- Refutation of R. Breitowitz Letter in Defense of Trenton Trial of Rabbis Who Coerce Gittin

Rabbi David E. Eidensohn/2 Phyllis Terrace/Monsey, NY 10952

I present here a review and critique of Rabbi Yitschok Breitowitz’s letter to the court at the trial of rabbis in Trenton for kidnapping and torturing husbands to give a Jewish religious divorce. There are two sections in this presentation. One is the charges by the government based upon the FBI sting operation that snared some rabbis in a kidnap ring for huge sums of money. Two is Rabbi Breitowitz defending one of them and demanding his dismissal from the charges because it is a mitzvah to kidnap and torture men who don’t give a GET. Not only is this a disgrace and major Chilul HaShem, and something that could lead to more violence and demonizing of men, but Rabbi Breitowitz completely distorts what the Torah teaches about coercions of divorces. Because Rabbi Breitowitz is not the only rabbi who does not know the laws of Gittin properly, I intend to add to this several other rabbis who have come out publicly to violate the laws of divorce in the Torah in very serious and grave errors. Now somebody in Philadelphia has come out with permitting a married woman to remarry without a GET. (My blog is full of the details.) Incredibly, nobody except me in America publicly protests this, although when I speak to people they encourage me to protest those who do these things. Obviously, it is time to present the poskim who determine halalcha in questions of Agunah and see if there is any justification for what some rabbis are doing.

We begin with the unit on Rabbi Berkowitz. It begins with the government charges against a group of rabbis for kidnap and torturing to force GETs from married men who refused to give their wives a GET. Then I quote Rabbi Breitowitz’s letter and its ten paragraphs, and point out two things, his purpose, and his errors in producing sources, as I add the correct sources to this.

The Government’s Case Against Rabbis Who Kidnap and For a GET

1 2013R01184/RJG & SMW UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK a/k/a “Mordechai,” JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov,” DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari,” and BINYAMIN STIMLER : : : : : : : : : Criminal No. 14- 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), 1201(c), 1201(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 INDICTMENT The Grand Jury in and for the District of New Jersey, sitting at Trenton, charges: COUNT 1 (Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping) 1. At all times relevant to Count 1 of this Indictment: a. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who facilitated Jewish divorce proceedings and maintained residences in Brooklyn, New York and Lakewood, New Jersey. b. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK a/k/a “Mordechai,” was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who facilitated Jewish divorce proceedings and resided in Monsey, New York. c. Defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov,” was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who facilitated Jewish divorce proceedings and resided in Brooklyn, New York. d. Defendant DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari,” was the son of defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and a resident of Lakewood, New Jersey. e. Defendant BINYAMIN STIMLER was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who 2 participated in Jewish divorce proceedings and resided in Brooklyn, New York. End of beginning of government document. Much more is found later in this document, whereby we add the majority of the pages of the government indictment of the Trenton rabbis.

We turn now to the letter of Rabbi Breitowitz that actually defends the kidnapping and torture of men who do not give their wives a GET on demand when the marriage is broken.

There are two sections to our review and critique. Section One is a study of his choice of words and statements in  to discern his goals in this letter. Section Two  challenges his central theme that kidnapping and torturing men terribly until they gave a GET is a Mitsvah, a good deed. I will show clearly that this is not the opinion of the present great rabbis in Israel and of the Shulchan Aruch, Code of laws. 

Let us begin Section One going through this letter paragraph by paragraph to see his goals.

The letter from Rabbi Breitowitz defends Rabbi Benyomin Stimler and calls for dismissal of the charges against him. It has ten short paragraphs.

Paragraph 1 says, “I am submitting this…in support of Binyamin Stimler’s renewed motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him in the above captioned matter.”Why should the charges be dismissed? Either he was involved in kidnapping and torture or he was not. If in Civil Law Stimler is guilty, on what grounds does Rabbi Breitowitz appeal for a dismissal of the case?

Paragraph 2 says “I did not address…whether Jewish Law authorizes the use of some form of physical coercion to compel a recalcitrant husband, for personal reasons of spite or vengeance, or in order to extort payment or other unjustified conditions following a civil divorce, refuses to authorize the writing of a GET to be transmitted to his wife.” Let look closely at this.

First of all, why does he mention Jewish law at all? This is a civil court trial, and I understand that the Judge clearly stated the Jewish religious law should not be entered into the trial. That is fine for rabbis in rabbinical courts, but has no place in a secular trial. So why does he mention Jewish law at all? By saying that he does not talk about Jewish law, does he just waste words, or is there purpose in these words? And if, as it seems, he quotes other members of the defense team who did bring up this subject about Jewish law, why did the defense do this in a civil trial?

What he and others in the defense are doing is talking to the jury and the public. He wants to impress them with the idea that these rabbis are rescuing a helpless woman from an ogre who refuses to give her a GET. Why is this person an ogre? Maybe he has valid reasons for refusing the GET. Rabbi Breitowitz wrote, “I did not address…whether Jewish Law authorizes the use of some form of physical coercion to compel a recalcitrant husband, for personal reasons of spite or vengeance, or in order to extort payment or other unjustified conditions following a civil divorce, refuses to authorize the writing of a GET to be transmitted to his wife.”

Now, what he should have written was “I did not address whether Jewish Law authorizes physical force to compel a husband” and stop. But he adds many more words placed here in italics “to compel a recalcitrant husband, for personal reasons of spite or vengeance, or in order to extort payment or other unjustified conditions following a civil divorce, refuses to authorize the writing of a GET to be transmitted to his wife.” These extra words are very powerful statements. They say that the accused rabbis are dealing with a demon of a husband. Not a “husband” but a “recalcitrant husband.” This means that there is a moral obligation or religious legal obligation to give a GET. The husband is plainly evil. He withholds the GET “for personal reasons of spite or vengeance, or in order to extort payment or other unjustified conditions.” The husband is now further demonized. The  only reasons for him to withhold the GET are to steal money from his wife, torment her, or fulfill other unjustified conditions. Here the demonizing is almost complete. But there is more. The purpose of this letter is to demonize the husband and allow us to appreciate the selfless idealism of the goons.

Paragraph 3: “A husband who engages in such behavior in violation of a rabbinic decree that he provide a GET for his wife is an evil person.” The demonizing is complete. How did it get there? Because Rabbi Breitowitz adds a few words. The husband is now not just a GET refuser but he violates the order of a Beth Din, rabbinical court. Now he is pure evil. But is there another side to this story? One side is that the Beth Din is comprised of people named Epstein and Walmark. A Beth Din like that is not a Beth Din, but an excuse to make a lot of money for doing something absolutely forbidden by the Shulchan Aruch.  And the RCA Beth Din that issued a Siruv for the husband who didn’t exist is also a Beth Din that is not a Beth Din.

A Beth Din can only judge when they are absolutely impartial to both sides. In this case, the Beth Din was founded to harass husbands. The husband is jumped, beaten and tortured until he gives a GET. What about the obligation upon Beth Din to be impartial to both sides in its judgment? What about the law in the Shulchan Aruch that Beth Din must hear both sides equally and find out exactly what the reasons for both sides are? Was this done here? Or was the husband beaten until he said “I want the GET.” And his side of the argument was not interesting. After all, the “Beth Din” had by that time taken huge sums of money. Were they going to listen to the husband and maybe return the money?

What about the rule in the Talmud not to take money for being a Beth Din? And even if some small amount of money is permitted, Epstein demands tens of thousands of dollars for this and for that and that absolutely negates the Beth Din. This “Beth Din” of Epstein violated every basic rule that exists to qualify a Beth Din, and it has no status at all of a Beth Din. Consequently all of the beatings that it gave are pure evil sins. The claim that they are a Beth Din when they violated every qualification for a Beth Din is also a great sin, in addition to their other sins. Also, since their violence and coerced Gittin were in violation of the Torah and the Shulchan Aruch, the GET they forced on the husband is invalid. If the wife remarries her children are born from an invalid GET and they are likely mamzerim. Of course, if there are children we surely will have to visit the case carefully to save the children if possible, but the wife is surely a sinner. And Epstein and his friends are surely sinners. If Rabbi Breitowitz ignored all of this, he doesn’t know the very beginning of the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpot that deals with Beth Din.

See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpot chapter seven that a Beth Din must be impartial, it must “hate money”. Thus in paragraph 12 we find, “Any matter that brings benefit to the Judge makes the Judge invalid to judge.” Does sixty thousand dollars for a judge ruling against the husband violate this rule? In chapter 9 we find the sin of taking payment to rule falsely. Sounds like Epstein? They took money, beat up the husband, and that is a Beth Din? And what of chapter 9 paragraph 5 “One who takes money to judge all of his judgments are negated.” The exception is if he is a farmer and has to stop watering his field, he may take money to hire somebody else to water his field. But to take tens of thousands of dollars to beat up a husband and torture him until he gives a GET, something completely forbidden by the Torah, especially for such a “Beth Din,” is not an act of Beth Din but of criminals who love money.

