Friday, July 4, 2014

Rivky Stein & Yoel Weiss: Mill Basin beis din overrules Rav Moshe Feinstein, Gemora & Shulchan Aruch

One of the many problematic aspects of Rivky Stein's campaign against her husband is the "psak" she received from a beis din which calls itself the Mill Basin Beis Din. Despite the fact that nobody has come forth and said they know it exists and or even that they recognize its dayanim - there is a bigger problem. After sending Yoel Weiss requests to appear before them their "psak" claims he refused and therefore they heard one side - Rivky's - and on the basis of that "poskened" that Yoel was required to give a Get. If anyone one has sources that such a procedure is valid - please let me know.
=========================
Psak of Mill Basis Beit Din

Whereas the Beit Din, after three weeks since the respondent husband's refusal to appear for a Din Torah, sent the respondent as a courtesy a fourth Hazmanawhich provided him with a final opportunity to appear before the Beit Din at a convenient location situated in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and where the respondent husband was advised within the said Hazmana that should he again fail to appear that the Beit Din will proceed in his absentia; and Whereas the scheduled time set forth in the Hazmana passed, and the Dayyanim of the Beit Din after having allowed a sufficient grace period for the respondent husband to appear, and where the respondent husband again failed to appear before the Beit Din andlor request an adjoumed date; the Av Beit Din in the absence of the respondent husband called the Beit Din to order, and asked that the claims of the claimant wife be presented; and The Beit Din after hearing the claims of Rivka Stein, the claimant wife, and the Beit Din finding her claims credible, and there being no person appearing on behalf of the respondent husband to refute or contradict the claimant wife; the Beit Din rules as follows:

1. The respondent husband, Yoel Weiss is obligated (Chayiv)to issue immediately a Get to his wife, Rivka Stein, the claimant herein, with the entire cost of the Get process to be paid by the respondent husband, Yoel Weiss, and with the cost of said procedure set at no higher than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00); and
2. That Yoel Weiss, the respondent husband, within twenty-four hours after service of  this Beit Din Psakupon him by either personal service and/or via email, shall deposit with the Beit Din the sum of $1,000.00 for the Get cost in the form of a bank check [...]
  ====================================

While leafing through the Igros Moshe this morning I found a relevant teshuva.(C.M. 3:3)....Question: You ask regarding a psak which was given by a certain beis din regarding a dispute between two parties. After the psak was given, one of the disputants went to one or even before all three of the dayanim and claimed  that his opponent was not complying with the psak of the beis din. The judge or judges accepted this as true without even calling his opponent and asking him about it. Consequently they wrote a seruv against the one who they believed was not complying with their psak.

Answer: In response, it is obvious and self-understood that there is no justification or authority for the beis din to write a seruv under these circumstances. The halacha is explicity stated in Sanhedrin (7b) and explicitly paskened in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 17:5) [that a beis din can not pasken in a dispute without both parties being present]. Because this is blatantly obvious there is really no need to waste time in further discussion of this matter....


אגות משה (חושן משפט חלק ג סימון ג): - ברבר כתב סיריב שניתן במעמד צד אחר
בע"ה ר"ח כסלו תשמ"ג בנוא יארק,
למע"כ ידידי וחברי מחותני הרב הגאון מוהר"ר אהרן יפהן שליט"א, בברכת שלום וברכה וכל טוב סלה,
אחדשה"ט,
נצטערתי לשמוע על מחלתה של הרבנית שרה יפהן תחי' וכולנו מתפללים שהשי"ת ישלח לה רפואה שלמה, ונא להגיד להרבנית אודות דאגתינו ותפילתינו.
בקשר למה שכת"ר שאל אודות פסק דין שנתן איזה בית דין בדבר סכסוך שהיה בין שני צדדים, ואחר נתינת הפסק דין, הלך צד אחד לפני אחד או אפילו כל הדיינים, וטען שהצד שכנגדו לא ציית להפסק דין, והדיין או הדיינים קבלו טענתו בלי אפילו לקרוא להצד שכנגדו לשואלו אודות זה, ונתנו אז להצד שבא להתלונן, כתב סירוב כנגד הצד שכנגדו, הנה פשוט ומובן הוא שאין שום תוקף בדין לכתב סירוב כזה, דהדין מבואר בסנהדרין דף ז' ע"ב ומוזכר בשו"ע חו"מ סימן י"ז סעיף ה,' ומחמת פשטות הענין אין מה להאריך בענין זה,
ואסיים בתקוה שבזכות זהירות ושמירת כל מצוות ודיני התורה, נזכה כולבו בקרוב לקבל פני משיח צדקיבו,
בידידות והוקרה,
משה פיינשטיין
  
 Sanhedrin(7b): Again: Hear [the causes] between your brethren and judge righteously. This, said R. Hanina, is a warning to the court not to listen to the claims of a litigant in the absence of his opponent; and to the litigant not to explain his case to the judge before his adversary appears. Shamoa’ [hear], in the verse, can also be read, shammea’.   R. Kahana, however, says: We can derive this rule from the verse: Thou shalt not take up [tissa] a false report [referring to the judge], which may be read, tashshi.

Shulchan Aruch (Choshem Mishpat 17:5): It is prohibited for a judge to listen to the claims of one side of a dispute without his opponent being present. ...

See also Halachos of a summons from beis din

125 comments :

  1. So if one spouse wants to torture the other spouse by withholding a get, they just refuse to appear in front of a beith din, and the beith din will not be able to hear both sides and to order a get should be given? There is no situation where one side relinquishes their rights by not appearing?
    But how come the Gestetener beith din gave permit to remarry without hearing both sides? Is this not necessary in this case?
    I worry, because a situation like this will undermine the confidence in batey din, especially when the batey din have not much leverage, as you stated, even once they ordered a get be given..

