Free translation of a document issued by the Rabbinical Court Shar Hamishpot, 24 Sivan 5772 [June 14, 2012]

Nullification of a baseless "contempt," pronouncement of a man's integrity, and an admonition by Beis Din
This addresses the matter of Aharon Friedman of Silver Spring, MD, and Tamar Epstein. Approximately two years after their wedding, Tamar left him without grounds under Jewish Law, and took their daughter to Pennsylvania. She left the marriage despite writing notes before leaving that she has pleasant feelings towards him; that he is loving, sweet, gentle and affectionate towards her; doesnt pressure her to return to work after the birth of their daughter; and appreciates her, such as her taking care of their daughter; allows her to spend money; is open and honest with her; loyal to her; and is makpid on [careful in his observance of] kashrus [eating kosher], davening [praying], and shmiras halashon [not speaking ill of others], but decided to leave him because he likes to be alone and has weaknesses concerning socializing with other people. The husband has not given her a get. He wanted reconciliation. She had no right to unilaterally relocate their daughter who is beloved to him, which makes it impossible for their daughter to be with him as appropriate - half the time. Hence, various rabbis and rabbinical courts have relentlessly persecuted him, issuing against him derogatory letters and a baseless seruv that has been publicized in the newspapers and on the Internet with his picture throughout the entire world. There has arisen against him a gang of vile thugs of wicked ignoramuses, from the organization ORA that is known for being disreputable. They have organized five public demonstrations against him in front of his house, and his familys houses, and his workplace with the abhorrent aim of preventing him from making a living. And they tar him as a meagan [chainer] of his wife. This is all confirmed by our Beis Din with evidence. It is upon us to proclaim the truth of the matter, clear and just according to our Holy Torah: A. This is not a case of meisus [disgust], only a moredes [a wife who left her husband without grounds under Jewish Law] who is chaining herself and her husband and is obligated under Jewish Law to return to him according to all. The poskim [recognized deciders of Jewish Law] agree that even when a woman has a valid claim of ma'os alai [he is disgusting to me], the husband has no obligation to divorce her and certainly may not be coerced to divorce. He may indefinitely decline to give her a get. And this is certainly true in our case where she acknowledges that there is no meisus as she herself, in her own handwriting, has expressed her true heartfelt emotions before leaving him: that she loves him, admires him as a good and loyal husband, and lists in detail a long variety of his virtues. But nonetheless she decided to leave him because of frivolous and immaterial reasons even though her actions are harmful to their daughter. Such behavior is found only amongst the lowliest of the worlds peoples. In these circumstances it is not only that according to all (including the Rambam) we do not force the husband to issue a get, but moreover according to all she has to return to him (as opposed to a case of meisus where opinions support separation). She is a complete moredes and is chaining both herself and her husband. B. Even oral coercion invalidates a get absent an obligation to divorce even in a true case of meisus. The halacha [Jewish Law] is clear: the purported imposition of a divorce obligation on a husband (even if done privately) is considered an oral coercion which invalidates any resulting get in a case
1