The Gadol Hador the Kovneh Rov Reb Yitschok Elchonon Speckter zt”l in Biare Yitschok Even Hoezer 16:3 says that when Beth Din forces a GET when the Torah permits it, it is a valid GET only because “it is a command to obey the sages.” But when the people forcing the GET are not sages, but  people who violate the Shulchan Aruch in many ways and charge huge sums of money,  a GET is a GET forced by a non-Beth Din and worthless.

Par 3 continues its effort at talking about the evil of the husband by quoting the Jewish Press and the GET LAW of New York State that husbands can be forced to divorce their wives with a GET. Rabbi Breitewitz obviously agrees with them. Now, the Gaon of Kovneh, Reb Yitshok Elchonon Specter, the greatest authority in the world several generations ago, says that if a government forces a GET, even if the government agrees with the Torah law that the person must be forced, many authorities consider the GET invalid by the Torah standards, not just rabbinic standards. (See Biare Yitschok 10:2 D”H ach) But when Epsteins force the GET utterly in violation of Torah and Talmudic Law, the GET is completely worthless and children born from it may be mamzerim. I say “may be” because we don’t just talk about children that way. “Maybe” there is a way out, and if somebody asked me the question I would work hard to save the child.

 Leading authority Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashev told me how much he opposed the GET Law. But rabbis like Breitowitz and Epstein don’t worry about the Shulchan Aruch and the Kovneh Rov and the greatest rabbis of these generations. They are helping ladies, and making a few dollars besides.

In Par 6 we get to the point where Breitowitz tells us that it is a mitzvah for force a GET even with physical force. He supplies no source for this. Because there is no source in the Shulchan Aruch. I will tell  you soon what the Shulchan Aruch does say about this, the opposite of what Rabbi Breitowitz says.

He writes, “Jewish law authorizes certain forms of force, as is indicated by authorities I cite herein to support that conclusion.” He adds, “Freeing an Agunah so that she will be able to remarry…is a mitzvah, even if force is necessary to secure the husband’s expression of consent.” So let us see his sources.

In paragraph seven he quotes Maimonides who says that a Court may beat a husband and force him to divorce his wife when she wants her freedom because “my husband is repellant to me”. The Shulchan Aruch Code of Laws does not rule as Maimonides says, but as the major authorities Rabbeinu Tam, Ri, Rosh, Rashbo, Gro who disagree and forbid coercion of a GET when the wife says “my husband is repellant to me.” The Talmud is full of arguments and various opinions. If any time somebody wanted to beat somebody up and steal their wife they just selected one authority out of many and go to work beating and stealing, what kind of world would it be? But this is what Rabbi Breitowitz obviously believes is the way to go. Just find somebody out there who is rejected by the majorit y of authorities and the Shulchan Aruch Code of laws and then announce that kidnapping and torture are a mitzvah.

There is another point here. A GET must be given willingly. So how can it be forced in certain circumstances? The gemora explains that “it is a mitzvah to obey the sages.” That is, if the Court commanding the beating and the GET is respected by the husband being beaten, we assume that he gives the GET willingly when he says that he wants it from force, because he respects the authority of the Court as Torah messengers everyone must obey. But when people know that the “Beth Din” is not a respected one, but a group of goons who charge tens of thousands of dollars to do the “mitzvah” of torturing the husband and coercing a GET, the GET is worthless.

It is clear from the Shulchan Aruch that we will quote in Section Two of this critique that the vast majority of divorce cases are not ones that the husband can be coerced physically to give a GET. But Breitowitz has invented the idea that any woman who demands her freedom and the marriage is over can force the husband with physical force to give her a GET. This is not true. Only very rare cases qualify for physical coercions, or any serious coercion, or maybe, any coercion, as we will show. Here Rabbi Breitowitz shows either that he is ignorant of the Shulchan Aruch and the accepted procedures of Divorce Cases, or he is saying blatant mistruths in order to help ladies get a GET.

Paragraph 8 contains various “sources” to justify what these goon rabbis did, torturing husbands to give a GET. None of the sources are accurate for the simple reason that although the Talmud does say that some husbands can be forced to give a GET, these are very few, and do not include wives who have had enough of their husbands and can’t stand them.  Furthermore, a Beth Din that orders coercions must be a very prominent Beth Din known to obey the Shulchan Aruch Code of Laws. I heard from the senior authority in the world Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l of Jerusalem that any Beth Din that practices coercing in violation of the Shulchan Aruch is not considered a Beth Din, and its Gittin are invalid. Recently, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, Rabbi Shmuel HaLevi Wosner and the major rabbis of Israel have issues letters published in a book distributed throughout Israel and elsewhere, that any Beth Din that coerces husbands is an invalid Beth Din, and its Gittin, divorces, are invalid. The woman may not remarry without going to another Beth Din that honors the Shulchan Aruch.  In that book Mishpitei Yisreol there is a letter from fifty of the leading rabbis in America opposing coercion of Gittin through going to civil court. Any wife that forces her husband to leave Beth Din and goes to civil court is a terrible sinner. But Rabbi Breitowitz doesn’t mention any of that. He is only here to help ladies get a GET, regardless of what the great rabbis of Israel and America have to say. And he is trying to give the impression that he, a rabbi, speaks from sources, including the Shulchan Aruch, which we will show is completely wrong.

At the end of Par 8 Rabbi Breitowitz says, “See also Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, Laws of Divorce 134:5 9.” What did he see over there? It says that if the Law is that a husband must divorce his wife and the husband refuses then we may coerce the husband physically.  But if the coercion was against the teachings of the Law and the Shulchan Aruch, the GET issued by force is invalid. But Rabbi Breitowitz ignores that distinction. He found somewhere the words that a husband can be coerced and he doesn’t read the rest of the paragraph. What we need to do therefore is to find out exactly what the Din or Law is in the Shulchan Aruch when we may physically force a GET. None of this exists according to Rabbi Breitowitz.

In paragraph 9 Rabbi Breitowitz quotes Rabbi Waldernberg a prominent Israeli rabbi who says that when a husband has been jailed by the rabbinical courts and he still refuses a GET he may be forced to give a GET with a beating. He does not mention where this was said in Rabbi Waldernberg’s books. But the statement, even if it is true, only means that if a husband has been jailed by a rabbinical court for not giving a GET, then the rabbinical court has decided that the husband is in that minority of husbands who can be coerced, or that the coercion is something else besides the demand for the GET. The statement does not mean that goons like Epstein can make a “Beth Din” and torture husbands because the wife has the money to pay them.

In Par 10, the last paragraph, Rabbi Breitowitz states, “On the basis of these authorities, it is my opinion that Rabbi Stimler or any other defendant would be performing a “mitsvah” if he joined in an effort to secure consent to the writing of a GET from a recalcitrant husband even if he anticipated that, notwithstanding notification of a command from a Beth Din, physical coercion would be needed to overcome the husband’s persistence in refusing to authorize a GET.”

He then concludes “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.” I will show that the foregoing is not correct. In the vast majority of divorce cases it is a sin to coerce a GET. I will prove this from Shulchan Aruch and its major commentaries, and the great rishonim early authorities who are our authorities of the laws taught in Shulchan Aruch.

But there are other reasons that a gang like Epstein cannot make a GET with coercion. There is also a serious question if any GET that he gives is worth anything.  But regarding coercing a GET there are other reasons why Epstein cannot make a kosher GET according to the Torah.

 The senior rabbis of Israel, aware of people like Epstein, have ruled that even a Beth Din with a good reputation must not make a coercion without the permission and guidance of one of the handful of great rabbis in the world, such as Reb Shmuel HaLevi Wosner shlit”o.  Epstein and Berkowitz are surely not in that category. Thus, even if it was a mitzvah to coerce a husband to divorce with force, it would only be possible to do that after a very senior Beth Din commands it. If so, everything that Breitowitz said about this case is perjury or ignorance, or maybe both.

Section Two – Coercion of a GET: The Shulchan Aruch and Authorities

We now come to Section Two, examining the sources about coercing Gittin from the Shulchan Aruch and the major authorities.

There are three levels regarding coercing a GET. One, is when the husband marries a close relative such as a mother or daughter. He is told by the Rabbinical Court to give her a GET. If he refuses , he is beaten until he gives the GET. This beating is a full fledge beating with sticks. This is maximum coercion to obey the Torah.

The second level of coercion is for somebody who sins, but not a sin that is a serious as the first person. This person may be a man who cannot satisfy his wife due to certain physical problems. Without intimacy, the marriage is blighted and the wife can demand a divorce. The Talmud commands the husband to give the divorce. But in this case, if the husband continues to refuse a GET, he is not beaten nor can any major coercion be applied.

One thing can be done: People tell him to his face that he is wicked for violating the Talmud. But public  humiliation such as ORA does to gather crowds of people in the street outside his house to protest his not giving a GET is forbidden. This is stated clearly in Rashbo VII:414 and quoted by many great authorities. The Rashbo says that Beth Din may put fear in his heart with words, perhaps describe the punishment for violating the Talmud, but “they should not put him in the ban of niduh, nor should humiliate him, and should not cause him any physical pain.” Now, this is true for a man who must give a GET and yet he may not be humiliated. Certainly the next level, where a regular man is despised by his wife and she wants a GET, it is forbidden to humiliate him. There is a serious question if he has any obligation to give a GET.