    ReplyDelete
  2. In this case, it says that the beith din did not give an opportunity to the other side to reply - they did not call the other party. That's not same as the other party refusing to appear.
    What are you selling us?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Register - I would greaterly appreciate a source that there is a difference between not listening to both sides because they didn't contact one party and not listening because the party didn't show up.

    If in fact there was such a distinction then there really is no reason for a beis din to issue a seruv when the summoned party refuses to show up. They have a much greater weapon - according to you - they will simply posken based on his opponents views. So why is a seruv issued in these cases?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You don't need a source. It is obvious. Just use your common sense.
    A psak din made in a situation where the beith din did not invite the second party to heard is not applicable to a situation where the second party was invited, but refused to appear. You are really undermining your credibility by trying to pull this one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Register - it is obvious that you have need need for Shulchan Aruch - especially when it contradicts your logic.

    But the question remains - please provide a single source that states that when one side refuses to show that beis din has the right to pasken entirely on the basis of the testimony of the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Daas Torah I see that you have been censoring me lately but the above is a clear example of your lack of common sense and ability to pasken halacha. You lack the basic ability to differentiate between facts of the 2 cases.


    Youe negative bias against women lik Gital, Rivky and others is dispicable which begs the question, are you or have you been emotionally or physically abusive towards your wife? I will be reaching out to some of my contacts in Israel to start looking in to your affairs so that the world can get a better understanding of your family life which might answer many questions people have regarding your bias...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rav Moshe is not dealing with going to secular court but issuing a seruv. See the link at the bottom of the post.



    The bottom line as a general rule psak in a dispute can not be issued without both parties presenting their views.



    Giving permission to go to secular court and heter meah rabbonim don't require both parties to be present. Getting permission to go to secular court is not so much a psak as the need to showi respect for beis din. That respect is shown whether both sides show up or not. Heter Meah rabbonim is also not so much a psak but reflecting a condition that must be fulfilled to enable one to marry a 2nd wife. It is not a psak that he is divorced from the first wife.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The remedy a beis din has for a party refusing to show up and refusing zabla is a SERUV. The beis din CANNOT halachicly issue a psak if one party refused to show up - even if he refused to show up illegitimately.


    A heter meah is not a suit by the husband versus the wife. It is a request to be allowed to marry a second wife. The first wife might be in a coma. She is not being sued in beis din; the husband is only requesting a heter to take a second wife. The first wife is not a party to the heter request and she need not appear in b"d.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Look at the above befeirush open black and white Shulchan Aruch and Gemorah. It is very clear. You don't even need Rav Moshe's psak to know the halacha prohibiting beis din from issuing a psak without having heard both parties in person in the beis din courtroom.

    ReplyDelete
  10. With this discussion we need to bear in mind that this fake Mill Basin so-called "beit din" and their so-called dayanim do not exist and were previously unheard of. They are an art of fiction specifically created for this purpose of making this fake "psak".

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Avi Katz - yes I have censored your disturbed comments. You clearly have problem that a good therapist would help.

    You are obsessed with me as an evil person not as someone with mistaken views. Your problem is that you are so angry that you can't think straight.
    I have no problems with the fact that people disagree with me. You can see Registers and others many comments. But Register when she disagrees with me doesn't have the personal hatred that you display - she just has a different agenda.

    Most comments that I delete are simply because I don't think the content is appropriate. In your case it is because your comments show a need to personally attack me because of what you think I am. Seems to be a classifc case of transference which a good therapist should help resolve.

    The bizarre threat that you are convinced that i abuse my wife and you are going to expose me - is not something said by a rational person. You are really sick. Again go see a good therapist and get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Right. I am sure that it had been legitimate to issue a seruv once the party refused to appear with 4 hazmanot. Or do you argue otherwise?
    So this tshuva is definitely not applicable to the case at hand.

    What is the difference,as far as the consequences are concerned, between a seruv to appear in front of a beith din and a seruv to give a get?

    ReplyDelete
  13. About 50% of my comments were not published. It was better yesterday, but before, almost none of the comments I wrote was published.
    I agree with Avi Katz that you are biased.
    I find particularly disturbing that you as blog author cultivate a snarky, depreciative style (just look at your comment here) and censor answers that reply in kind.
    I drew your attention many times on the fact that the snarkyness of your answers is not appropriate, but you just chose to censor those comments too, and did not change your ways, as can be seen in this debate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Register - this tshuva is defintitely applicable. to the present case. A beis din can not pasken to give a get if the husband doesn't come before it. A seruv is not a psak - it is an announcement that someone has refused to listen to beis din and there are consequences.

    Not giving a get when required can result in serious pressure sometimes such as jail (Israel) or beating (in previous times). A seruv for not showing up results in nidoi- the consequences depend upon the nature of socity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You've hit the nail on the head as to one of the many reasons why there is a lack of confidence in Beth Dins in the USA.

    Some say, that the halochos of how a Beth Din operates were written in a time when each town/city had only one Beth Din and there was a central rabbinical authority that could cause severe pressure on a party that was refusing to appear. They say there is a need for new guidelines for what is considered acceptable. The question is how to do that and have everyone agree to the new guidelines.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Another example of why woman feel the Beth Din process is biased against them and have no chance of a fair hearing and outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Right, so then they have an easy remedy. Just concoct a "beit din", issue a slanderous declaration together with a false "psak". Good going. Is that how you're attempting to justify Ms. Stein and her cohorts?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is not an example of "the Beth Din process"; this is an example of the Halachic process. The above are the Halachic facts. What you don't like is the Halacha. You think Halacha is "biased".

