and her child? If Rep Camp can't handle some pressure then he is in the wrong business. If he supports Friedman in his mistreatment of Tamar then he will keep him on, but if he recognizes that Friedman is behaving cruelly then he can take action as well. After everything that she has been through because of this sick individual, she has a right to take some dramatic steps in order to get a get.

[Yoel Mechanic]

Whenever I hear about these "refusal to give a get" I wonder: until there's a get, the man is 100% married too. Therefore he is 100% obligated to provide support for the wife as stipulated in the ketubah. So how does that work? Is this woman still getting all her support from her husband?

Second, if he marries, then he will have two wives, but today, doesn't that require a difficult to obtain heter from 100 Rabbis? Even if he got that, he still has to support both wives. Do the Rabbis who sign on to the heter enforce that?

Now, if the guy doesn't care what Jewish law says, once there's a civil divorce he can remarry under US law. Does this mean the Rabbi will continue pestering him to support his actual wife according to Jewish law?

[mark G]

YOU ALL DONT REALIZE THE GAME THAT THE WOMEN PLAY. THEY STEAL THE MONIES AND CHILDREN IN CIVIL COURT AGAINST HALOCHO AND THEN CRY FOUL PLAY WHEN HE DOESNT DELIVER A GET WHEN SHE SNEEZES. TAMAR YOU NEED TO REVERSE COURSE AND DISCONTINUE YOUR COURT ORDERS AND START FROM SCRATCH THE TORAH WAY!

[disillusioned]

Mark G

You are ignorant. Tamar was absolutely with in her halachic rights to take Friedman to court because he initiated the court proceedings. Why do you rant about something that you know nothing about and in uppercase letters?! Tamar is doing everything the Torah way and the legal way and the ethical way. Those who disparage her do so out of ignorance of the case and of what a special person she is.

[njprincess]

Why begrudge a woman for doing what she feels is right for herself and her child?
by: disillusioned | February 28, 2012 at 08:21 PM

What about when a spouse runs off and moves to their hometown in a foreign country? Would that be OK? We've certainly seen that here in NJ. What about when a spouse decides they no longer want to be religious because they feels it is right for themselves and for the child? Since when is a unilateral decision like that supported because "she feels" it is better? Most of the stories that I know, its the State of the "domicile" of marriage not where one partner grew up -thats weher the kids are expected to live. I may be wrong but sounds like she agreed to move to Silver Spring and have kids there so what right does she have to move back to her hometown? I know more than one person in more than one state that was forced to stay in the ex's hometown to enjoy joint -custody - always without their parents around. You say the court awarded her full custody. I am wondering if that was a default judgment or if the husband actually defending himself in a "foreign" jurisdiction after she ran. That would definitely make a lot of difference. Most importantly, you did not address my first posting. If she has Rabbi Kaminetzsky as a supporter, surely she knows that with a child, she will always have to cover her hair, get or not, so why is that listed as one form of the "abuse"?

[Eli]

If Rep Camp can't handle some pressure then he is in the wrong business. If he supports Friedman in his mistreatment of Tamar then he will keep him on, but if he recognizes that Friedman is behaving cruelly then he can take action as well.
Posted by: disillusioned | February 28, 2012 at 08:21 PM

Disillusioned, normally I respect your views, but this is just wrong. Camp is an employer, not a civil court judge. This letter writing is a form of harassment that diminishes her case and makes her appear the bully and abusive one. It's extortion.

[disillusioned]

What right does she have to move back to her hometown? Well I guess you would have to take that up with the court that said that she has that right. They observed the unstable behavior of Friedman and ruled accordingly. Regarding to the interesting scenarios that you described with spouses running off and moving to foreign countries or deciding to quit being religious - those are interesting cases but have no similarities or bearings on this sad case. We have a legal system in this country - it is not perfect and you could look into the details of this case and why the court ruled as it did and then perhaps take issue, but until you know what the court knows, you are ignorant. Being ignorant about the case is not bad in and of itself of course, but having opinions about Tamar's actions based on ignorance is just bizarre.
Regarding the comment about her having to always cover her hair being some sort of abuse, Tamar cannot be responsible what silly bloggers write. She would cover her hair even if she got a get, as most "black hat" types do. Friedman is a member of a select group of losers in the world who withhold gets from their wives just to continue the same kind of intimidation and abusive behavior that they perpetrated during the marriage. It is abusive to withhold a get? I don't know, but it's pretty low and shameful.It takes a special kind of guy to have such little shame.