where he is not obligated to divorce (even in a case of real meisus) and falls into the category of cases where he is misled and manipulated. This is more so where he is wrongly told that there is an obligation accompanied by public pressure, and even more so in a case, such as this, of a moredes in which there is no meisus and she is obligated under Jewish Law to return to him that such pressures invalidate any resulting get according to all. C. The humiliations of the husband invalidate any get given prior to the elimination of the influence of the coercers The harsh, embarrassing measures taken against the husband to divorce are pure kefiya [coercion] that invalidate any get in this case according to all even if a divorce obligation existed (so long as the coercers maintain their influence and can return to their attacks). This is even more so in our case where there is no obligation upon the husband to divorce, and even oral coercion invalidates any resulting get. And there is room to permit him to marry another woman and delay a get from her due to the embarrassments she caused to him, until she publicly makes amends to him in all places in which he has been embarrassed, or pays damages. D. Even the harchakos [distancing measures] of Rabbeinu Tam (limited to non-embarrassing methods) are not permitted here The harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam are only permitted in a case where there is an obligation to divorce. The harchakos may only consist of refusing to treat the husband with favor, and must be of a passive nature. The harchakos may not be done in an embarrassing manner, and may not even explicitly call on the husband to give a get. In modern times, most poskim have forbidden using harchakos at all. In this case, where there is not even an obligation to divorce, and therefore even telling the husband privately that he is obligated to divorce invalidates any resulting get, the use of harchakos certainly invalidates any get. E. If a husband is willing to divorce once the denial of his reasonable rights (and certainly halachically required rights) ceases, than any humiliations of the husband void any get, and this is true even in a case where coercion with sticks is otherwise allowed In this case, even if the husband completely refuses to divorce, any oral coercion or harchakos or embarrassments invalidate any get. If the husband were to agree to divorce (despite not being required to do so) and despite wanting peace, if she were to stop denying his rights with regard to custody with their daughter by relocating their daughter far away, this would invalidate any get obtained through coercion even in a case, which this is not, where the law is that he may otherwise be coerced into giving a get. And this would be even if these are not halachically-based rights. In this case, he may be permitted to remarry according to all and to refuse to give a get until she ceases denying his rights. And certainly in this case where there is no obligation upon him to divorce and the halacha is clear that she was not permitted to relocate their daughter far away, she is required to move back to near his residence. And so it is clear: if he divorces her due to the pressure from all the embarrassments while she is denying his rights, the get is void and invalid according to all. F. The husband is prohibited to give a get prior to the cancellation of the seruv It is strictly prohibited for the husband to give a get before those who signed the seruv admit in writing that they erred in issuing the seruv against him (without such admission being conditioned on the issuance of a get), and make amends to him and publicly announce this admission of error in all places in which the seruv was publicized. As we have explained, any get in this case is void if given
2

before this occurs, and would thus mislead her and her future husband into transgressing the severe and terrible prohibition of Eishes Ish [a married woman living with another man] and their children would all be mamzerim for all generations, G-d forbid. 1. Therefore, we announce that Aharon Friedman is a person of integrity, who is not committing any iniquity in withholding a get from his wife so long as she prevents the implementation of an appropriate custody arrangement, and is justified according to halacha and yashrus. And it is a mitzvah to befriend him, as it is any of the bnai yisrael. And the counterfeit seruv that was issued with falsity and against Daas Torah has no effect whatsoever. To the contrary, because of the situation caused by the issuers of the seruv, the husband is prohibited from giving a get to his wife until they admit publicly that they made a mistake and nullify the seruv and make amends to him. 2. Anyone distancing or paining the husband, and certainly anyone involved in embarrassing him [besides transgressing a prohibition in trying to influence him to give a get that he is forbidden to give] should fear for their souls from the severe sins of malbin pnei chavero brabim [publicly embarrassing another person] and motzei shem ra [spreading malicious lies] that, as our sages tell us, is the equivalent of murder and burning someone alive. It is established in halacha that they have no place in Olam Haba [the world to come], they descend to gehenom with no return, and their sins can never be rectified, and there is no obligation to forgive them. This is especially the case regarding those who signed the seruv and those who distributed it, as it is established in halacha that one who wrongly ex-communicates another is himself ex-communicated. 3. We warn Tamar with a severe admonition of Beis Din that she must immediately cease the persecution and tarring of her husband and the members of his family [and is required to publicly make amends to them]. Any get she obtains before this will leave her a married woman and any children from another man will be mamzerim until the end of generations. And she must also stop preventing their daughter from having an appropriate relationship with her father. Is it not enough that she decided to conduct herself according to ulas byadeha teharsena [a foolish woman destroys her household with her own hands] to destroy the family life of her husband and their daughter because of frivolous reasons? But she goes even further to be cruel to them to deny them an appropriate custody arrangement and this should not be done. Those who hear this should restrain themselves and peace on Israel.