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mill Basin and Marine Park are sparsely populated Jewish neighborhoods. It would be very surprising to discover any form of beis din there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eliezer BerkovitsJuly 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM

    You have still not provided any source empowering the be is din to issue this seruv.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Eliezer BerkovitsJuly 4, 2014 at 4:16 PM

    Google "federation nidui" for a case involvibg The Federation be is din in London. Very similar to this one. There the be is din put him in nidui . they did not issue a seruv, though.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1) The Halachic facts and accepting them as the the will of Hashem doesn't mean it is not biased against woman. These two viewpoint are not necessarily contradictory.

    2) If Halacha is not biased, why did Rabbeinu Gershom attempt to level the playing field by issuing a Takana that a man can't give a Get without the wife accepting it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJuly 4, 2014 at 4:23 PM

    @DT You are right about Avi.. This man totally ignores what you have stated and continues to Rant in support of Rivka. NOBODY KNOWS WHO THIS BAIS DIN IS!!!! Its non existent, they defame a man and expect for the public to buy it??? This is the same pattern with other Bais Dins as well . In the Meir Kin case the same occurred. The Bais Din who issued his Seiruv is non existent, there was no logo or address on the form, they never issued him hazmonos, He already had indicated previously to other Dayanim that he had a GAG ORDER prohibiting him to speak certain facts before a Bais Din and that he as a NITVA had already chosen a Bais Din , and He had offered her 4 Bais Dins to attend and she refused!!! With all those facts listed above , plus the fact that Herschel Schachter, Avrohom Union and Nochum Sauer who dont sit on a Bais Din together (far from being a Bais Din Kavua) have issued him a Seiruv unjustifiably! Were living in a generation now where the rabbis in many Bais Dins follow the "Torah of Gold and silver" instead of the Torah of Moshe from Sinai. Avi Katz's comments are exactly the ideology of ORA and likely he is an ORA member. I say this because ORA also doesnt follow Torah principles. They will 1) humiliate family members of a husband against halocho 2) they will humiliate , defame husbands with false seiruvim
    3) they believe in the torah of gold and silver that states that " A GET IS ON DEMAND" A husband has no rights to be heard. 4) Their Torah allows a woman attending a civil court from the beginning without any halachic ramifications to her actions. 5) they are guilty of PROMOTING AGUNOT. what I mean is that their methodologies of encouraging women to fight and not negotiate a conclusion to the divorce means that they "fan the flames" of divorce, making it impossible for the parties on their own to come to an agreement sooner and therefore IT IS ORA THAT CREATES AGUNOT AND THE RABBIS WHO REMAIN SILENT AREJUST AS GUILTY!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have never justified any of Ms. Stein's actions. I challenge you to show to me where I did.


    I am just pointing out the uncomfortable fact that the current system is biased against woman and they feel they have no chance for a fair hearing and outcome.


    As a frum father of multiple daughters, who is pretty knowledgeable about the current Beth Din system, it is very scary for me and my friends to know what we are all subjecting our daughters too if Chas V'shalom we marry them off to the wrong boy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If Yoeli received 4 hazmonos from them, the halacha is clear that they were allowed to issue the Seruv. The question is if they were allowed to issue their Psak that he is required to issule a Get and the answer is, most probably not.

    ReplyDelete
  26. First we had a Beis Din issue a Psak against a husband that didn't exist. Now the claim is being made that a Beis Din that doesn't exist gave a Psak. And we have some commenters making comments based on Halacha that doesn't exist. Where is this going to end?!

    ReplyDelete
  27. So when one spouse wants to have full custody, they just make up allegations with out proof against the husband, and the husband has no recourse, he just has to take the abuse??

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Just the facts I agree with your summary. It isn't just Rabbeinu Gershom but the Geonim.

    The problem is being loyal to halacha and at the same time create a system that works properly. Our society has changed in many ways and this causes various problems.

    Changes however require agreement - something which is not readily obtainable.

    Perhaps you would like to write a guest post of changes that thaink that could be made within halacha - that would make the system work better?

    Additionally discuss the impact of these changes on attaining goals and values.

    ReplyDelete
  29. How can you keep on making a Chillul Hashem by trying to legitimize a non existent bais din, your guilty of aiding to the mockery of bais din and hashem, who ever does not come out strongly and condemn this out right chillul hashem is guilty.


    This is hurting true Agunas now and for the future, it is allowing husbands to start stating this bais din is a fake.


    I don't think it takes much to make a real bais din, but the idea to go to a bais din which no one has ever heard of, is making a mockery of all the other bais din's, especially after reading the above comments it seems that this so called basi din went against the basic rules of the shulchin aruch.


    I would like to see all frum jews reading this comment standing up for hashem and the respect for all legitimate bais dins, by calling this a bluff and coming to the conclusion as to who we are dealing with.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Eliezer BerkovitsJuly 4, 2014 at 5:05 PM

    Yes you are correct - my mistake - I meant a source empowering them to issue their Pesak

    ReplyDelete
  31. About 50% of my comments are not published. I feel that many emotional comments are prompted by the depreciative remarks and personal attacks of the blog author. Many times, I drew his attention to the fact that he responded to comments in an abrasive, depreciative manner. The result was that those comments did not get published, and the style stayed as depreciative as it was.
    I do not really understand this approach. How difficult can it be to build a macro that will transform "you do not know how to read" into "it might have escaped your attention that..." or "you are completely wrong" by "your view is contradicted by..."

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think that Yoel Weiss gets a more than fair treatment in family court. It is up to the court to evaluate the facts and the credibility of the allegations.
    As I mentionned, I do not think that Yoel Weiss is gaining anything by withholding the get. Just my point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hashem yivakaish es hanirdoif, you don't have to worry, Eloikim Nitzav badas keil, don't think for a second that a real bais din can get away with anything, hashem controls even the bais dins on this world.


    Your daughters will be just fine.


    Instead of defending yourself about you not backing Ms Steins actions, you should be defending Hashem from Ms Stein actions, maybe then you would realize how all of her actions are based on the same foundations of falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  34. A few points:

    Its three hazmanot, not four. But some vatei din have a sometimes policy of "harass seruv" warning a seruv is to be issued. Sounds fair, but they don't do it all the time / not consistent.