Regarding level two a man who is not a man and the wife demands a GET, the Rashbo forbids humiliating him, as we said.

We come now to level three. A wife declares she wants a GET because “my husband is repelling to me.” The husband may look fine and be healthy, etc., but his wife hates him and wants a GET. The level of her hate is that even if she would have relations with him it would cause her distress. Obviously, a lady who wants a divorce because her husband is not as perfect as she imagined is not level three. This is very important.

May there be coercion in Level Three when the wife claims “my husband is repellant to me”? Here the Rashbo writes, “If he wants to divorce, he divorces. And if he does not want to divorce, he does not divorce.” VII:414. This means that the husband has no obligation and perhaps no mitzvah at all to divorce. Surely any coercion is forbidden. This is accepted and written in the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3. All of the major commentators there agree that coercion is forbidden in such a case. That is: the Shulchan Aruch written by Rabbi Yosef Karo; the Ramo written by Rabbi Moshe Isserlese; the Chelkas Mechokake and Beis Shmuel; all say that coercion is forbidden. The Vilna Gaon in his commentary there #5 says that nobody disagrees. Thus, anyone who coerces a husband because the wife wants her freedom and the husband is physically able to be a good husband, has no right to coerce the husband to give a GET. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l in his teshuvos says that there is no mitzvah for the husband to divorce his wife (Kovets Teshuvose page 199).

This may sound strange to us who are accustomed to hear about the glory of women’s freedom to leave their husbands. But the Torah is very serious about marriage. What is the secret to a successful marriage? The most successful therapist today in the general world is an Orthodox Jew who lost several children and then his marriage almost disappeared. He went here, he went there, but nobody could help  him. But he didn’t despair.  He worked hard to understand the mechanism of marriage and discovered one thing: Commitment makes love. Love cannot produce commitment. That saved his marriage and subsequently he has helped many others to save their marriages.

Therefore, in America where love is king, marriage  only lasts as long  as the love lasts. However, people change as they age. And as they change, the love changes. Thus, love cannot produce love, only  temporarily. But commitment can produce love. Commitment joins husband and wife so they are one unit that can grow together, growing differently, but always, together.

Thus, if commitment creates love, it stands to reason that any couple that at one time did not love, could continue it with commitment. From that will come love. Instead of working hard to destroy marriages, we have to work hard to create commitment, the cement of love and marriage. Therefore, declaring a need for freedom from a husband is not recognized to force a GET from the husband. And if the couple has a child or children, they also have rights, as does the husband. A partner in a marriage with two other partners cannot just leave just like that.

 I was involved in the past few years in cases where a wife admitted that her husband never did anything bad to her but she just changed her mind about him. In one case a mother of the wife always complained about the husband. For such reasons do we break up a marriage when there are children? The father has rights. The children have rights. The mother has no right to break up the marriage for such reasons. Let her work on therapy, etc., and find how to maintain the marriage. Of course, if she really wants to leave, she can, but she will have no GET. Of course, since the husband cannot have two wives and one of them he married left him, if he does not divorce her he has a problem remarrying. And even if he could remarry, who would marry somebody who is already married to somebody else? Thus, if the right people are involved, usually a GET is given. I was involved with the worst Agunah cases in Monsey and we had the most peaceful results in good time.

The key to solving marital problems is to realize that the Torah demands commitment. There is no place in the Torah for a woman to demand a divorce because her mother said to divorce, or because she didn’t like this or that trait in the husband, or because he was not the person she thought he was.

I once spoke to a father about his daughter who divorced a very successful husband because he was not a super success. After I spoke to the father, who almost spoke with a groan about his pain at this, I asked if I could speak to the daughter, and he gave her the phone. I asked her why she demanded a GET and she said, “He was very good, but not great!” Her voice trembled with fury. Where did she learn this? Not from her father. But there are various people out there. Here idealism destroys the marriage. She read too many books about great people and decided they were for her. Or she had a teacher who influenced her, or friends. But it is wrong. Today people decide to divorce and destroy their family because of talking to somebody who got divorced or who has some grudge against men. This is sad. But it is common, and it powers the increasing number of broken families and broken children. And the fathers I know of who are utterly shattered by the courts and the wars of the wife are teaching men one thing. Never give your wife a GET and trust her to treat you like a human being. People who were kind and gave a GET right away lost their children and after years of struggle had to give up.

 But the ORA lobbyists demonize all men who don’t just fork over the GET. They power the destruction of family, and the invalid Gittin they produce can make mamzerim.

To sum up:

1.       Coercion with a beating is only possible when the husband is living with a close relative such as a daughter or mother or similar situations of very great sin.

2.       Coercion with a beating is forbidden in cases where the Talmud demands a GET but does not clearly state that a beating is proper in that case. See Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 154:21.

3.       If the Talmud does demand a GET but does not say to beat the husband then only minor coercion is permitted. People may tell the husband that he is wicked for not obeying the Talmud. The Court can warn him and frighten him  perhaps with stories about going to Gehenum for disobeying the Talmud and maybe suffering in this world also. But serious coercion such as putting him under a ban or humiliating him or causing him physical pain is forbidden.

4.       In Even Hoezer 154:23 in the Ramo we find that in such a case when we permit minor coercion it is possible to do a passive ostracizing, meaning that nobody in his town talks to him or does business with him until he gives the GET. Note that this is only permitted in the case where the Talmud demands a GET. But the laws of a woman who demands a GET because “my husband is repellant to me” is not mentioned in the laws of Gittin, because we don’t demand a GET in such a case, nor may we make any kind of coercion, not major coercion and not minor coercion.

5.        Some say that passive ostracizing is only permitted if the husband can escape it by going to a different town. ORA goes from town to town so that would be forbidden even for a husband who is commanded by the Talmud to divorce because he is not a man. But MOUS OLEI when the wife is repelled by the husband may not be coerced at all.

6.       Major authorities disagree with the Ramo and forbid passive coercion through ostracizing completely, even for a husband who is not a man, as today it is considered a major coercion. These are the Shach in Gevuras Anoshim and the Chazon Ish. In general we follow the Shach if he differs with Ramo. Therefore,  coercion through ostracizing is also not allowed today even if the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not say to beat the husband to coerce the GET.

7.       Thus, Rabbi Breitowitz has decided that kidnapping and beating a husband to force a GET because the wife wants her freedom is a mitzvah, but he is ignorant about the Shulchan Aruch Code of Laws, and quotes as sources the Law of the State of New York that coerces  husbands to give a GET whenever there is a civil divorce. Such a GET forced by the secular court is invalid. The government cannot force a GET because only a universally recognized Beth Din can force a GET. Only then do we assume that the husband accepts the command of the Beth Din because “it is a mitsavh to obey the sages.” The civil court using civil law are not rabbinical sages and their force makes an invalid GET.

8.       Thus, the great rabbis of Israel quoted in the book Mishpitei Yisroel say that any Beth Din that is known to coerce Gittin in violation of the Shulchan Aruch loses its status of a Beth Din and its divorces are not recognized. A woman who has a GET from them must get a GET from a recognized Beth Din that follows the Shulchan Aruch.

9.       In the coming generation, all of the women divorced due to the twisted Torah of Rabbi Breitowitz and other such “rabbis” will have children who are possibly mamzerim, and this is the ultimate child molestation. Any child born from a remarried mother who remarried with a coerced GET that was not done under the direction of a prominent rabbi who follows the Shulchan Aruch as I mentioned above, is considered married even after she has her GET and the children of a woman remarried without a kosher GET are mamzerim.

   There are today many ignorant people who want to “help” ladies with a GET. And they are helping to make mamzerim.

   The Beis Shmuel says that any coercion that violates the Shulchan Aruch, or coercion that does not violate the Shulchan Aruch but is initiated by civil law or gentiles, is negated by the Torah and the children born from it are mamzerim. (See Even Hoezer 134:5 Beis Shmuel 10,13) The Maharsham IV:73 says that “We follow the ruling of the Beis Shmuel everywhere.”