The chain of events as validated through evidence

Tamar and Aharon were married in Nissan 5,766, [April 2006] and established their residence in Silver Spring, Maryland. In Kislev 5,768 [November 2007] their daughter was born. In Adar II 5,768, [March 2008] Tamar informed Aharon she wanted a divorce, and if he didnt leave their home, she would take their child to Pennsylvania to her parents. It is important to emphasize that at the time she left, Tamar left behind notes in which she explained why she decided to divorce. She wrote: I have positive feelings towards him; he is loyal to me; he is loving, sweet, gentle and affectionate towards me; he is considerate and does not pressure me to return to work [after giving birth]; he appreciates me, such as taking care of our daughter; he allows me to spend money; he is open and honest with me; and is makpid on [careful in his observance of] kashrus [eating kosher], davening [praying], and shmiras halashon [not speaking ill of others]. But he likes to be alone; and he has weaknesses regarding socializing with other people. One who contemplates her words will be appalled at where we have come, that a Bas Yisrael [daughter of Israel] is willing to destroy a home based on such foolish reasons, and there would not be a single rabbi with brains in his head that will rebuke her that she is willingly destroying herself and destroying a bayis neeman byisrael [a loyal Jewish household] for such reasons, and that she is being cruel to herself and her husband and their daughter. To the contrary, they all are ready to assist the woman to deprive their daughter from having access to her loyal father, and to relentlessly persecute the husband. Where is one who can think clearly about such matters? Where is the writer who can lament the brokenness of the Jewish People? To where have we come? On 5 Nissan 5,768, [April 10, 2008] Tamar relocated their daughter to her parents house in Pennsylvania without Aharons agreement and without permission from a Beis Din. Following Aharons protest against Tamar taking their daughter far away, she promised him that if he would not immediately demand that she return their daughter, and would allow their daughter to stay there for 2 months, then and only then would she consider reconciliation. He agreed as he had no other choice because he wanted reconciliation. But they signed an agreement that this would not preserve the situation that their daughter would stay there. In Sivan 5,768, [June 2008] following those 2 months, she informed him there was no chance for reconciliation. When he demanded that Tamar return their daughter so that she could have an appropriate relationship with him, Tamar refused. In light of this, Aharon received a heter [permission under Jewish Law] to file a case in civil court in regard to custody [to prevent their daughters continued presence in Pennsylvania from becoming a fait accompli and so that jurisdiction of the case would not move to Pennsylvania], on the condition that he would subsequently move the case to a Beis Din. Afterwards, Tamar used all kinds of tricks to delay adjudication in civil court, such as claiming that she was willing to have the case decided by beis din all in order to buy time and establish facts on the ground so that her relocation of their daughter would be treated as a fait accompli. On 17 Teves 5,769, [January 2009] both sides signed a shtar beirurin [binding arbitration agreement] in front of the Beis Din of Baltimore. In the interim, Tamar had claimed she was willing to mediate, which further delayed adjudication while the child remained in Pennsylvania. In Sivan, 5,769 [June
4

2009] the Baltimore Beis Din ruled that both sides had to dismiss the civil court case, and otherwise the Beis Din would not issue a ruling. Aharon agreed to this order, but Tamar refused to comply with the Beis Dins order and did not agree to drop the civil court case. And thus, Tamar benefited by the Beis Din not issuing a ruling and afterwards claiming in civil court that the child had been in Pennsylvania for such a long time since Tamar had unilaterally relocated her there so that the Court ruled that the child should remain there because she had been there for so long before the case went to trial. So it was that because Aharon brought the case to Beis Din and postponed adjudication in civil court he was harmed. As a direct result of the civil trial being postponed, the civil court ruled that the child should remain in Pennsylvania. The Baltimore Beis Din upheld their promise not to issue a psak, not to require a divorce, and not in regards to custody, since Tamar had not obeyed their orders regarding dropping the civil case. Meanwhile, Tamar used all kinds of tricks to limit the childs time with Aharon, such as arranging that Aharon could not pick up the child until after Shabbos starts in the winter, and at a time even during the summer that Aharon could generally not get to her house and back home with the child before Shabbos. On 29 Elul, 5,769 [September 16, 2009] Tamar sent a summons from the Washington Beis Din to Aharon, who responded that the parties had already brought the case to the Baltimore Beis Din. On 28 Iyar, 5,770, [May 12, 2010] Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky issued a letter against Aharon, stating that upon the womans insistence on divorce, the husband is required to issue a get to her. On 8 Elul, 5,770 [August 18, 2010] the violence-prone and ignorant people of the ORA organization that are known for being disreputable (led by the multiplier of mamzerim Jeremy Stern) demonstrated against Aharon outside his familys home [and since then have done so 4 more times]. On 27 Elul, 5,770, [September 6, 2010] a whole year after the Washington Beis Din issued a summons to Aharon, they issued a letter stating that since both sides had signed a shtar beirurin at the Baltimore Beis Din the Washington Beis Din could not assert jurisdiction over the matter. On 11 Kislev, 5,771, [November 18, 2010] Tamar opened a new case against Aharon in court demanding that their daughters time with him be limited to supervised visits on the basis of the false claim that he had went with their daughter further than allowed. On 29/30 Kislev 5,771, [December 2010] Rabbi Eliyahu Ben Dahan and Rabbi Belsky issued letters that until the situation regarding the daughters time with her father was properly resolved it is not possible to require that Aharon give a get. On 2 Teves, 5,771 [December 9, 2010] Rabbi Kamenetsky issued another letter stating that the husband is required to give a get and that anyone able to convince him to give a get must do so. On 10 Teves 5,771 [December 17, 2010] the Washington Beis Din issued a pronouncement that since no Beis Din required that Aharon give a get it is wrong for people judge him based on their feelings, because we have a Holy Torah. On 16 Tevet 5,771, [December 23, 2010] Rabbi Hershel Schachter [against whom a seruv was issued by our Beis Din on 22 Tamuz, 5,770 see document 1072 in our records], issued a letter in which he states that since a sage had decided (Rabbi Kamenetsky), then based on sod hashem lerauv [the secrets of G-d are revealed to those who fear Him, and therefore the statements of such people represent the word of G-d] unless indisputably proven wrong, the husband is required to give a get. On 26 Sivan 5,771 [June 28, 2011] the Agudas Harabanim Beis Din jumped into the case, immediately beginning with a final warning against Aharon that was signed by Rabbi Ralbag, Rabbi Belsky (who
5