    One bet din has a general policy of three, but often issues a seruv after one, and doesn't always wait mire than a week.

    Its not mill basin or marine park. Its flatlands / canarsie, near starret cityt. Almost no shomer shabbat in that area. Mostly Israelis and russian jews (that yeshiva for russians is in that area.), prime area for chabad, but those residents don't bring in much $$$. So a hundred bucks for using their address is a good deal.

    You don't need a bet din for a heter, you need a recognized person who can bring hundred others. And who will be recognized for a future mesader kiddushin (or future father in law, wife, etc, if they care.)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Which probably tells us they don't know the halochos, which most definitely means they are making a mockery of a real bais din, so whats the remedy?

    ReplyDelete
  36. @fedupwithcorruptrabbis


    What came first?


    a) ORA or


    b) a Beth Din system that was biased against woman, causing hundreds of Agunot from a community with leaders that were not willing to put in the effort to correct the system, which created a vacuum for ORA to step in?


    Hint: There were hundreds of Agunots before ORA ever came onto the scene.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As I wrote in another post, I don't believe that Rivky just snapped and was living in a stable, loving home.


    I also don't believe that the truth ever comes out regardless of any Psak or court ruling. Except for Yoeli and Rivky, we all will never know the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Please re-read what I wrote. Especially this part "If Yoeli received 4 hazmonos from them, the halacha is clear that they were allowed to issue the Seruv."


    As a Weiss Insider, please tell us, did Yoeli receive 4 hazmonos and did he or did he not respond?


    If he received them and didn't respond, then they were allowed to issue a Seruv. Their permissibilty of issuing a Seruv, is different than issuing a Psak if both parties were not present and said their respective sides.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Eliezer BerkovitsJuly 4, 2014 at 6:10 PM

    Are "all her actions based on the same... falsehood"... ?

    Has Yoel issued a firm rebuttal of her many claims of abuse/rape etc?

    Her campaign may be shaky and dishonest. That doesn't necessarily exonerate him.

    ReplyDelete
  40. if we will never know the truth, why are we discussing it?

    ReplyDelete
  41. many times, he said all of her claims are baseless, the same with her lawsuit.


    its not a matter of her campaign being shaky, its a matter of her campaign making fun of hashem and his torah, I don't know how to make it clearer, how can you sit there and defend someone who openly mocks hashem and his torah and his rabonim????? how how how????? please answer me.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just the Facts

    1) When halacha has biases, and it certainly does as you said, that means those biases are the Will of Hashem, as you correctly agree that halacha is the Will of Hashem. So whatever biases halacha contains, are good, valid and proper biases. Sometimes halacha has biases in favor of a Kohen over a Yisroel, a bias in favor of a Talmid Chochom over a regular Jew, a bias in favor of men over women, a bias in favor of a King over a regular citizen (in the latter case that is a bias even secular society traditionally recognized) and many other cases of "biases". We accept these biases, whether is relates to man and woman or whether it relates to Kohanim and Yisroelim or any other biases halacha mandates, as correct and good.

    2) Rabbeinu Gershom's takanos were not instituted for him for the reason of "leveling the playing field". You can find the reasons in the seforim hakedoshim, none of which give that as a reason. The reasons are because previously there was friction in marriages and severe shalom bayis problems (hence no more polygamy) and men were unilaterally divorcing their wives for stupid reasons like wanting to marry someone more beautiful they found (hence RG prohibited men from divorcing their wife if she didn't want the divorce).

    You also realize that when RG gave wives the right to refuse a divorce, that men - per directly from Torah Law - always had that right (and still do) of electing to not divorce their wife even if she wants a divorce. RG gave (almost) that same right to women, but not for the reason you mentioned. In fact, the fact that RG instituted Heter Meah Rabbonim for men is another indication he was no raging feminist trying to level the playing field.

    ReplyDelete
  43. If halacha has a bias in favor of men then it is proper for beis din to enforce that halachic bias. There is nothing uncomfortable about that fact. (Halacha also is biased in favor of Kohanim who are entitled to receive Teruma from Yisroelim without them having to pay the Yisroel for the Teruma. And the Yisroel can be forced by beis din to provide his obligation.)


    And when beis din enforces a bias mandated by halacha, then that itself is a fair hearing and a fair outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I have never had a comment I submitted to this blog rejected, even when I have vehemently disagreed with the blog owner. I've very frequently seen comments on this site attacking the blog owner viciously and with ad hominems, and yet they were published. This blog has one of the most liberal comment publishing policies around and it is very infrequent that a comment is rejected. When they are, it is with good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Not only were they not allowed to issue the psak ordering the husband to give her a Get, now that they did - if he follows their order even though he didn't want to, the resulting Get will be a Get Me'usa, an invalid Get, since it was issued under pressure that is Kneged Halacha and thus renders a subsequent Get invalid.


    And thus she will remain his wife, an eishes ish, despite receiving a Get from him. Any future relations by her will be znus and adultery. And Rivky's future children will be mamzeirim.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It is halachicly forbidden to use secular family court to decide the fate of Jewish children or to use secular court to decide other matters, for example monetary disputes, for that matter.


    And if someone does use secular court she is violating halacha and beis din can penalize her until she gives up what she received via secular court that halacha does not entitle her to.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is not applicable. But the shulhan aruch and gemara cited in the t'shuva might be applicable.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anyone can be a future mesader kiddushin. So it would not be a problem getting a mesader after a heter meah.

    ReplyDelete
  49. That is complete baloney. Most of the modern women who parade themselves as agunas are anything but an aguna. They are moredeses. And they are not halachicly entitled to the Get they are demanding. Thus they are not an aguna whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  50. If three homeless yodels who know one ever heard of produce a hazmana under the name of a beit din no one ever heard of, there is no halachic duty to respond to it. The only obligation is to burn the fake hazmana with the rest of the chometz.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yoel issued many denials. Read this site thoroughly. Rivky offered zero evidence other than her untrustworthy word.