[ultra haredi lite]

Disillusioned,
Aron Friedman is NOT a disturbed individual any more than you are. And if after all the lovely tzadekes Tamar put him through he was a little disturbed that would be perfectly normal.

[njprincess]

once again:
Why begrudge a woman for doing what she feels is right for herself and her child?
by: disillusioned | February 28, 2012 at 08:21 PM

the scenarios I presented were to show you that what you wrote about begrudging a woman doing what SHE (emphasis added) feels is right for herself and her child would certainly have its limitations, even for you. I would definitely agree that if a court actually found him to be abusive you would be right - thats why I questioned if he did in fact defend those charges or was that a default jugdment? Believe me I've heard worse. There's a case of the frum father accused of sexually abusing his children. He either did not have the money or the inclination, or both, to defend those charges so all visitations for the longest time had to be supervised. When he finally hired a lawyer, those charges were overturned. When someone is sued in a jurisdiction away from their home and employment it becomes significantly more expensive to properly defend. I have NO IDEA whether he abused her or not, I just wanted to know if the court actually found him to have abused her or if this accusation went undefended and was therefore a default.
One last thing - she cannot be responsible for bloggers comments but it does seem odd that on the list of abuse was the fact that she must cover her hair UNTIL she gets the get - not what you wrote. Maybe somehow that was the blogger's mistake. Maybe not....

[disillusioned]

Eli,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that but let's not use terms that are dramatic and even misleading. To use the words Tamar and bully in the same breath makes me laugh and if you knew Tamar you would understand why. Extortion according to Dictionary.com is
"to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like".
There is no force, torture, threat, intimidation involved here. Simply a woman whose supporters are trying to help her by appealing to someone through letters. Camp is a big boy - he can look at the merits of their campaign and act accordingly. As a teacher, I would be annoyed if parents began a campaign to get me to assign less homework. But I wouldn't label it intimidating or bullying behavior. I would determine if there was any merit to their arguments and act accordingly. Perhaps these parents feel like they tried appealing to me in more gentle ways and that I was unreasonable. I may not like it, but they would have the right to write me lots of letters.
Tamar is simply doing nothing wrong here. You don't have to agree with her tactics but she is entitled to do what she feels is necessary.

[disillusioned]

njprincess

I don't know exactly what it was about Friedman's behavior that the judge saw that made him rule the way he did. I do know that Friedman tried everything in his power to contest Tamar's claims. But he acted in ways in front of the judge which influenced the judge's ruling. He is not well man. Regarding the wig thing,I see what your saying - it's included in the article as things which are considered "domestic abuse". What can I say? I know Tamar and she would get a big laugh about that characterization. Like I said, she would wear the wig even if she did get a get. It is so not the point here -she just wants a get so that she could get on with her life - it's that simple.

[Eli]

Disillusioned, no, I don't agree with her tactics, which undermine any sympathy for her argument. Ends don't justify means.
This is intimidation and threats. "We will embarrass you in the eyes of your employer unless you do what we demand."
The article says they intend to escalate the intimidation. "Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld... told POLITICO that he will go further than the online campaign and intends to write a letter of complaint to the House Ethics Committee.
“He is acting in a way that is bringing shame to the House, and I think that’s a violation of House ethics rules,” said Herzfeld.
The hypocrisy of the rabbinate. They should be addressing the problem of allowing a husband to withhold a get instead of spending time harassing in the name of their asinine rule.