contradicted himself and changed his reasoning), and Rabbi Gavriel Stern. In Elul of 5,771 [September 2011] a seruv was signed against Aharon by these rabbis and Rabbi Wohlmark, Rabbi Kamenetsky, and Rabbi Schachter. On 7 Tishrei, 5772, [October 5, 2011] the Washington Beis Din wrote a letter against the husband entitled seruv and meagan and decreed that he should not be a member in any community, that he should not be given honor, nor given an aliyah to the Torah, and that pressure should be continuously brought against him until he gives a get. This is a short summary of the matter.

The Serious Questions on the Conduct of the Rabbis And Beis Dins In Our Case
As our sages said (Brachos, 19b): where there is a chilul Hashem (desecration of G-ds name) we dont offer respect to a rabbi. And there is no desecration of G-ds name greater than this: when rabbis say things in the name of our Holy Torah which are the opposite of what is actually written in the Torah. See the Chasam Sofer, which says that it is even required to humiliate them. [Citing other sources.] Therefore, before delving into the halachic sources establishing how the attacks against the husband in this case are directly contrary to the Torah, it is necessary to first describe the astonishing and grotesque conduct of the Batei Din (rabbinical courts) and rabbis in this case and their departure from the path of uprightness. They have behaved based solely on their feelings, instead of the law. And the common denominator to their actions is revealed by their one-sided approach that shows an inability to act with integrity or justice. This can be explained only by their suffering from the disease of feminism. A. The Baltimore Beis Din How can they not have issued a Seruv against Tamar upon her refusal to listen to the orders of the Beis Din and dismiss the civil court case when the Beis Din ordered that she do so? Wouldnt they have issued such a seruv against Aharon had he acted in such a manner? B. The Washington Beis Din Why did it take them an entire year to admit a simple matter: that they have no authority to persecute Aharon when both sides agreed to the jurisdiction of the Baltimore Beis Din before which they signed a shtar beirurin? Their public notice of the husband as a Sarvan and meagan completely contradicts their earlier public notice stating that the Beis Din before which both sides signed a shtar beirurin had not obligated Aharon to give a get nor issued a seruv against him, and hence Aharon should not be criticized. This glaring flip-flopping screams out to the heavens, and is a disgrace and embarrassment to the honor of Betai Din [Rabbinical Courts], turning the honor of Beis Din to dust. And afterwards they claim to be astonished and complain as to how the masses have no regard for Betai Din. Is this Daas Torah [Torah opinion], or it going astray after every fleeting wind of the opinion of the street? C. Rabbi Kamenetskys interference: With all due respect, it is unclear what authority he has to suddenly interfere in a dispute that is not his, and offer Psakim (decisions) that the husband is obligated to give a get, and especially to turn the husband to a Sarvan when he never heard the husbands side, at the same time during which the Beis Din before which both sides signed a shtar beirurin and that has heard both sides has not required a get be given. And particularly when Rabbis Ben-Dahan and Belsky issued a decision that until the custody situation is resolved in an appropriate manner there is no obligation to give a get, why wouldnt he listen to them? [Note: we are not
6