    ReplyDelete
  52. According to that link, the "Mill Basin Beit Din" would be acting within halacha to issure a ktav seiruv and even an excommunication against a party who refused to appear before it or demonstrate his willingness to appear before another beit din. So, if Yoel Weiss failed to appear and did not name another beit din, the ktav seiruv was appropriate and with due attention to procedure, excommunication might also be so (at least in theory.)

    As to a default judgement against a defendant: If a binding arbitration agreement is in place, according to the following, beit din can issue such a ruling:


    http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/JewishLawCivilProcedure.pdf


    IIUC this would not, however, apply in Gittin.



    Looked at in a larger context, Rav Moshe's psak indicates that there has long been a problem of batei din violating halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  53. um, because weiss insider you know the truth and know you are lying. that is why you want everyone to stop questioning.

    ReplyDelete
  54. This might lead to the conclusion that the blog owner is biased.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The source is your t'shuva itself: If one party does not appear after several summons, a seruv is issued - or do you dispute that?- and this t'shuva says that a seruv should not be issued when no summons was served. Do you understand the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  56. It seems that Rivkie herself may active here, under the name "bf".

    Check out the last comments of this post. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/rivky-stein-and-yoel-weiss-yoel-takes.html#comment-1468497670



    Why not post under her real name and take responsibility for her claims? Why not help us deal with the major credibility issues she has?

    ReplyDelete
  57. The issue is that even if this pseudi "beit din" had existed they would not be allowed under halacha to render a PSAK -- which they purportedly did -- without having heard the sides of both parties in person -- which they openly admit they did not.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I will leave it up to RDE to respond if you are indeed correct or not.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Throughout your comments on this blog, you keep obfuscating the issues in the Chareidi world by bringing up hearsay about the MO.


    Unfortunately, there are plenty of Agunos in the Chareidi world. My gut feeling is that there is no point in debating you, as we will never agree on the definition of an Agunah or a Moredes.

    ReplyDelete
  60. So that everyone who goes to Rivki's site, this one or any other one, knows that they will never really know the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  61. No one ever said that Rabbeinu Gershom was a raging feminist.

    Please re-read the reasons you yourself wrote. That is called leveling the playing field.

    ReplyDelete
  62. As long as that is the accepted Halacha, that makes it "proper" but doesn't make it "fair".

    ReplyDelete
  63. Agreed, but some ppl sometimes want a particular rave, sometimes on the wife's side, etc issues. And sometimes the wife's side (father, family, rav, etc) wants to see the ptur / heter.

    Just like i would want to see the wife's ptur. (I've seen some of otherwise respectable divorced women i wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.)

    ReplyDelete
  64. @register you keep repeating your assertions without presenting a single source. I will simply delete future repetitions unless you can bring a source in halacha that supports you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @bf you haven't answered my question. You claim you know that Rivky was physically assaulted - why didn't you tell her to go to the police? So far I haven's seen any evidence presented that anyone can support her claims about abuse - yet you say that her friends knew about it - where is their testimony with their actual names?

    ReplyDelete
  66. so no inheritance for daughters when they have brothers...

    ReplyDelete
  67. She has a problem going to a real bes din because of money she has no problem spending over 100k in the last few months on her law firm that gets her no where thats y she and uziel frankel had to make a fake bes din the bes din used three different addresses i never new a bes din floats around ezra rivky hillel uziel get a life stop abusing ppl

    ReplyDelete
  68. Keep asking as many ????????????? as you like

    ReplyDelete
  69. Y don't You Post a link on RedeemRivky.com to this blog
    I guess your scared of the truth

    ReplyDelete
  70. Rivky is not well she suffers from borderline Personality she needs help y don't you send her for help instead of waisting your money on lawyers

    ReplyDelete
  71. Plenty? Hardly. Where are you getting numbers from? This is a rare phenomenon.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Her campaign may be shaky and dishonest. That doesn't necessarily exonerate him.


    This is a valid point.

    ReplyDelete
  73. A question that must be asked, and answered is - do the Weiss' have a reputation that they behave with strong-arm tactics and would intimidate those that speak up against them?


    Yoel went ahead and posted Uziel Frankel's address and phone number here, as well as the address where Rivkie is staying. Why did Yoel post the address where Rivkie is staying?
    What purpose was it supposed to serve?


    Yoel posted Uziel Frankel's son's address and phone number. What connection does Yehuda Frankel have and why did Yoel post his information.?


    Is Yoel trying to intimidate Rivkie and those who are helping her? To me it does seem that way.


    Are they simply counter attacks in order to protect himself? Maybe.
    However, even if Rivkie would have witnesses to her claims, is it likely and probable that Yoel would "counter" attack these witnesses in order to defend himself? Would that scare off witnesses from coming forward? Did that scare off witnesses from coming forward?


    I have posted many comments questioning Rivkie, her tactics and her credibility. I have posted comments in support of Yoel. However, the search for truth does require to put Yoel and the family reputation of intimidation under the light as well.

    ReplyDelete
  74. There were never hundreds of agunot, just a handful, and that included agunim. At the time, ppl were beaten up, so the matter was settled quietly.

    Then a particular few rabbonim went overboard, beating ppl without proper bet din action, they got caught, but nothing was done to them (rubin case, etc) , the brooklyn DA was running for governor, so he made a deal with brooklyn rabbonim: don't mention crown heights a(and how he messed that up, on purpose, we all know). He lost anyway, but crown heights was not mentioned, and therabbonim were never prosecuted, though there was a ffamous cover picture on the front page of the daily news.