We place here the rest of the government's case against the Trenton rabbis after the part we placed in the beginning of this document. Because of its length we shortened it in the beginning:

 f. “CC-1” was a co-conspirator of the defendants and resided in Lakewood, New Jersey. g. “CC-2” was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who was a co-conspirator of the defendants and resided in Lakewood, New Jersey. h. According to Jewish law, in order to effect a divorce, a husband must provide his wife with a document known as a “get.” A get serves as documentary proof of the dissolution of a marriage under Jewish law, and divorce cannot be effected until a get is given by the husband. The get is a dated and witnessed document wherein the husband expresses his unqualified intention to divorce his wife and sever all ties with her. The get is written by an expert scribe, known as a “sofer,” who acts as the husband’s agent. After the get is written by the sofer, the husband hands it to his wife in the presence of two witnesses. A wife may also have an agent accept the get on her behalf. At this point the marriage has been dissolved and a rabbinical court, known as a “beth din,” will give both parties a certificate confirming their new marital status. If a husband refuses to give his wife a get, the wife has the right to sue for divorce in a beth din, which may order the husband to issue the get. If the husband refuses to comply with the beth din’s order, he may be subjected to various penalties to pressure him into giving his wife a get and thereby consenting to the divorce. A woman whose husband will not give her a get and consent to a divorce is known as an “agunah” (“agunot” in plural).3 The Conspiracy 2. From at least in or about 2009 to in or about October 2013, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK a/k/a “Mordechai,” JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov,” DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari,” and BINYAMIN STIMLER conspired and agreed, together and with others known and unknown, to knowingly and unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct, and hold a person for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, to threaten and coerce Jewish husbands to give gets to their wives, and, in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, traveled in interstate commerce and used means, facilities and instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(a)(1). The Object of the Conspiracy 3. The object of the conspiracy was for defendants to obtain money and other things of value from agunot and their families by kidnapping the husbands of the agunot and violently coercing the husbands to give gets to their wives and thereby consent to Jewish divorces. Manner and Means of the Conspiracy 4. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK, and JAY GOLDSTEIN charged agunot and their families thousands of dollars to obtain gets from recalcitrant husbands by means of violence. 5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant DAVID EPSTEIN, defendant BINYAMIN STIMLER, CC-1, CC-2, and others assisted defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, 4 MARTIN WOLMARK, and JAY GOLDSTEIN in obtaining gets from recalcitrant husbands by means of violence. 6. It was further part of the conspiracy that in order to obtain the defendants’ assistance in obtaining a get from a recalcitrant husband, the family of an agunah made contact with one or more of the defendants to discuss the details of the divorce. The agunah’s family then made payment to one or more of the defendants to obtain the get. The defendants then convened a beth din, which issued a contempt order, known as a “seruv,” against the husband. If the husband failed to respond, the beth din issued a ruling, known as a “psak din,” authorizing the use of coercion and force to obtain the get. The defendants then arranged to kidnap the recalcitrant husband and violently coerce him to give his wife a get. Overt Acts In Furtherance of the Conspiracy 7. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its object, one or more of the defendants and others engaged in the following overt acts, among others: The 2009 Forced Get a. In or about late November 2009, CC-1 lured a man (“Victim 1”) from Brooklyn, New York to Lakewood, New Jersey under the pretense of an employment offer. Victim 1 stayed several days in a temporary residence in Lakewood. On or about December 1, 2009, while Victim 1 was in Lakewood, New Jersey, he was assaulted by defendant DAVID EPSTEIN and others, placed in a van, tied up, beaten and shocked with a stun-gun until he agreed to give his wife a get. The 2010 Forced Get b. On or about October 16, 2010, CC-2 lured a man (“Victim 2”) from 5 Brooklyn, New York to Lakewood, New Jersey under the pretense of helping CC-2 with Talmudic research. On or about October 17, 2010, defendant DAVID EPSTEIN, CC-2 and others assaulted Victim 2, tied him up and beat him until he agreed to give his wife a get. While Victim 2 was being assaulted, defendants MARTIN WOLMARK and JAY GOLDSTEIN arrived to officiate and record the get. The 2011 Forced Get c. On or about August 22, 2011, defendant DAVID EPSTEIN, after traveling from New Jersey to New York, defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN, and others forced their way inside the residence of a man (“Victim 3”) and his roommate (“Victim 4”) in Brooklyn, New York. Defendants DAVID EPSTEIN and JAY GOLDSTEIN and the other co-conspirators then assaulted Victim 3 and Victim 4, punched them the face, handcuffed them, blindfolded them, and bound their legs until Victim 3 agreed to give his wife a get. The 2013 Forced Get d. On or about August 7, 2013, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and MARTIN WOLMARK participated in a telephone conference call with two undercover FBI agents who purported to be an agunah (“UCE-1”) and her brother (“UCE-2”) (collectively, the “UCEs”). During that recorded call, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and MARTIN WOLMARK and the UCEs discussed the possibility of using violence to force UCE-1’s purported husband (“the Husband”) to give her a get. Also during that call, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN agreed to meet with the UCEs in person at a later date because, according to defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN, “I don’t think this is a phone conversation, am I correct?” e. On or about August 14, 2013, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN met with the 6 UCEs at his home in Lakewood, New Jersey to discuss kidnapping the Husband to force him to give the get. During that recorded meeting, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN spoke about kidnapping, beating, and torturing husbands in order to force them into giving gets to their wives: Sup, suppose we, ya know this is an expensive thing to do. It’s not simply . . . basically what we are going to be doing is kidnapping a guy for a couple of hours and beating him up and torturing him and then getting him to give the get. f. At the August 14, 2013 meeting, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN also talked about employing “tough guys” who utilize electric cattle prods, karate and handcuffs, and place plastic bags over the heads of the husbands to coerce them to give gets to their wives. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 also engaged in the following conversation: Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN (“ME”): Wait, wait, wait a minute. Wait a second here. I guarantee you that if you’re in the van, you’d give a get to your wife. You probably love your wife, but you’d give a get when they finish with you. So, and it’s, hopefully, there won’t even be a mark on him. UCE-2: You can leave a mark. ME: No, no, no, no, we -- UCE-2: I know. I understand what you’re saying. ME: We prefer not to leave a mark, right. Because then when they do go to the police, the police look at the guy -- UCE-2: Yeah, what’s wrong -- ME: You look the same. You know, ah, what’s so terrible. They did this to give a get. How long didn’t you give a get. Ah, two years, yeah. I mean, I, I’ve traveled, I’ve been in South America too, and basically the reaction of the police is, if the guy does not have a mark on him, then uh, is there some Jewish crazy affair here, they don’t get involved. * * * ME: We take an electric cattle prod.7 UCE-2: Electric cattle prod, okay. ME: If it can get a bull that weighs five tons to move, you put it in certain parts of his body and in one minute the guy will know. g. At the August 14, 2013 meeting, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN also admitted that he committed similar kidnappings every year to year and a half. h. At the August 14, 2013 meeting, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN stated that the kidnapping would cost $10,000 to pay for the beth din to approve the kidnapping and use of violence, and an additional $50,000 to $60,000 to pay for the “tough guys” who would conduct the beating of the Husband to coerce him to give the get. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN further stated that defendant MARTIN WOLMARK officiates during the kidnapping and forced get, and that defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN’s son is one of the “tough guys” who uses his karate skills on the husbands to facilitate the coerced divorces. i. On or about August 14, 2013, UCE-2 made a payment of approximately $10,000 to defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN for defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN to arrange for the kidnapping and beating of the Husband to coerce him to give the get. j. On or about September 25, 2013, UCE-2 called defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN. During that recorded call, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 discussed a warehouse in Middlesex County, New Jersey (the “Warehouse”) as the location of the kidnapping and beating of the Husband to coerce him to give the get. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN indicated that he wanted to investigate the Warehouse to ensure that it was an appropriate location. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN further told UCE-2 that UCE-2 would have to pay him a portion of the fee prior to the investigation. In response, UCE-2 told defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN that 8 he would wire $20,000 to defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN after the psak din was issued. k. During the September 25, 2013 call, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 also discussed whether it was necessary for the Husband to actually enter the Warehouse before he was kidnapped. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN stated that it might not be necessary for the Husband to enter the Warehouse because “they don’t need him for long, believe me. They’ll have him in the van, hooded, and it will happen.” l. During the September 25, 2013 call, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 further discussed luring the Husband to the Warehouse and how the Husband was going to get home after the kidnapping. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN told UCE-2 that UCE-2 should bring the Husband home so there would be “no police involvement.” m. On or about September 29, 2013, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and JAY GOLDSTEIN traveled from New York to New Jersey to inspect the Warehouse. Shortly thereafter, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN sent an e-mail to UCE-2. In that e-mail, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN told UCE-2 that the Warehouse was “[r]eally out of the way great.” Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN also noted that there was a police station nearby, and asked whether the police or other security regularly patrolled the area around the Warehouse. n. On or about September 30, 2013, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 had a telephone call, which was recorded. In response to defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN’s question in the September 29, 2013 e-mail about police or security patrols, UCE-2 told defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN that there would be no security patrols. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN told UCE-2 that the Warehouse was “better than good” and that it would be better if the Husband were brought inside the Warehouse for the kidnapping. Defendant 9 MENDEL EPSTEIN then outlined the plan for the kidnapping of the Husband, according to which defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN’s co-conspirators would enter the Warehouse on the evening of October 9, 2013, after UCE-2 had unlocked it, and wait there for UCE-2 to bring the Husband to the Warehouse, after which the Husband would be kidnapped and forced to give the get. o. During the September 30, 2013 call, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN confirmed that the beth din would issue the psak din on October 2, 2013, after which UCE-2 would wire $20,000 to defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN as payment. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN also instructed UCE-2 to bring a check in the amount of $30,000, and made out to defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN, with him to the Warehouse on October 9, 2013 because the participants in the kidnapping and beating “need to be paid within twenty-four hours.” p. On or about October 2, 2013, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK, and JAY GOLDSTEIN convened a beth din at defendant MARTIN WOLMARK’s office in Monsey, New York. The purpose of the beth din was to issue a psak din authorizing the use of violence to obtain a get from the Husband. That beth din proceeding was recorded by UCE-1. q. During the October 2, 2013 beth din proceeding, UCE-1 asked defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN who he was. Defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN refused to answer UCE-1’s question, explaining that it was better “the less information you [UCE-1] know about myself.” r. During the October 2, 2013 beth din proceeding, defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE-1 to explain her situation, asking “Why do you have to be released from this marriage, even if your husband has to be coerced?” UCE-1 explained her situation and why she was desperate for a divorce from her husband, who refused to give her a get. Defendant10 MENDEL EPSTEIN directed defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN to write down everything for the psak din. s. At the end of the October 2, 2013 beth din, defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE-1 about “the plan” for the forced get and whether UCE-1 knew the location and the timing. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN told UCE-1 that the plan to force the Husband to give the get was good, stating that “it’s at night, and it’s a weird place, it’s very good … hopefully the patrol will not be out on patrol that night.” Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN further told UCE-1 that on October 9, 2013, she “should be out in public” among a lot of people. t. On or about October 2, 2013, the beth din issued the psak din authorizing the use of coercion and force to obtain a get from the Husband. u. On or about October 2, 2013, a payment of approximately $20,000 was wired to defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN by UCE-2. v. On or about October 8, 2013, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 met at defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN’s home in Brooklyn, New York. That meeting was recorded by UCE-2. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN told UCE-2 that eight people would be present for the October 9, 2013 kidnapping and beating of the Husband, to include four “tough guys,” two witnesses, a sofer, and a person to accept the get on behalf of UCE-1. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN further stated that he would not be present at the Warehouse on October 9, 2013. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN told UCE-2 that he would be in some public place, so that witnesses could confirm his alibi if he were later questioned by the police. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN again directed UCE-2 to bring a check in the amount of $30,000, made out to him, and that UCE-2 was to give the check to the sofer at the Warehouse.11 w. At the October 8, 2013 meeting, defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN also discussed other similar kidnappings that defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN had previously orchestrated. x. On or about October 9, 2013, defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN, defendant BINYAMIN STIMLER, and six other individuals (collectively, the “Kidnap Team”) traveled from New York to the Warehouse in Middlesex County, New Jersey to execute the planned kidnapping of the Husband to force him to give the get. The Kidnap Team arrived at the Warehouse in two dark minivans shortly after 8:00 p.m. Upon exiting the minivans, some of the Kidnap Team members put on masks and entered the Warehouse office with UCE-2. The remaining Kidnap Team members walked around the outside of the Warehouse with flashlights. Over the next fifteen minutes, members of the Kidnap Team went in and out of the Warehouse office wearing disguises, including ski masks, Halloween masks and bandanas. While inside the Warehouse office, the Kidnap Team members discussed their plan for assaulting the Husband. Specifically, they discussed how they planned to grab the Husband, pull him down, tie him up, and take his phone, as well as where they would grab him and drag him, making sure to keep him away from the windows. Members of the Kidnap Team brought with them to the Warehouse rope, surgical blades, a screwdriver, plastic bags, and items used to ceremonially record the get. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c).12 COUNT 2 (Kidnapping) 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 6 and 7a of Count 1 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. From in or about November 2009 to on or about December 1, 2009, in Ocean County, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari” did knowingly and unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct, and hold a person, “Victim 1,” for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, to threaten and coerce Victim 1 to give a get, and, in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, did cause Victim 1 to be willfully transported in interstate commerce from New York to New Jersey and did use any means, facility, and instrumentality of interstate and foreign commerce. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(a)(1), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.13 COUNT 3 (Kidnapping) 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 6 and 7b of Count 1 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. On or about October 17, 2010, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants MARTIN WOLMARK a/k/a “Mordechai,” JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov,” and DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari” did knowingly and unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct, and hold a person, “Victim 2,” for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, to threaten and coerce Victim 2 to give a get, and, in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, did cause Victim 2 to be willfully transported in interstate commerce from New York to New Jersey, did travel in interstate commerce from New York to New Jersey, and did use any means, facility, and instrumentality of interstate and foreign commerce. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(a)(1), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.14 COUNT 4 (Kidnapping) 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 6 and 7c of Count 1 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. On or about August 22, 2011, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov” and DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari” did knowingly and unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct, and hold a person, “Victim 3,” for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, to threaten and coerce Victim 3 to give a get, and, in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, did travel in interstate commerce from New Jersey to New York, and did use any means, facility, and instrumentality of interstate and foreign commerce. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(a)(1), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.15 COUNT 5 (Attempted Kidnapping) 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 6 and 7d-x of Count 1 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. On or about October 9, 2013, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK a/k/a “Mordechai,” JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov,” and BINYAMIN STIMLER did knowingly and unlawfully attempt to seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct, and hold a person, “the Husband,” for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, to threaten and coerce the Husband to give a get, and, in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, did travel in interstate commerce from New York to New Jersey, and did use any means, facility, and instrumentality of interstate and foreign commerce. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(d), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.16 FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 1. The allegations contained in all paragraphs of Counts 1 through 5 of this Indictment are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though set forth in full herein for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461. 2. Upon conviction of the any of the offenses alleged in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of this Indictment, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK, JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov,” DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari,” and BINYAMIN STIMLER shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C), any property, real or personal, that constitutes or was derived from any proceeds traceable to the commission of the above offenses, including but not limited to, approximately $30,000 in United States currency, in that such sum constituted and was derived, directly and indirectly, from proceeds traceable to the commission of a violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 1201(c). 3. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK, JAY GOLDSTEIN a/k/a “Yaakov,” DAVID EPSTEIN a/k/a “Ari,” and BINYAMIN STIMLER: a. Cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; b. Has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; c. Has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; d. Has been substantially diminished in value; or e. Has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;then it is the intent of the United States of America to seck forfeiture of any other property of defendants MENDEL EPSTEfN, MARTfN WOLMARK, JAY GOLDSTEfN a/k/a "Yaakov," DAVID EPSTEfN a/k/a "Ari," and BINY AMfN STIMLER up to the value of the forfeitable property described above, pursuant to Title 2 1, United States Code, Section 853(p) as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 246 1 (c). Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98 1 (a)( I )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461. PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney A TRUE BILL FOREPERSON 17