imposing our opinion and decision on the woman as an unsubstantiated decree without reasoning as he did. We offer strong sources for all of our conclusions according to our Holy Torah, and it is the husbands full right to accept this instruction as conclusive and conduct himself accordingly.] It was certainly inappropriate of Rabbi Kamenetsky to act this way, when it is universally known that he has close ties to the Epstein family and has accepted benefits from them. The Zohar states that Moshe Rabbeinu stepped down from deciding on the case of Tzlofchads daughters since he felt there was suspicion that he disliked their father. And see there that whoever doesnt act similarly is called an az panim [brazen] and a gae [exceedingly haughty]. See the Shla who wrote: Judgesthat are suspected of having favoritism to one of the sides in a case and do not resign from that case are called azai panim [brazen] and lacking even a modicum of modesty When one of the judges in a Beis Din has a love for one of the sides, R Bachay wrote, that is the reason Moshe Rabbeinu dismissed himself from judging the Tzlafchad case, since he had somewhat favorable feelings towards them after they mentioned that their father was not part of the Korach camp. And if one thinks other rabbis [outside the Beis Din before which both sides signed a shtar beirurin] have the authority to share their opinion, why would Rabbi Kamenetsky think that specifically his opinion obligates the husband more than the opinion of the rabbis who said that he is not obligated to give a get until an appropriate custody arrangement is arranged in an acceptable manner. Does the husband not have the right to follow those rabbis? Why does he think that the husband is subjugated, and is required to listen, specifically to him? D. Rabbi Schachters letter: What Rabbi Schachter wrote concerning Rabbis Kamenetskys letter there already is a sage whos instructed makes a mockery and disgrace of the entire Torah. With such a meaningless statement one can erase all the Torahs prohibitions, and nullify all integrity and justice, and issue decisions according to whatever one likes in contradiction to the Torah. One should wonder whether Rabbi Schachter would follow so blindly after Rabbi Kamenetsky had he instructed him to abandon his family since there is a sage who has instructed based on sod Hashem lerauv [the secrets of G-d are revealed to those who fear Him, and therefore the statements of such people represent the word of G-d]? Presumably not But when it comes at the expense of others he has become a great believer. Also, Rabbi Schachters pronouncement of sod Hashem lerauv is against the poskim who required that psakim [decisions of Jewish Law] be based on actual sources. [See the Mishpatim Yisharim: A judge who says So it appears to me and does not base his decision on actual sources is a false judge, and his opinions are worthless.] The pronouncement of sod Hashem lerauv shows that Rabbi Kamenetskys baseless psak [decision] is a painful mockery and a spewing malignancy. This sod [secret] reveals to everyone that Rabbi Kamenetsky has close ties to, and received benefits from, the Epstein family. Rabbi Schachters conclusion unless it is proven in error shows that he admits that even though a sage has instructed already and sod Hashem lerauv if Rabbi Kamenetskys decision is proven wrong then that decision is totally worthless. We have already proven in our decision that taah bdevrei mishna [he erred on a fundamental matter] and did so twice: Rabbi Kamenetsky erred in regard to the divorce obligation that he decreed on the husband [even if this was just between him and husband without public embarrassment] that clearly contradicts all poskim as the rule is that if a
7