    Now there are no more batei din ,
    Now there are no morebatei din around,

    ReplyDelete
  75. so whats the point???

    ReplyDelete
  76. Part two:

    Husbands are being beaten up, with ORA encouraging, and helping the wives, etc.

    And NOBODY CARES!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hashem is always fair.....

    ReplyDelete
  78. That is incorrect. He should respond offering the option of ZABL"A. Not responding is not a positive side.


    That doesn't exonerate this "beit din" from issuing their "psak" without having heard from Yoel.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Joe,
    This is just the beginning!
    Dovid Eidensohn

    ReplyDelete
  80. Mimo nafshoch. If you think he is crazy, why do you argue with him using logic? Give us readers a break. Sometimes we read this after we finished eating. It is baal tashchis.

    ReplyDelete
  81. David,
    The Chazon Ish says that if a Beth Din orders someone to give a GET and the halacha is that the husband cannot be coerced than the GET is invalid from the Torah for two reasons: One because when Beth Din rules in error the GET is botel from the Torah. And secondly because if the husband would know the true halacha and he would realize that Beth Din erred he would never have given the GET properly. That is, a coerced GET may be valid if the husband realizes that "it is a mitsva to obey the rabbis" but if they make a mistake his giving is worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @Register Did you NOT read the first order of protection post?? Yoel didn't go to the courts RIVKY DID. She ran out of his house and straight to court. After two years the courts have lost faith in her story so she is now playing on the naive public to rally her fake story. She had two years of testing what works and what doesn't. In court she learned how far she can push the envelope of believability. Now with that knowledge she is using her embarrassing experiences in court as a PR weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Rivky started all this. She first posted Yoeli's picture, address, phone number and e-mail address on her website and facebook group. Is Yoeli supposed to take all this sitting down like a lemon? It is 1,000% clear that it is Rivky and her "handlers" who are doing the intimidating here.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Another New Yorker, Uziel Frankel, has been prevented from leaving Israel for the last 18 months after his wife, Mati, appealed to the rabbinical court. She went to the religious forum contending her husband is withholding his permission for a get as leverage in their civil court negotiations in New York over the terms of their divorce settlement, including custody of their 11-year-old son. "It's like something out of Charles Dickens," says a friend of Uziel Frankel's who asked to remain anonymous. "They take him into court in front of all those people. His hands and legs are tied. He's embarrassed. He's humiliated.

    " Frankel was jailed by the rabbis until he appealed to a civil court, which released him. He has refused to accept Israeli jurisdiction over his divorce settlement. "The [rabbinical] courts seem to think they have the authority to do that," Bleich says. The professor says that Frankel has a long legal fight ahead because the rabbinical court will pursue the matter until Frankel accepts jurisdiction. "He's in contempt [of court] to the best of my knowledge," Bleich adds. At the root of the dispute is one of the most bitter and Byzantine issues of Jewish orthodoxy the agunot, a word meaning "women chained to dead marriages.

    " Orthodox Jewish feminists say they are battling a male-dominated interpretation of Jewish law and turning to the Israeli rabbinate is a last resort. "We approve of detaining these men if that's the only way," says Rivka Haut, a director of Agunah Inc., an organization representing Jewish women. "What they [the Israeli rabbinate] are doing is morally correct even if it is internationally questionable," adds Honey Rackman, another director of Agunah Inc. CUNY economics Prof. Susan Aronoff, another director, says that the detentions could boomerang because one day, Israeli rabbis might use the same weapon against women. "They could detain a woman who got custody of her child in the United States in a ruling that they disagreed with," she says.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/long-arm-religious-law-israelis-detain-americans-divorce-tiffs-article-1.753729#ixzz36fGWGdLD

    ReplyDelete
  85. On December 31, 2003 Rabbi Weisz submitted his written resignation as trustee "for personal reasons" and appointed Jacob as successor trustee. The record does not demonstrate that the conditions set forth in Article IX of the trust declaration with respect to substitution of the trustee were met, i.e., that Nechama Weisz was given 30 days' notice of her husband's resignation as trustee and/or whether she declined to serve as successor trustee. Two weeks later, on January 15, 2004, Jacob conveyed, for a purchase price of $370,000, the subject property to Julian, by Uziel as "attorney in fact." There is no evidence in the record before us showing that the proceeds of this sale of the subject property by Jacob to Julian was used, as required under Article VI of the trust declaration, to purchase a home for Martin and his family.

    Thereafter, Jacob, on behalf of the trust, commenced an arbitration proceeding in a rabbinical court (hereinafter the Beth Din) against Uziel and Julian, seeking to recover the $370,000 proceeds from the sale of the subject property. Neither the plaintiffs herein nor Martin were parties to the Beth Din proceeding. The Beth Din determined that Julian was the lawful purchaser and owner of the real property and directed him to pay the trust the purchase price of $370,000 over 25 years with no interest, with only $50,000 to be treated as secured debt. It is noted that one week before the Beth Din proceeding, Julian had mortgaged the subject property with the defendant Fairmont Funding, Ltd. (hereinafter Fairmont), to secure a loan in the sum of $329,000.

    The trust then filed a petition in the Supreme Court, New York County, to confirm the Beth Din award. Julian and Frankel did not oppose the petition. The Supreme Court granted the petition in a judgment dated September 2, 2004. The plaintiffs and Martin were not parties to the proceeding to confirm the Beth Din award.

    The reliance by the defendants Julian, Uziel, and Feller on the Beth Din arbitration award and the judgment of the Supreme Court confirming such award, is misplaced. Julian, Uziel, and Feller committed misconduct, if not fraud, by concealing crucial information from those forums, [*3]including pertinent terms of the trust declaration and the terms of the sale of the subject property to Julian, and there was fraud in the very means by which judgment was procured in each of these venues. Accordingly, the judgments and all subsequent judgments based thereon, are jurisdictionally defective (see Oppenheimer v Westcott, 47 NY2d 595, 604 [1979]; Fuhrmann v Fanroth, 254 NY 479, 482-483 [1930]; Yip v Ip, 229 AD2d 979 [1996]).