[disillusioned]

Eli,
I have no use for the rabbinate. When I left my husband,I felt like I had to be a good Jewish girl and go through bais din for child support, custody, etc. Thank God, my ex had an uncharacteristic moment of weakness and gave me a get a year after I left (I think he just really wanted to get married which he did very shortly after our divorce.)Once I got my get I went to court (Don't worry - I had a psak to do so!) and got the custody and child support that I would NEVER have gotten in a bais din. People can't understand the pressure of the community on women in these situations and they say things like "they should be addressing the problem of allowing a husband to withhold a get...." It's like saying "they should be addressing the problem of the mafia's violent and criminal behavior..."
If Tamar has one Rabbi like Herzfeld who is supporting her through this dark time, I am happy for her. But he is no match for the mafia, I mean rabinate, and he knows it.
Believe me, just leaving my husband took a huge amount of courage on my part in the face of a closed minded community and mean spirited and misogynistic rabbis. The process that I went through with rabbis until I got my act together and went to court was humiliating on many levels. The rabbis break your spirit and have a way of making you feel like you're the crazy one. I agree with you that the rules are asinine but they are what they are right now. And I find it interesting that you are so offended by a peaceful campaign by Tamar's supporters. There is no intimidation and there is no threat - If Friedman did nothing to be embarrassed about then he should not be embarrassed. But if he acted shamefully then he should right the wrong that he perpetrated.

[Talking Donkey]

When did the judge give Tamar sole custody? From everything I've read, the judge issued a "joint" custody decision, albeit one that limited Aharon's rights to a couple weekends a month, largely in Philadelphia, with the start time after Shabbat. There's no indication, from what I've read, that this decision stemmed from "abuse." Instead, he just had to pick a side and - in custody decisions - the woman usually wins. Quite frankly, it sounds like both sides have been asses. Tamar absconded with his daughter in the middle of the night, and fought for a custody decision that deprived him of a meaningful relationship with his daughter. And Aharon has abused the get process, because he sees it as the only leverage he has.

[Eli]

Dis, I think we agree on many levels and I certainly feel for your predicament even while regarding the rules themselves as absurd.
Where we part in our views, and where I lose respect for Tamar, is in bullying tactics, which I do not regard as peaceful. What if she protested child support amounts, alimony, or visitation rights? Would it be right for Camp to pressure him to see his child less or pay more? He's not a judge. And public campaigns are not about deciding what is right, but forcing someone to capitulate to public pressure.
I don't know either of the parties, but I would have had a sympathetic opinion of Tamar but for her shameful tactic on this.

[Michael]

Eli,

I think it's ridiculous to call Tamar's tactics shameful or bullying. I can imagine, and I'm pretty sure it was done sometimes, in the old days of the Shtetl men who were withholding a Get would be treated the same way by local town members "Give the Get or no one will buy your milk Tevye" etc. This is real life, how would you like a life sentence put on you so you could never marry again?

What is really shameful is not giving a woman a Get - it says everything about the person withholding regardless of what kind of woman she is. Since the Rabbinate does little or nothing to help any tactic is fair apart from violence etc. It's easy to call Tamar a bully in the comfort of your living room - it reminds me of how liberals want to have a "dialogue" with terrorists. But guess what, the first step after dialogue is sanctions, which try to make the terrorist stop by affecting his or her pocketbook! Exactly what Tamar is trying to do.

[Shmarya]

Actually, until relatively recently, beit dins used to beat husbands until they gave the get.

[Proton Soup]

i don't understand their position here. if the matter concerned muslims and sharia law, then Camp would receive criticism for getting involved.

[ultra haredi lite]

Talking Donkey, spot on!

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

Talking Donkey, you have wisely summarized the entire matter in one cogent paragraph.

Eli, UHL, NJPrincess, Proton Soup, all excellent.

Disillusioned, your lengthy ramblings are filled with lies, distortions, and disingenuous drek.
It wouldn't surprise me if you were one of the orchestrators of the underhanded tactics currently in progress against Aharon Friedman.
To bitter divorcees like yourself and Tamar, every man is 'abusive'. If he doesn't hand over his life savings, he is 'abusive'. If he doesn't hand over every paycheck, he is 'abusive'. If he wants visitation rights with his kids enforced, he is 'abusive'.

You want your ex to do the right thing? Then YOU do the right thing. LET HIM SEE HIS KIDS. Want to get a man angry, so you'll never see a Get? Don't let him see his kids.