purported obligation to divorce is imposed on the husband, where no such obligation properly exists, any resulting get would be invalid. And he even more clearly erred when he issued the derogatory letters and the seruv against Aharon to permit all to shed his blood, which is considered complete coercion that invalidates any resulting get in this case. And now he should show some integrity and heed his own words and admit in public that there was such an error. E. The Beis Din of Agudas Harabanim: Is it heard of that a Beis Din begins its judicial process with a final warning without sending even a single hazmana [summons]? And in particular in a case in which the parties have not signed a shtar beirurin with that Beis Din? What authority do they have calling him a Sarvan when the Beis Din before which the parties signed a shtar beirurin has not required the giving of a get and has not issued any decision, and has not issued a seruv against the husband? We are astonished. F. Rabbi Belskys letters: The glaring flip-flopping from his signature on the Seruv against the husband, in complete contradiction to what he himself wrote earlier that the husband cannot be required to give a get before custody has been resolved properly - screams out to the heart of the heavens. And what he had said to the husband when he was approached for an explanation about this matter: he cant remember signing the Seruv and even if he had done so it wasnt done in a serious manner but under pressure This is even more troubling than the first, and frightening. This is a game he plays to besmirch and embarrass a person and cause him pain and suffering known by our sages to equal murder. Is this a matter of a game and clowning around by saying, I did not do this with seriousness? (Note there are additional cases known to us in which he acted in a similar manner: that he started off supporting the husband and afterwards bowed to pressure and reversed himself.) Anyone with the least bit of integrity should ask the following question: if this entire matter were to have occurred exactly as it has, but with one minor change -- that whatever the wife did in this case to her husband was instead done by the husband to the wife: That he decided to divorce his wife even though she wanted the marriage to continue, even though he admitted in writing that he loves her, and that she was a good and loyal wife, and took good care of the household, but has problems with regard to socializing with others, and he took their daughter far away, and caused great damage to the wife and to their daughter, and also refused to obey the orders of the Beis Din to which both sides took the matter. Would there be a chance that there could be found anywhere on earth even one rabbi or Beis Din that would wage war against the wife, embarrass her publicly with derogatory letters because she refuses to divorce (with the favorite saying the marriage is over which has absolutely no place in halacha)? Certainly not. To the contrary, they would be going out with swords and spears against the husband for causing sorrow to his wife and their daughter on the basis of immaterial reasons. And we find that this struggle is not over equal rights for women as for men, but to increase the power of women over men. Is the one-sided nature of this war (feminism) not open and glaring? The woman is always right, regardless of whether she wants to continue the marriage or divorce. The husband must bend to her will. If he refuses, than woe to him and woe to his soul. He is labeled as purely wicked and a meagen. This is something that even a person with integrity of any of the worlds peoples would understand is wrong and recoil from. And are those attacking the husband not making a mockery of themselves?
8

It is upon them to understand the case of the Gemara in Eruvin (41b), which is profoundly relevant. The Gemara states that even with a wicked wife a husband says that I have children with her and therefore not able to divorce her. Similarly, in Pesachim (87b): Hashem said to Hoshea separate yourself from her, and he responded Hashem, I have children from her and I cannot divorce her. Said Hashem: and you, whose wife is a prostitute and your children the offspring of prostitutes, so Israel are my sons and you said I should separate myself from this nation. And certainly this applies with regard to a good wife. In our case, how can these so-called rabbis be so cruel to the husband and father only because he does not want to lose any connection to his daughter? And it is appropriate to conclude: Woe to the rabbis that are burying her husband.

Explaining our ruling based on strong sources and foundations in Halacha

1. Even in a true case of maos alai [he is disgusting to me] there is no chiyuv gerushin [obligation to divorce] on the husband. To the contrary, he is permitted to withhold a get her entire lifetime. Certainly in our case where there is no meisus [disgust] where the woman actually has acknowledged in writing his virtues and that she loves him [but decided to leave for frivolous reasons] she is a moredes and according to all established opinions [and even according the Rambam and those who hold like him) he cannot be coerced to divorce. To the contrary, she is obligated return to him. The chiyuv gerushin that the rabbis and Betai Din [Rabbinical Courts] have decreed on the husband is to our sorrow the theology of Reform Judaism and has no relationship to halacha [Jewish Law]. To the contrary, it contradicts halacha. The overwhelming majority of Poskim [recognized deciders of Jewish Law] rule that in a case such as ours there is no chiyuv gerushin and have clearly written that the opposite applies: that he has no obligation to give a get. [citing multiple sources] The only opinion to the contrary is the Talmedai RY who rules there is a chiyuv gerushin in such a case. But one who rules according to a single opinion against the overwhelming majority of poskim makes a fundamental error and his instructions are void. Anyone making this error here should fear for his soul as he is deemed to be an apikores (heretic) who is violating the admonition of bchol levavcha [with all your heart], and it said about such a person that your heart shouldnt stand against Hashem and they mock the sages words. [citing multiple sources] And we find that we have before us a strange, painfully entertaining conflict. On one hand are our rabbis, the poskim whose opinions on all matters have long been universally accepted who rule there is no chiyuv gerushin and that she is required to return to him, and on the other hand are the rabbis and the batei din who decide in complete contradiction to this and impose on the husband a chiyuv gerushin and have permitted all to his shed his blood (following the opinion of the street) as if any claim by the wife automatically creates an obligation on the husband to issue a get regardless if this is correct under our Holy Torah. And anyone who is still in a dilemma about with whom the truth lies here needs himself to be thoroughly checked.