End of  government documents relative to letter from Rabbi Breitowitz.

Message from Joe Orlow

I've had an opportunity to work with Rabbi Eidensohn for a number of years. I am grateful to be able to contribute to his blog, and I want to thank everyone who has visited this blog with its discussions about Torah marriage, family, and divorce.

Rabbi Eidensohn is in Monsey NY, and I am outside Washington DC. Trenton NJ is between Washington and Monsey, and is where a Chilul Hashem is being played out as Rabbis are on public trial for a crime that involved intent to kidnap and torture a man in order to force a  divorce. And during the trial, a prominent Rabbi has submitted a document to the court where he seems to indicate that a Bais Din led by one of the Rabbis on trial was acting according to Halacha when it ordered that a man be beaten to elicit a Get, and thus the man who was going to do the beating should be exonerated.

At first it seemed to be a cabal of a few Rabbis creating a Chilul Hashem by their beatings of husbands for monetary gain or other reasons. Now, based on this and on other research, the Chilul HaShem is that senior rabbis in the United States are openly backing the torture of husbands through humiliating, demonizing, and other ways of forcing a Get.

We say these Rabbis are ignorant of Halacha. The Shulchan Aruch declares such divorces forced with humiliation and loss of jobs to be invalid Gittin. The great Rabbis in Eretz Israel have declared that any woman receiving a Get from a Beth Din that permits coercing husbands in defiance of the Shulchan Aruch must get a kosher Get before she remarries. They have released a "Sefer Mishpitei Yisreol" about this with their signed opinions and that of fifty American geonim and major Torah personalities. You can get the Sefer by calling 845-352-0532.

The Sefer says that because of the rabbis who think it is a Mitzvah to coerce a husband, that in the next generation one may not marry anyone until there is a thorough checking that they are not descended in any way from an invalid Get, a questionable Get, or a Get given by a Beth Din that has lost its license to give Gittin because it strays from the Shulchan Aruch with regard to coercing the husband.

We are sitting on a volcano on the verge of erupting, splitting families and communities asunder, and where in America is this discussed openly other than on this blog? In Philadelphia, a Rosh Yeshiva with a very famous name, is encouraging a married woman to remarry without a Get. He says he has a Heter for allowing this, which every Rabbi I've contacted in this regard -- and I've contacted a number of Rabbis of Batei Din --  has rejected. To be sure, they have not learned the details of the Heter, which is being kept secret; their rejection seems to be based on their not being any possibility of a Heter in this case. If and when this woman in Philly remarries, any baby born from such a marriage will definitely be a Mamzer D'o'rysa. And yet, where are the protestations? Nowhere in America, except this blog.

Rabbi Eidensohn spent many sessions talking personally to Gedolei HaDor of the past generation: Reb Aharon Kotler, Reb Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev, all of them  zt”l, and others. Rabbi Eidensohn insists that we follow the Shulchan Aruch and not coerce husbands. Those who follow the Halacha in matters of divorce and re-marriage will be able to have children who are not doubtful Mamzerim. Other people will find out the hard way what happens.