    Meanwhile, Julian had commenced a landlord-tenant holdover proceeding in the Civil Court, Kings County, against, inter alia, Martin and Chana, with the latter the only defendant to appear. By judgment dated September 1, 2004, Julian prevailed and obtained a judgment of eviction against Martin, Chana, and their family. The Civil Court noted that Julian's mortgage payments on the subject premises exceeded $2,000 per month. Execution of the judgment was stayed through November 30, 2005, on condition that Chana and Martin pay arrears in the sum of $6,432 within five days. Chana and Martin apparently failed to remit such amount. By order dated December 1, 2004, the Civil Court denied Chana's request to extend the stay and issued an order of eviction. Thereafter, Chana and Martin filed for bankruptcy, but their case was dismissed on April 26, 2005.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Where did i post his tel # if you want i can

    ReplyDelete
  87. "At the time, ppl were beaten up, so the matter was settled quietly."


    so, fundamentally, you support beating up recalcitrant husbands, just that it has to be ordered by a beith din first?

    ReplyDelete
  88. he ran to court immediatly after her in order to obtain visitation rights. check the documents.

    ReplyDelete
  89. If someone kidnaps your children do you call the authorities or do you go to beis din?

    ReplyDelete
  90. @Register which he wouldn't have needed to do if she didn't start up with the civil courts in the first place...EZRA. Please you are really starting to sound stupid with all your comments, keep posting if it makes you feel good but its clear you are only here to rally Rivky's case and don't care about facts or halacha for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  91. To answer your first question - Walk up and down the streets and into the stores surroudning the Weiss's home and ask that question, I gauruntee you will hear nothing but admiration for this upstanding family.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Yoel,

    On this thread you posted the following.

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/06/rivky-stein-and-yoel-weissthe-meidators.html

    "Hi uziel frankel is where rivky sleeps at night at 485 east 3rd st"

    You also posted:

    "You sound like you know Uziel Frankel and i guess you know his son Yehuda L Frankel (718) 437-1109.4009 16th Ave #2, Brooklyn, NY 11218"

    ReplyDelete
  93. How would the rabbis protect her against spousal rape or violence? If he was violent, deprived her of her liberty, raped her or threatened her to harm her or the children or threatened to take the children away, she had every right to ask for an order of protection.

    All those claims have not been refuted yet, except that Yoel - no surprise - denies them all.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Rivky, first, posted Yoeli's picture, address, telephone number and e-mail address. Was Yoeli supposed to sit down like a duck and accept all that? The intimidating in this case is clearly coming from Rivky and her handlers.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Moe, she claimed intimidation in court before she put up that disgraceful website. She claimed that Yoeli was using intimidation to get her evicted from her residence.


    Your understanding is that his posting of her address is reactionary and a counter attack. That still leaves the question - are there witnesses who are afraid to come forward because they're afraid of Yoeli's reactionary and counter attacks?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Or, perhaps, people are afraid to come forward because they're afraid of Rivky, Shira Dicker and her other hidden handlers and financiers publicly attacking them using the same modus operandi Dicker utilized against anyone associated with Avrohom Weiss in the Dodelson affair. Claims are cheap and anyone can make them in or out of court, but all we have proof of is that the first intimidation came from Rivky when she went to trashy tabloids like the Daily Mirror and Daily News with salacious bedroom sex stories that she sold them together with her private family photographs she gave them to publicly publish. She did all this after posting Yoeli's private cellphone number and email address on her website. That is first-degree intimidation.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Rivky didn't start it. Yoeli started it by stalking her when she was a girl and hoodwinking her into marrying him.

    ReplyDelete
  98. That's how people are put into Cherem nowadays. How was Rav Amnon Yitzchak banned by many Rabanim who hadn't bothered even to try speaking to him?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Can a beith din impose a chere because of a seruv to appear in front of a beith din?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Rivky did start it with her running after and seducing Yoeli to marry her.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Yeah? She posed in front of him without a burka?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Another lie, remember your going to burn for everything you make up and for every piece of loshon hora that you spread.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Well, as we heard from Weiss Insider, the criteria of Weiss' neighbours might not be the same as ours. On another comment thread on this subject, someone who claims to know Weiss answered the question whether he was yashar in his business & tax dealings that most people in that neighborhood were not.

    In the same vein, it might be that this whole neighborhood does not understand what marital rape is about. Also on this blog, many, many commentators spilled an asinine "if she married him, that means she wants to have sex with him" or "if she refuses sex with him, she is a moredet". The same goes for withholding or taking away her wages. David here thinks that this perfectly OK, I suppose the blog author agrees, since he published it without comment.



    So it could well be that all the accusations in the rico complaint could be true, but none of them would affect Yoel's respectability in the eyes of his neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Eliezer BerkovitsJuly 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM

    Yes.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jew-banned-by-community-for-blocking-divorce-1325935.html

    ReplyDelete
  105. Eliezer BerkovitsJuly 7, 2014 at 11:02 AM

    I'm sorry but you aren't doing yourself favours with these incoherent posts.

    First you say she can't go to a real be is din because of money.

    Then you say she has no problem spending 100k on legal fees.

    This doesnt make any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  106. He is countering her claims. It seems that she had an issue with going to a mainstream Beis Din, since she didn't have the funds to do so. On the other hand, she does seem to have 100K to blow on legal fees. That's what Yoeli is saying.


    (I don't have personal knowledge, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of this.)