It is appropriate to emphasize what the Washington Beis Din wrote in their first letter: that it is important to be careful not to let feelings lead us astray, since we abide only by our Holy Torah, whose words are truth and justice. Only the problem is in their second letter they have forgotten this, and wrote the exact opposite of their first letter, without any apparent problem with such a glaring contradiction. And what Rabbi Schachter wrote that the chiyuv gerushin made up by Rabbi Kamenetsky falls within the parameters of a scholar had already instructed and sod Hashem lerauv G-d have mercy on us where hes taken that from, because this falls under the parameters of one who rules according to what he wants and is a false judge, is uprooting religion, a heretic and is wicked. [citing multiple sources] There is much more than this here. One who contemplates what Tamar herself wrote revealing her true feelings as to why she decided to divorce will see clearly that there was no meisus, but pressure exerted by her family who objected to the match from the start. About such a matter, the MHRYK writes that it is appropriate to rebuke and reprimand them as their iniquity is too heavy to bear because it is a terrible sin to cause hatred between a husband and wife and on such people afflictions come. In life and in peace, it is written about such parents, they will not exit clean, not in the judgment of man and not in the judgment of heaven. In such a case, all admit, even the Rambam and those who rule like him that maos alai allows for kefiya, that kefiya invalidates any get. For example, the RYD (who holds like the Rambam) writes that a woman who leaves a marriage because of pressure exerted by her parents remains married and any future children (even after the woman receives a get) are pure mamzerim. [citing multiple sources] The Tzitz Eliezer writes that a woman who leaves her husband after causing herself to be disgusted with him, but could remove the disgust and return to the marriage if she attempted to do so is a moredes about whom even the Rambam holds there is no kefiya for a get. This applies in our case where Tamar herself described the situation in this way, and there is none who dispute this. In a case where there is no meisus at the time the couple is together, the woman cannot later claim after she leaves that there has become meisus after she left. [citing multiple sources]. And in any case, the overwhelming majority of poskim disagree with the Rambam that kefiya is allowed even in a true case of maos alai. [citing multiple sources] Certainly in our case there can be no coercion over absurd claims like these. Even more clear is that in our case the rule that even if the husband is not forced to divorce on the claim of maos alai, she is not obligated to live with someone with whom she is disgusted does not apply. [citing multiple sources] In this case there was no meusus, and she is a complete moredes with no legitimate claim because the claims she wrote are not claims according to any opinion. Thus, she is required to return to him. After reviewing the history of this matter and the applicable halacha, anyone with a brain in their head will be left scared and astounded as to how based on such frivolous and immaterial claims the socalled rabbis can work on themselves to turn into righteousness the destruction of a Jewish home, and also create a chiyuv gerushin on the husband and to persecute him without pity even while the halacha is clearly the opposite: that she is obligated to return to him. And in case she refuses to return to him, he is permitted to refuse to give a get for her entire life. [also see quote from the MAHRSHAL] One of two conclusions must be true. Either these rabbis are not well versed in the laws of divorce and follow astray those of modern society who erase whatever laws that are not pleasant to them in
10