Rabbi Eidensohn is now organizing a group of men and women who want to keep the Torah as the Gedolim Reb Aharon and Reb Moshe and Reb Elyashev, all of them zt”l, wanted. Participants from all over the United States are eager to keep the Torah from Sinai and to obey the rules of the Shulchan Aruch as taught by earlier generations. Our people who work to further the goal of saving children from being Mamzerim are invited to write guest posts. We ask that no personal attacks be made, but to talk about things that are important for us to know as we seek to educate others.

If you want to get involved in this Holy project, saving the next generation from facing a flood of Mamzerim, call Rabbi Eidensohn at 845-578-1917. The blog has a Pay Pal link. Please make a contribution which is a means of advancing Rabbi Eidensohn's work.

Shalom,

Joe Orlow

Mistakes in Gittin by Rabbis: What and Why?

In a previous post we attacked a  rabbi for supporting the organization ORA that specializes in humiliating husbands and coercing them to give a GET, something forbidden by the Shulchan Aruch and the major poskim. We quoted in that post the Shulchan Aruch and the Gro who ways that nobody permits coercing a GET just because the wife demands freedom. We also mentioned also that the great rabbis of Israel today not only feared that coercion could invalidate a GET, but also they ruled that any rabbis who forms a Beth Din and coerces a GET, that Beth Din has lost its license as a Gittin Beth Din. Any woman who had a GET from such a Beth Din may not remarry, say these great Israeli rabbis, until she goes to a respectable Beth Din that does not coerce Gittin and gets a new GET.

In the coming generation, large numbers of children born from a woman who remarried using a GET that was coerced by certain Beth Dins, will be considered problems of mamzeruth. Here we want to show  a mistake made by a rabbi  who stumbled in the laws of Gittin.

One rabbi who strongly supports ORA and its coercion of husbands told me the following reason he permits it. He says that he recalled that the Shulchan Aruch says that when it is necessary, the community may force a GET by refusing to have anything to do with the husband who will not give a GET. This sounds like a very solid proof. But if so, what do we do with my proofs that it is forbidden to coerce a GET based upon the claim of the wife that she cannot tolerate living with her husband? My proofs quoted in prevous posts were the Shulchan Aruch 77 paragraphs 2 and 3.

Let us look into the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 164 paragraph 21. The Shulchan Aruch section is "Laws of Gittin." The Shulchan Aruch discusses what to do with a husband who has been clearly obligated by the Talmud to divorce his wife. For instance, the Talmud tells us that a husband with such a problem must divorce his wife. Since the Talmud requires a divorce, and the husband refuses, it would seem that we may force the GET, even with a beating or other serious coercions. But the Shulchan Aruch rejects this. It seems that there is an argument among the sages what the Talmud means when it says "he must divorce his wife." Does it mean that we force him to divorce even with a beating? Or does it mean only a minor coercion, such as telling him that he is wicked for not obeying the Talmud? The Shulchan Aruch quotes the Ramo, the authority of Ashkenazim, that if we do coerce such a GET for somebody required to divorce his wife, and the Talmud does not clearly say to beat him, we may not make a serious coercion. It would seem from the Shulchan Aruch there that we may tell him that we will call him "wicked" for defying the Talmud, but nothing serious like beatings or being put in Nidui.

The Ramo there states that since we have two opinions one permitting and one forbidden serious coercion, we do not make serious coercion such as a beating, even when the Talmud demands a GET. We fear that  to coerce the GET in a serious manner, even when the Talmud demands a GET may produce an invalid GET.

What then can be done? The Ramo says that we can coerce the husband by decreeing on everyone in his community not to have dealings with him until he divorces his wife. That is, "not to do the husband a favor, not to do business with him, or to circumcize his sons or bury them, until he gives a divorce GET." The Vilna Gaon adds a condition mentioned in some sources for this law, that this public coercion is only permitted if the husband can escape his locality and live elsewhere without people treating him this way. Thus, the Ramo mentions only that we coerce in a passive not direct manner. We don't talk to him; we don't do business with him. But we don't do anything positive to pressure him. Furthermore, the Vilna Gaon adds that the pressure can only be made in a locality where the husband can flee and live elsewhere without the pressure. And the Shach in Gevuras Anoshim agrees.

It would seem according to this that it is forbidden to do what ORA does for many reasons. One, the Ramo only permits passive coercion, not active humiliations. Two, the Vilna Gaon maintains a text of this law taught by Rabbeinu Tam that permits such public coercion only when the husband can escape the coercion by going to a different town. ORA pursues the husband to the next town as well, so its coercion is forbidden.

A third reason ORA is wrong is that very senior authorities disagree with the Ramo and forbid forcing a GET based upon public passive cordination. One is the Shach, a mighty authority who in general overrides the Ramo. He writes in Gevuras Anoshim two things about this passive coercion. One, as the Vilna Gaon says, that it is only permitted when the husband can go to another place and be safe from the coercion. And two, the Shach says that there are those who feel that today the pain and pressure from the public refusing to deal with the husband is considered not a minor coercion but a major coercion. He therefore concludes that it is better not to do passive coercion. It would seem that the Chazon Ish in the Laws of Gittin agrees with the Shach see 108:12 that we should not do passive coercion because today it is considered a serious coercion more than in the time of Rabbeinu Tam. If so, that it is better not to do passive coercion even for somebody commanded by the Talmud to divorce, surely what ORA does to coerce with public and active humiliations is forbidden and produces an invalid GET. If the woman remarries with a GET from ORA her new children are possible mamzerim.

 Passive coercion is only mentioned in the Laws of Gittin where the Torah demands a GET and the husband refuses. In such a case a passive coercion is permitted by  Ramo. But in EH laws of Kesubose 77 paragraph 2 and 3 we deal with a husband who has no obligation to divorce his wife. And the fact that his wife demands a GET does not permit people to coerce him.The Laws of Gittin are about people who must divorce their wives. And the laws of Kesubose are about keeping a marriage going. In the Laws of Kesubose the Ramo does not permit any kind of coercion, not even passive coercion. It would seem from the language of the Shulchan Aruch and the major poskim on the Shulchan Aruch EH 77 par 2 and 3 that there is no obligation at all upon the husband to give a GET when his wife demands one. And that is the opinion of Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l. The authoriities quote a Rashbo in teshuva VII:414 that in an ordinary demand of divorce because "my husband is repulsive to me" "if the husband wants to divorce, he can divorce. If he does not want to divorce, he doesn't divorce." It would seem there is no obligation to divorce and surely not coercion of any kind is permitted. Rabbeinu Tam mentioned in Shita Kesubose says that we do not even tell the husband it would be nice or a mitsvah to give a GET. The Chazon Ish Gittin 99 says that if a Beth Din tells a husband he is obligated to give a GET and this was wrong, the GET is invalid from the Torah.

The vast majority of divorces today deal with a woman's refusal to be with her husband, something that is not recognized by the rabbis as an excuse to coerce a GET. The Ramo is talking about a husband who cannot be a man or other problems that the Talmud clearly states must give a GET. But the Talmud does not say we should hit the husband, so we don't do serious coercions, only, according to Ramo, passive coercion. And the Gro and Shach,  major latter authorities both say that only if the husband can flee from his town and find peace is it permitted to coerce  him passively. Thus, ORA would be forbidden even according to Ramo. And as we mentioned, the Shach and Ramo maintain that today we don't do even passive coercion when the husband can flee, because it is considered today a major coercion.

Rabbi Heinemann Backs ORA and Mamzerim

In our recent posts about Philadelphia and the efforts to help a married woman remarry without a GET, we attacked those responsible for this, even though they were prominent Torah personalities. Unfortunately, the Torah world does not know the laws of Gittin. But they do know that the Torah requires a woman to have a GET whenever she is fed up with the marriage. And when I ask people what their sources for this is, as I have sources in Shulchan Aruch and poskim who say just the opposite, I never get a proper answer.

Here is a letter from Rabbi Moshe Heinemann of Baltimore, posted on the ORA website, that gives his full support to ORA and its coercion of Gittin. I believe that this is forbidden. And I believe that this produces mamzerim. 

Here is Rabbi Heinemann's letter, posted for a long time I believe on the ORA website, calling for everyone to support ORA.

I am strongly opposed to this letter for several reasons. One, ORA itself is controlled by Rabbi Herschel Schachter, whose published audio tapes show that he believes in killing a husband who refuses to give his wife a GET. This is the same person who once told somebody that if the Prime Minister of Israel had a program of such and such that he should be killed. He had to flee Israel after saying that, but that is who you are dealing with. How can a serious Talmid Chochom give his name to an organization controlled by such a person? And does Rabbi Heinemann agree that husbands should be coerced to the point of beatings and even death? Of course not, I hope. But even if Rabbi Heinemenndid not know about these hideous opinions of Rabbi Schachter, giving your name full blast to people who may have different ideas than you do is not the way of wisdom. Rabbi Heinemenn should have checked out the ORA organization and its rabbinical leader more carefully.