I'm sure you have no problem depositing the alimony and child support checks that you get each month. And of course, every penny of the child support goes to the children [sarcasm].
I'm sure you'll have no problem next year, crying on the courthouse steps, saying you can't make ends meet, and you need more money from your ex.

Perhaps, Disillusioned, you can bullshit some of the folks here who haven't been through divorce, but to those of us who have, you are just an empty barrel.

Disillusioned and Tamar, resign yourselves to the jdate junk pile, because that is your destiny.

[mark G]

Disillusioned , do you agree though, that had Tamar been the first to go to court that this action violates Torah Law? There are countless open cases now across America that are documented, that the woman against halocho went to court, yet ORA is harrassing the man????? Can you explain that? Of course not since ORA does not have a chartet of ethical rules they follow. RATHER THEY HARRASS ANY MAN THEY SEE FIT DEPENDING ON BRIBES THEY RECEIVE!!THEREFORE YOU ARE THE NAIVE ONE THAT DOESNT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EVIL WOMEN EXIST!!!!

[Eli]

Hey, ya'll... to be clear, I think the rules of giving a get are equivalent to 18th century and earlier civil law that treated women as chattel (rape used to be a property crime that only husbands or fathers could assert). I also don't see any problem with a rabbi directly pressuring a husband to give his wife a get.
What I'm against is taking a private divorce dispute to either spouse's employer, and asking the employer to decide a matrimonial matter involving their employee and try enforce it. It's wrong.

[true]

Eli, you are quite right.

[rebitzman]

Actually, until relatively recently, beit dins used to beat husbands until they gave the get.

They stopped?

[B. Levi]

To those stating that Aaron was abusive.
IT so happens to be that AF is in possesion of a letter that Tamar wrote debating whather to leave or stay in which she lists as reasons for staying the fact that AF was a great husband and father.
When this letter was shown to Rabbonim one told AF.
THe letter is in her handwriting and privatley she has not even tried to dispute it.

[disillusioned]

WSC,

Wow, you sound like you could use some anger management. What's the problem? Can noone have an opinion that differs from yours without your viciously attacking them? Seriously.
Happens to be I have nothing to do with the campaign to pressure Rep Camp, although I find nothing at all wrong with it and if it helps Tamar get her get then I applaud those who are running it.
I get the feeling that perhaps you got pretty burned by divorce and that is a shame, but again if you would deal with your anger...
It's true that some people call their exs abusive when it is not true. But that does not mean that it is never true. And yes I am absolutely thrilled to deposit the child support checks each month (no alimony) because my kids deserve it and it is their father's obligation legally and ethically to help provide for them.
Even though you're so mean, I sort of feel bad for you - why don't you read other posts by people who disagree with others and you could learn how to debate with maturity and logic, rather than with so much venom - it comes across sort of messed up.

[disillusioned]

Levi,

If such a letter exists, and that's a big if, it doesn't impress me. Such a letter could be completely taken out of context and misconstured. What matters is what Tamar's experience was. It's not important whether the readers here believe that Friedman was abusive. Victims of abuse are frequently not believed- that's part of the deal. But in either case, she wanted out of the marriage and he made it as hard for her as possible. Its so silly to say that she has not disputed a letter in which she supposedly says that her ex was a saint of a husband and father. I know Tamar very well and as hard as she tried to see the good in him, she knew that he was very troubled and his actions since the divorce have only reinforced that knolwedge.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

Disillusioned, not one word from you on this thread, including 1:42, contains anything other than lies and blatant distortions. You have no credibility. You obviously have an ulterior motive here, and that is to spread the lies about your friend Tamar.

When your 'opinions' are nothing but propaganda for your friend, I cannot recognize it as an honest difference of opinion.
You think you can outsmart everyone here, but as I said earlier, you are like an empty garbage can being dragged up the driveway- just a lot of noise.

And don't worry about me, dahling. Living well is the best revenge, and I'm doing mighty fine.

So why don't you and your little circle of bitter ex-wives run along and find someone stupid enough to listen to your annoying bullshit.