    ReplyDelete
  107. Who says there is a remedy? The real remedy is for the children born of these invalid Gittin and what is going to be with them?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Unfortunately, and sadly, mamzirim. It is so sad and heartbreaking. The callousness of those involved in producing these worthless pieces of paper is unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Not quite right. Why don't you ask the shadchan, the silver store owner, who asked him to approach the Lefkowitz's to make the ask for the Shidduch. And it wasn't Rivky.

    ReplyDelete
  110. yeah, Chazon ish also said that there should be no metal on a sukkah...

    ReplyDelete
  111. This was all after Rivky had long been pursuing, and seducing, Yoeli.

    ReplyDelete
  112. bf... Are you the "boy friend" that wanted to marry rivky, and is jealous that she married yoel instead... Get over it,.... If rivky starts behaving, I am sure she will get a GeT soon,, and you could marry her then...

    ReplyDelete
  113. bf,

    Please consider my questions. Please answer my questions.

    Do you feel a person is may hurt a former spouse because they're upset at the decision they themselves made to marry that spouse?

    You made a decision. You regret it. Who knows, maybe it was indeed the wrong decision - maybe it wasn't. You feel it was. OK. So, does that give anyone the right to seek to hurt Yoel now because of your own decision that you now regret?


    Hurting Yoel will not turn back the clock on your decision. Hurting Yoel will not heal any wounds you feel you have due to your decision to marry him. Hurting Yoel will not help your children grow up as sweet, precious and content people. Hurting Yoel will not allow you to move forward with your life some day. Hurting Yoel will create a desire to be combative and vindictive within you, which will only server to hinder potential future relationships.

    At times in life, we have to cut our losses, accept responsibility for our own mistakes and, move on. Being vindictive and revengeful will not heal us - it will only cause a lot more problems.



    I wish you clarity, happiness and contentment.
    Get rid of your handlers. Get advise from a competent therapist or rabbi. Get a serious mediator involved, and finalize a serious settlement. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  114. Bf... And what's your point? Rivky clearly says in her video she liked yoel until the night of the wedding... They dated for 4 months.....

    ReplyDelete
  115. Is that why they had a hard time making shidduchim -- because folks said lovely things about them? Who are we kidding?!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Yoeli, when you attacked Rivky that makes you the mastermind of this all. You and I know it is true. And some therapists and rabbonim know it is true, too. As does your family. The three weeks are starting. You can create a merit for yourself, your departed father and all of Klal Yisroel by owning up (or not) but ending this fiasco. You know that you lied about why you guys went to the therapist in Monsey.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Not quite David. Yoeli had been chasing the Stein kids for years and had his eye on her for a very long time. He waited long enough 'til she would be legally able to marry him without charges filed against him. He was the older guy. Recheck the story, for you have it all skewed.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Rivkie, um, oops, - bf (why don't you just use your real name? You've slipped already)


    Why are you seeking to slander Yoel and his family? What will your stupid revenge earn you? What will it do for you? What will it do for your kids?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Rivkie,


    if you want to end this fiasco, you should probably get yourself a real mediator and seek to undo some of your actions, and express sincere remorse over this shameful campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Rivkie,


    does she now regret marrying him? Was it not a decision she made?

    ReplyDelete
  121. HI bf y don't you go by your real name Goldy Rosenberg 212-470-5445 We went to see him you picked him the same guy you paid off to lie hear is a copy of the email he sent me and Rivky

    Zvi Schachtel

    On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:11 PM, " Zvi Schachtel" wrote:

    Dear Yoeli & Rivky,

    We have agreed on GOALS

    We all recognize it will take incremental steps to attain the goals.

    1. To preserve and build the marriage.

    Within this goal to establish:

    respect,

    trust,

    sense of security. (Nothing positive will happen without sense of security-)—eventually reach level of harmony

    2. Communication

    If disagreement, keep it as civil as possible, use hand downward motions LOWER TONE, (please do not scream at each other,)

    Use of beeper 5 minutes each; you can finish the sentence, NO ADD ON SENTENCES (until next person has finished their 5 minutes)

    Minimum 20 minutes of this system =effective communication EVERY NIGHT.

    3. No silence treatment –COMMUNICATION is our GOAL, you hurt my feelings, keep sharing feelings,

    If cannot speak tonight (very hurt feelings) there a need to say good morning next day, and set a time when you can speak for the 20 minute system

    4. Need to talk to each other (respectfully)

    Both sides need to not feel threatened and the other is trying to control me

    This takes much effort from both of you. (We need a lot of work in this area)

    5. We need to think about where we will live. It needs to be a mutual, non pressured decision.


    6. STRUCTURE Disciplining child// different styles, need to find a way together (all 3 of us)

    , Need to define together // trust, roleof mother

    Need to define together role of father

    Need space. There are times when we need personal space.

    7. COMMUNICATION WITH HUSBAND DURING DAY.

    If Yoeli cannot speak now, give time when, in 30 minutes, or 60

    If Rivky says urgent- that means now (only when in fact urgent. Can be pressing, priority, and need. if urgent =NOW.

    We all recognize it will take incremental steps to attain the goals.


    Zvi

    ReplyDelete
  122. This site should be called twisting daas Torah

    ReplyDelete
  123. He refused to appear in front of the beis din so they issued a siruv. It seems reasonable to me. Shouldn't he have appeared as requested? This is how it works in any court / beis din. You get a summons and you are given the chance to defend yourself. If you don't show up then you are entering a plea of no contest and the judges can issue a ruling based on one side. This is basic court procedure. According to you any defendant can win a case by not showing up! Does that make any sense at all????

    ReplyDelete
  124. Why did they have to be forced? If they were not living with their wives why are they not divorcing them? How does that make any sense?

    ReplyDelete
  125. @eLamdan - you keep raising issues that have been explained many times.

    Yoel did not show up because he was unable to contact the beis din at the telephone number that was listed. therefore for this fake beis din to isssue a siruv not not showing up is outrageous.

    Why is it so hard for you to understand

    ReplyDelete

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