Let us leave ORA for a moment, and deal directly with the idea supported by Rabbi Heinemenn, that what ORA does, to humiliate husbands and break their spirit until they give a GET, is  a great mitsvah and deserves everyone's support. This is completely wrong. Every GET coerced by ORA is invalid and any Rov involved with such a GET has lost Chezkas Beis Din, as Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev zt"L told me, and as has beeen recently paskened by living Gedolim Reb Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Shmuel HaLevi  Wosner and other gedolim of Israel. Again, gedolei hador of the past and present generations have said that any Beth Din that coerces Gittin in defiance of the Shulchan Aruch (the way the Gedolim read the open words of the Shulchan Aruch without twisting things) is an invalid Beth Din. Any woman who got a  GET from them must get another GET as we do not recognize the first GET from a Beth Din that has no Chezkas Beth Din, because it does what Rabbi Heinemann believes in, coercing the husband to give a GET.   

Now let us supply the sources in the Shulchan Aruch. See Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3, and the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo, the Beis Shmuel, the Chelkas Mechokake and the Gro. All forbid coecing a GET or pressuring a husband to give one based upon the demand of the wife to be freed of her husband because she cannot tolerate being with him. If Beth Din without the wife's complaints recognizes that the husband is not fit to be a husband, that could lead to coercion. But the majority of cases today of divorce is not because the husband is unable to have children, etc., but because the wife wants out of the marriage. Her complaint that "my husband is disgusting to me" cannot allow Beth Din to coerce a GET or pressure the husband to divorce.

The Gro there EH 77 #5 says clearly that none of the present authorities permit coercion of the GET because of the wife's desire to be free of him. Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l said that there is not even a mitsvah for the husband to give a GET, but as the Rashbo says in his teshuva VII:414 "If the husband wants to divorce he divorces. If he does not want to divorce, he does not divorce." This statement is accepted by major poskim and is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch EH 77 paragraph 2 and 3.

 The idea espoused by ORA and it seems Rabbi Heinemann that any wife can break the marriage and have the husband forced to give a GET is therefore completely wrong. It is important to maintain a list of all women divorced by ORA because their children may be mamzerim, which is the opinion of the Gedolim in Israel today.

Questions about Remarrying Without a GET in Philly

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

We posted a previous attack on those in Philadelphia who want a married woman to remarry without a GET. It seems that certain nameless rabbis permit this, although at least those “rabbis” are smart enough not to let anybody know who they are. Let us look at the Shulchan Aruch and the idea of letting a woman remarry without a GET. The only reason somebody could permit a woman to remarry without a GET and her husband lives is because there was a condition attached to the marriage and it was violated. So, let us look at this and see how it applies to those who simply rubber stamp a “not-married” sign on any woman who wants it.

See gemora Yevomose 94b that one may make a condition about getting married and if the condition is violated the marriage is negated. But this applies only to Erusin, or Kiddushin, the stage of marriage when people agree to be husband and wife but they did not have Chupah and may not be together. The second phase of marriage, when the couple are together and certainly when they have relations, are different. When the couple comes together in marital embrace, generally, violating conditions don’t negate  the marriage. Why not? Once a man and woman have relations it is not customary to continue with the conditions that may make the marriage negated. Because if the marriage is negated the husband and wife are living with zenuse which is a disgrace. Therefore, in general, one may make a condition in stage one of marriage. Kiddushin, when the two are not together. For instance, they can say that the marriage will only be valid if the wife is without a serious physical blemish. And if she has such a blemish, the marriage never took place. But once they are together, the general attitude is to refuse living with zenuse, and therefore the conditions are cancelled and the marriage remains.

Tosfoses there D”H but nisuin says that a condition may apply even after the couple is together, but this is rare because of two reasons: One, if the marriage is cancelled after the couple has been together it would retroactively have been a relationship of zenuse, so it is disgrace for a Jewish man and woman to be together without marriage which is zenuse.

Another reason that people refuse to cancel a marriage after they have relations is that the pleasure of being together in intimacy cancels their interest in negating the marriage. These two factors usually operate to cancel any conditions when the couple has relations. And yet, if the couple made a condition and they made it clear that being together will not cancel the condition but it will cancel the marriage if violated, then we could discuss about the fate of the marriage. But the lady in Philly never made any conditions to negate the marriage if such and such happened. Therefore, she has no grounds for negating the marriage. And furthermore, even if she did make a condition before having intimacy and afterwards, and really wants to break the marriage, she is obviously in violation of the standards of most Jews, and is thus a lowly woman.

Only a clearly stated condition made before the stage of marital intimacy can cancel a marriage. And once the condition is violated, the wife must leave the house immediately as she lives without kiddushin in sin. Did any of this happen to the lady from Philadelphia?

The Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 38:35 says that “one who makes kiddushin, the beginning phase of marriage, with a condition, and then has relations, and at the time of the relations was silent and did not promote the condition, the marriage is not cancelled even if the condition was violated.”

See the lengthy study of the Beis Shmuel in EH 38:59. There are discussions and opinions about when a marriage can be negated, when it is not negated but the woman needs a GET to remarry, when the condition creates a doubt and when it is negated, etc. Thus, anyone who seeks to remarry without a GET has an obstacle course to run, and afterwards, no normal person would want to marry her. First of all, the Philly lady taught by Shalom Kaminetsky to rely on a condition to cancel the marriage shows that bias zenuse is something she accepts, and is a lower person in violation of the proper standards Jews traditionally accept. Second of all, she never made a condition that anyone knows about, and nobody knows who permitted her to remarry. What normal Jew who believes in the Torah would marry such a person? And this woman comes from fine stock, as her father was a close friend of the Philly Yeshiva. Is this what he is seeing from his place in Gan Eden, that his daughter refuses my offer to make a GET with her husband, and instead, she makes a circus that would shame almost any Jew?

For shame on her. For shame on Shalom Kaminetsky for helping her remarry and produce mamzerim. And shame on Shmuel Kaminetsky for knowing what is happening and he does not stop it. And obviously, people suspect that the son would surely not do anything without his father’s permission. If so, he has a lot to answer for.

Again, I have spoken with the husband and he wants a GET. But he wants to settle certain things such as custody for his daughter. And yet, Shalom Kaminetsky is helping this lady completely married to remarry without a GET. This can only lead to mamzeruth, something that I intend to strongly publicize. Again, if this woman remarries without a GET, I will strongly publicize the fact that the children are probably mamzerim. And I will let the husband know exactly what I plan to do. I will make him famous, along with the wicked ones who encourage a woman without a father to destroy her life and that of her children.

This woman has no father and is like a yesoma who needs rabbis who will help her, and I am here to get her a completely kosher and normal GET after certain minor things are settled. Why does she insist on following Shalom Kaminetsky along a path that can dissuade any normal Torah Jew from wanting to marry her? This is a major mystery.

I don’t understand the whole story. The husband Aharon Friedman delivered the child he brought back from Washington in 2012 to his mother-in-law’s house, and was pounced on by a group of goons and beaten, but he escaped. Two years later, the FBI arrested a group of Orthodox goons. And a month after the FBI arrested the group of Orthodox goons, Aharon’s wife announced that she does not need a GET, and is free to remarry. A friend of mine was solicited by Shalom Kaminetsky to marry her, even without a GET, which Shalom declared was not necessary.

Why did the wife decide she doesn’t need a GET only after the goons were arrested? And why is Shalom Kaminetsky doing something, to help a married woman remarry without a GET, something that every child knows is wrong, when doing this will invite me and others like me to publicize that he is a creator of mamzerim? And does Shalom not realize that many people, such as me, suspect his father of being involved in all of this? Does he not care about the honor of his father?

I think I have made my point. If they don’t stop now, I won’t stop either. I have the backing of gedolei Yisroel who want me to pour on the heat. It won’t go away. I say to you Shalom, stop now. Call me and let’s settle this with a nice peaceful GET and restore quiet to Philadelphia. I have better things to do than to sit and write articles about mamzer producers. But if they are here, I am also here. And I am in the process of talking to more and more major authorities, who are shocked at this story and want me to fight as I am fighting. And who is the rabbi who told you, Shalom, to marry a married woman to somebody else without a GET? I want him on my list, right up front. And of course, you will supply that rabbi’s sources to disagree with the gemora and the Shulchan Aruch and the accepted policy of Beth Dins never to permit a married woman to remarry without a GET. This is pure rishuse. But there must be a reason for doing this pure rishuse, when it is not necessary in order to get a GET. Surely there is another reason why this woman is claiming that she does not need a GET, and there is surely another reason why Shalom Kaminetsky  publicizes this.

 This is such an interesting case. Rachmono litslon. I feel sorry for the poor woman who is being advised to destroy her life. But I also feel sorry for Shalom Kaminetsky, because what he is doing is obviously related to hidden things I did not mention. But maybe the hidden  things are worse than anything I can write. Who knows?

Making Mamzerim in Philadelphia

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/Monsey, NY 10952/845-578-1917

I strongly protest the incredible and unheard of sin committed by Shalom Kaminetsky of Philadelphia, probably with his father’s approval, to help a woman remarry without a GET! For years I have strongly protested the actions of Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky who tells people to coerce husbands to force a GET from them, in utter defiance of the Shulchan Aruch and poskim. But now his son probably with his approval has decided to sin even further with helping a married woman to remarry without a GET! Incredibly, we don’t hear a roar of condemnation about this from every mouth. It is quiet. Well, now it is not quiet. I hereby protest the hideous sin of the Kaminetskys: Shmuel’s sin of coercing Gittin and Shalom’s sin of encouraging a woman to marry without a GET. Upon remarriage with a coerced GET or no GET, a woman produces children who may be mamzerim, the ultimate child abuse.