[disillusioned]

Mark,

Yeah, according halacha a woman is not supposed to go to secular court unless the husband first takes her to court - then all bets are off. Also, if husband demonstrates that he will not listen to a bais din's rulings as my ex did, then a woman could get a psak to go to court.
I guess I am naive in some things as you accuse me but I do recognize the fact that there are women who do evil things and are in the wrong in these types of cases. However, that simply is not the case with Tamar. She has done nothing wrong.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

1:42
"I have nothing to do with the campaign to pressure Rep Camp"

1:50
"I know Tamar very well"

[disillusioned]

WSC,

I do know Tamar very well and I don't have anything to do with the campaign - the two statements can coexist.
But I take it back - I don't feel bad for you - your'e just mean and grouchy.

[Ari]

Man this is frustrating to read. I live nearby and have researched this case thoroughly. I even called Friedman directly to get his side of the story; I was somewhat impressed, until I took those claims back to the other side and was shown black on white lies and distortions.

AF is a Harvard-educated attorney; don't you think he knows how to spin a situation? The fact is that many mediators, courts and batei din have all come to the same conclusion; the ENTIRE rabbinical establishment in DC has come to the same conclusion (Rabbi Breitowitz - also a legal scholar - was his ONE supporter locally and even he retracted with a PUBLIC letter); big rabbonim in NY have come to the same conclusion, even those that originally supported him (including one who was ready to be mesader a get when AF went to "the bathroom" and then just didn't come back).

I can't imagine the pain of what Tamar is going through; but I doubly cannot imagine the pain of being dumped on by anonymous complete strangers who have no idea what is really going on.

This is definitely a disturbed individual and all that smokescreen stuff about custody has been visited and revisited a thousand times. There have been myriad adjustments, proposals, revisions, and the fact is he is totally inflexible in every regard- b/c he doesn't want a resolution, he wants to preserve this power.

Tamar's father was actually on his death bed; his one dying wish was to see his daughter given a get. The local Rosh Yeshiva pleaded with Aron to comply...nothing!

People, PLEASE actually do some homework and talk to both sides, learn the actual facts on the ground and don't just speak from your own emotional biases, negative personal experiences or voyeuristic perspectives. These are REAL PEOPLE here and words can hurt terribly. They crush the victim and embolden an abusive (yes, emotionally abusive) person.

[disillusioned]

Talking donkey,
Sorry – I thought that it was referred to as full custody. Tamar was awarded much more custody than Friedman who has visitation so I thought that like in the state that I live in that was called full custody. For example, my kids go to their father every other weekend and once a week and I have what is called full custody.
The judge ruled according to what he thought was in the child's best interest. He did not order Tamar to move back to Silver Spring. I'm sure that this had nothing to do with the abuse in the marriage, which is always extremely difficult to prove when it happens, but I do know that Friedman is weird and behaved strangely and inappropriately in court. Perhaps that factored in to the judge's decision.
Regarding judgment of Tamar's "absconding" with the child, if you were to pretend that Friedman was in fact severely abusive emotionally and verbally and you understood the literature that explains that this kind of abuse is in fact worse in some ways than physical abuse, you may support a woman taking her child to safety and out of harm's way. This blog is not the place to discuss the kind of hell that Tamar was going through and you don't have to believe that there was abuse involved (victims of abuse are often not believed) but clearly even you would agree that if theoretically a woman was suffering extreme abuse, she would have no option but to "abscond" with her child. I would imagine that you would even support her decision.
Therefore a woman's decision to leave with her child is not by definition a bad thing to do, rather it could be the only thing that a good mother could do. Alternatively, a man holding back a get from his wife is exactly what you called it - abuse of the process. Like Ari pointed out, Tamar has offered a tremendous amount of flexibility
around the custody but that is not what it’s about for Friedman - for him it's all about the control.
Ari,
I'm so glad that you posted and I agree that it is so frustrating and even painful when people who do not know the facts berate Tamar so harshly. But the bottom line is they do not know the truth and if they did their posts would sound very different.

[Eli the yet another total stranger but also a sensitive guy so be gentle, ok?]

Ari, I stand by what I wrote. The end is noble, and rabbinical pressure on the person in question is ok as a means. A media campaign to a person's employer to get the divorce you want is not.
No one seems to have addressed the issue of ends not justifying the means.

[Eli]

"Therefore a woman's decision to leave with her child is not by definition a bad thing to do, rather it could be the only thing that a good mother could do."
Actually, if done without the consent of the other parent or a court order, it is called child abduction and it is a felony.
There are too many examples of disturbed women kidnapping and harming her own children.
Not saying in this case, just that the notion that mom knows best is not always a sound assumption.

[Ari]

I hear that point and I wasn't involved in planning that. But at the end of the day, what recourse do they have? The man is completely impervious to other means.

There does seem to be precedent given what R' Herzfeld has cited from the House ethics rules guide.

I agree that it is sticky and it brings up church/state questions, but if it can be effective I think it's worth being "meikil" on that. No one is beating him up or threatening the Congressman, just organizing a peaceful petition campaign to a congressman, which would seem to be well within our first amendment rights. Camp is free to make whatever choice he sees fit with regards to his employee.

[disillusioned]

Eli,

I addressed your concern about the ends and the means earlier. But you didn't respond. I explained that to my view campaigning for something aggressively is a person'r right. (Feb 28 11:06).
I don't understand why you have a problem with someone going to an employer and asking for help with such a serious issue - he could tell Tamar's supporters to go jump in the lake or he could examine their claims and be swayed to act. There is no intimidation, extortion, bullying, etc. There is just nothing wrong to the means here. Clearly it offends your sensitivities and I am really trying to understand why.I'm a pretty tactful and sensitive person who abhors intimidating tactics used by anyone, including teachers, parents, etc. But writing letters to someone who may be in a position to help is fair. Also for arguments sake, lets say that it isn't the nicest thing to do (I don't feel that way but let's just say) - if you understood the kinds of things that Friedman has done throughout this ordeal, wouldn't you be more forgiving of a means that is less than ideal. Like another blogger pointed out - you can't negotiate with terrorists.

[Eli]

Ari, my point is not that his employer is a congressman, just that he's the employer, not a judge.
I'd say the same thing if he was the CEO of IBM and the husband worked in the tax department.
I lost respect for her argument.
Her real complaint is not her ex but the archaic and misogynistic rules applied to obtaining a get.

[disillusioned]

"Actually, if done without the consent of the other parent or a court order, it is called child abduction and it is a felony."
You're wrong. A parent is absolutely allowed to take a child out of town without the consent of the other parent and it is not abduction or a felony. I know this because when I was concerned that my husband was going to do that very thing, I was told that he was absolutely allowed. Also if it was a crime, Tamar would have been in a lot of trouble instead of getting custody.
I agree that Mom does not always know best (God knows mine didn't!) but this mom, Tamar, knew best when she did what she did.

[disillusioned]

Actually, if done without the consent of the other parent or a court order, it is called child abduction and it is a felony.
This is wrong. A parent is absolutely allowed to take his/her child out of town without the consent of the other parent and it is no crime and no felony. If it was then Tamar would have been in a lot of trouble rather than getting awarded custody and allowed to stay in Philly.
I agree that Mom does not always know best (God knows mine didn't) but this mom, Tamar, knew best when she did what she did.

[disillusioned]

Sorry about the double post - it didn't seem to have successfully posted the first time.

[Eli]

Dis, you may be right. Whether parental abduction is a felony depends on the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_child_abduction
As for harassment via employers, I do have a personal view and reasons to know how wrong and manipulative it is. In my job I see this occurring occasionally, usually by ex-wives, and I've learned that upper management doesn't care about who or what is right. They just want the problem to go away.

[Zefardeoh]

What sort of crazed peopel want their "marriage" and divorce debated on blogs and in the media ?

[Dr. Kenneth C. Tennant]

Please give her the Get. I need Mr. Camp to answer my request to have SSA's Debra Bice re-open my ssdi case & correct the clear & unmistakable errors. I believe there is good cause: The SSA's med exam determined disability in 1991. The Dept of VA rates me as a 100% Service-Connected" disabled veteran (1987 is when the DoD injected me with harmful experimental vaccines that caused multiple conditions/disabilities, without Disclosure or Informed Consent, contrary to the rule of law (Nuremburg Code) My family deserves better and the Citizens of the US deserves honest services. - Kenneth Tennant, Bettendorf, Iowa