Reb Shmuel Kaminetsky has long called for coercing husbands to give their wives a GET upon the wife’s demand when the marriage is broken. This is in utter defiance of the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3. There the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Beis Shmuel, Chelkas Mechokake and Gro clearly forbid coercing a GET based upon the wife’s demands that she cannot stand the husband. The Gro there #5 says that nobody disagrees. So how can Shmuel Kaminetsky disagree? And furthermore, when Shmuel Kaminetsky signed letters calling on everyone to torture husbands because the wife was tired of them or whatever, did he talk to the husband and hear his side? See Choshen Mishpot 17:5  And did Shmuel Kaminetsky sign these treifeh letters as a favor to his good friend the father of the woman who wants a GET? Is this not highly questionable, to posken for a friend against her enemy? See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpot VII:6  that both sides in the Din Torah must be equal in the eyes of the Dayan. So how could S. Kaminetsky pasken against the husband when he is a best friend of the father of the wife?

And Shalom Kaminetsky’s efforts to get this lady married without a GET without mentioning what rabbis permitted it is also unheard of.  I say this: This woman, if she remarries without a GET, will be forbidden to her old husband and her new husband and will be a soteh living in zenuse. Her child will be a mamzer vadai. And if some rabbi does say that a woman can remarry without a GET, the vast majority of rabbis in the world and the greatest ones are completely convinced that the woman without a GET may not remarry.

It is a great mitzvah that everyone call Shalom Kaminetsky and his father and ask them what source they have or what rabbi they have to permit a woman remarrying without a GET. If they remain in their position of being poskim against the Shulchan Aruch we call upon all parents not to send their children to the Philly Yeshiva of the Kaminetskys and not to support the Yeshiva, and to protest to the Kaminetskys that they are making a chilul HaShem and mamzerim.

The idea that one rabbi or two rabbis can permit a woman to remarry for reasons nobody else ever heard of has no place in halacha. See teshuvose Mahari ben Lev IV:19:3 “Even if most rabbis permit dovor shebierva (if a woman is permitted to marry somebody) but some forbid it, we are stringent and forbid the woman to remarry.” And even if we can understand following the majority of poskim who permit her to remarry as we usually follow the majority in pesak, if we have a majority who forbid the woman to remarry and some rabbi or two claim she is permitted, we surely must follow the majority. If so, how can the woman remarry?

The Philadelphia woman is not an Agunah. I speak to the husband regularly and he is happy to settle with a GET but he wants to organize the visitations of the child and perhaps some other things, as in every GET. Shalom Kaminetsky is destroying this woman’s life. He should convince her to contact me and get a GET and settle with the visitations like every divorced woman.  This way she will not be a zona and her children will not be mamzerim. And if she does remarry without a GET, will the Kaminetsky family accept the child in marriage or will they fear to take a mamzer in marriage?

Dovid Eidensohn

The First Two Teachings of the Talmud

What are the first teachings of the Talmud? The Talmud begins with a question: When do we recite the evening Shema prayer? It does not answer the question directly by telling us that we recite the Shema prayer when it becomes night. It answers something else, “When the Cohanim priests enter to eat their Teruma, a sacred food.” So, we still don’t know when to say the night Shema.

The second teaching of the Talmud is that the end time to recite the Shema of night is the first Mishmar or Watch of the night. Whose Watch? This is not answered. One question brings two statements that are meaningless.

When we look deeper into the two answers we detect important teachings about prayer in general and indeed about relating to G-d. And just as these two answers seem to be confusing but actually reveal major concepts of the Torah as we will explain, so when somebody learns any part of the Talmud, he must anticipate deep ideas and find the hidden jewels.

The first teaching that we begin the recitation of the night Shema when the Cohanim enter to eat their Teruma is an interesting law. A Cohan became seriously impure somehow and during the day purified himself in a mikva. He is not yet completely pure and cannot enter the Temple until he offers a sacrifice, but he is pure enough to eat Teruma. Thus, the recitation of the Shema takes place at night but this teaching is taught indirectly. First we must learn that Cohanim eat Teruma before they are completely pure. This tells us that reciting the Shema, accepting the Yoke of heaven, the love of G-d, the great mitsvose of the Torah mentioned specifically in the Shema, do not require a perfect person. Even one who is trying to escape a past of mistakes may say the Shema and turn to HaShem. Shema is a very holy thing and all of us hope to recite it before we die, so our souls enter Paradise with the Shema. But we don’t have to be completely pure to do that. We do what we can, even though further work is necessary the next day. And that qualifies us to say Shema and come to HaShem and declare “And you shall love the L-d your G-d.” Maybe your love of G-d could be improved. But  say Shema as  you are , as you are struggling to find holiness, and that is enough.

The second statement in the Talmud’s beginning is that the final time for reciting the night Shema is at the end of the First Watch. But when is that? The gemora says that this opinion, of Rabbi Eliezar, is talking about the Watch in heaven of the angels. In heaven the angels sing songs of praise to HaShem in assigned times and places. They have Watches. The night is divided into three watches and there are angels for each of them. When the First Watch of night ends, new angels appear, but the time to recite the night Shema has passed according to Rabbi Eliezar.

The idea here is for us to realize that human prayers are closely connected to heaven. The angels pray to HaShem and so do people. This lets us realize how holy prayer is.

Thus, the two lessons in the Talmud are taught in a way to reveal important ideas about the service of HaShem in prayer. First, the holiest prayers don’t require perfect people. And secondly, when we pray, we are praying with the angels, and we are close to the greatest holiness.

Perhaps the greatest problem in life and especially in Torah is to be proud of our relationship with G-d and not depressed by our mistakes. There is so much failure and frustration many people don’t say the Shema and pray with the proper confidence and joy. Here we are encouraged to say Shema and  pray with the angels before the Presence.

Using Good as an Excuse to do Evil

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

A Jew once sinned so terribly that nobody recalled a Jew doing such a thing. A rabbi was asked to explain how this could happen. The rabbi answered, "I don't know why this Jew sinned so terribly. But one thing I tell you. He meant with his evil did to serve HaShem."

All of us have temptations to do evil. Many people will do what they can in business to make a buck, even though it may be improper. But because they realize that what they are doing is wrong, akin to stealing, or actual stealing, they don't lose control completely. They may do some bad things, but there is some kind of control remaining. However, once a person is convinced that the evil deed he is doing or he wants to do is really a good deed, what can hold him back from serving HaShem?

We read this coming week the Torah portion of Mishpotim, meaning "judgment." In this portion laws of stealing and killing are discussed. This is amazing, because the portion before Mishpoatim it Yisro, when the Jews received the Torah from G-d Himself at Sinai and heard the Ten Commandments. Would it not have been more appropriate to follow such an elevated event with something about the highest holiness, such as the building of the Tabernacle, instead of the hideous evil that portion deals with?

But a Jew has a Torah soul, and is not so close to killing and stealing and damaging. But when he is convinced that killing or stealing or damaging is a good deed, and by so doing he serves HaShem, what is to keep him from killing and stealing and damaging?

Someone called me that he had borrowed a large sum of money, and had to repay it. But he had no way to repay it. He became emotional, and began talking about his situation and why the lender should understand. Finally, he got to the point. He won't pay the wealthy man, and the wealthy man won't miss it. But the wealthy man will have the mitsvah of giving him charity. Acording to this, by now paying what he borrowed, the rich man will merit the pleasures of the Future World. Of couse, this was uttered in bitter desperation, but when people are pressured, and they have no recourse, they do the worst things and call it a mitsvah. Thus, the worst evil can sprout from the greatest good.

A woman once came to me with a bitter tale about her husband who wanted a divorce. She wanted him to remain with her. She wanted me to talk to the husband to save the marriage. Now, this is surely a worthwhile and good thing. But this lady was chasing her husband for decades. Her youth had left her and she just kept at it. I told her that if she lets go of her efforts there is a chance she can remarry and find some happiness instead of running around the world asking for people to call her husband. But she was serving HaShem and HaShem surely wants people to stay married. Thus, she gave up her life to serve HaShem.  This woman was once young and lovely. She could have left one marriage and quickly found another one, maybe with better help and preparation to find the right husband. But no, she just kept up serving HaShem, as she saw it.

Not long after this I was by the great Posek Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l and asked him if I was right when I told her to stop chasing her husband and to remarry. He agreed with me. Some times, we serve HaShem and destroy others. And sometimes, we destroy ourselves, HaShem Yerachem.

In one of our discussions, Rav Elyashev zt"l pointed out to me that there are rabbis who want to help women remarry when the husband refuses to give her a GET. These rabbis can help get a GET for the woman in appropriate ways, or they can do something not appropriate. It is not that rabbis want to do evil things. But they want to do a mitsvah and  help a woman to be freed when she demands her freedom. Now, maybe the husband and the children don't want a divorce and a broken family, so why break up the family for the wife? But some people feel that the wife has her rights to break the family and damage the husband and the children. Now, a forced GET is invalid. The woman who gets such an invalid GET remarries and has a child. That child is a mamzer. Making a mamzer is the most hideous sin. But some people do it because they want to do good.