which case these rabbis should not involve themselves in such matters at all, or, they are nullifying and rebelling against our Holy Torah, which states that a get given by a husband against his will is invalid, following the theology of Reform Judaism and others who uproot religion, G-d forbid. Either way, in each of these scenarios, the Jewish People is in terrible straits like a boat about to sink at sea without leaders having sechel hayashar or true Daas Torah, where the leaders have lost their wits and are blindly following any wind that blows through the streets of public opinion, and they bow on their knees to give a falsified seal of Daas Torah to follow the opinion of masses, which is based on the lowliest of the worlds peoples, G-d have mercy. And they directly contradict true Daas Torah. Instead of behaving as have great leaders of the Jewish People in all past generations, where if a woman had come to them with such immaterial claims following the practices of the lowliest of the worlds peoples who decide to divorce and change their spouses for any absurd or immaterial reason just like they change their socks those rabbis would have rebuked the woman that it is forbidden to do such an absurd thing to destroy a bayis neeman byisrael [a loyal Jewish household], and to be cruel to her daughter and husband and destroy their lives for no reason. They would ask if she has no consideration whatsoever for the best interests of her daughter, when she has an important husband with all the spiritual and physical positive attributes that she herself described when she wrote out of the purity of her own heart (without trickery or outside pressure). Instead these rabbis came and did the opposite. They fanned the conflagration, and turned into righteousness the cruel behavior of ulas beyadeah taharsena [a foolish woman destroys her household with her own hands]. And if the husband wants to defend his basic human and halachic rights, they further tar him as guilty and cruel. And it is on the behavior of these rabbis that our sages said: anyone pitying the cruel will end up being cruel towards the merciful. Be appalled at this, O Heavens. 2. Imposing a chiyuv gerushin [an obligation to divorce] (which amounts to oral coercion) where no such obligation exists invalidates any resulting get Not only is it a fundamental error to claim that there is a chiyuv gerushin in this case, but even telling the husband that there is such an obligation, even if said privately just to him and without publicity constitutes oral coercion that invalidates any get that the husband gives as a result of being told that there is such an obligation. [citing multiple sources] And we find that the rabbis and Betai Din that have decreed there to be a chiyuv gerushin have failed greatly in trying to persuade him to give an invalid get and if he were to divorce under these pressures the woman would remain married, and future children mamzerim, for all generations to come. To the contrary, it is clear to anyone with a brain in their head that the husband is under a severe prohibition from yielding to the heavy persecution to give a get so as not to mislead the wife and a future husband into transgressing the severe prohibition of eishes ish and any children becoming mamzerim, G-d have mercy. The husband is prohibited from giving a get until the pressure is lifted without precondition that he give a get. 3. The Seruv and embarrassments and the derogatory letters and the public protests against the husband cause any resulting get to be invalid Even if there was a chiyuv gerushin in this case, the seruv constitutes kefiya that would invalidate any resulting get. [RAMA] In addition, the embarrassments and derogatory letters and the public
11

demonstrations (encouraged by Rabbi Kamenetsky) that have been publicized throughout the world in newspapers and the Internet constitute kefiya that invalidates any resulting get. The Gemara tells us this embarrassment is equal to murder and burning in fire. The RASHBA rules that it is prohibited to embarrass even a husband who is obligated to divorce according to all. This is a binding opinion on which there can be no dispute. [citing other multiple sources] We find, that if the husband were to divorce under these pressures, it would lead, G-d forbid, to the marriage of a married woman and to multiply mamzerim, G-d have mercy. (Anyone with mercy towards the purity of his familys future generations will not marry any divorcee who was aided by the ORA group of thugs whose divorces have a strong presumption of invalidity.) In the twisted minds of those who believe that all this activity doesnt constitute kefiya, why dont they apply similar tactics to Tamar, since she is obligated to return to her husband under halacha, whereas the husband does not have any obligation to divorce? They should issue derogatory letters about her and conduct public demonstrations against her. The actions against Aharon are an open and glaring mockery, and directly contradict our Holy Torah. We are astonished. There is great room to permit the husband to remarry and not give a get until she pays damages for the harsh embarrassments she has caused him, even if the damages were not intentional. [MAHRIK]. In this case, she must pay damages for all the humiliations she caused because the entire campaign against him was meant in order to denigrate him. 4. Rabbeinu Tams harchakos [distancing measures] were permitted only to deny doing favors for a husband in a manner of shev val taaseh [sit and do nothing] and only where he is obligated to divorce. In modern times the harchakos are no longer permitted, but they were never permitted against someone who has no obligation to divorce. And certainly doing harm to and embarrassing the husband are not included in the harchakos. This is certainly true in our case where the husband has no obligation to divorce and the wife is obligated to return to him. Those claiming that the actions taken against Aharon fall within the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam and are permitted are in complete and total error. First, the harchakos (even where permitted) may only be withholding the doing of good to him in a passive manner. [citing multiple sources] This is not what is occurring in this case in which they are persecuting the husband with public letters and public demonstrations in every corner of the earth. It is obvious that this constitutes pure kefiya. Second, even where harchakos are permitted, they are permitted only upon one who is obligated to divorce and may not be publicized outside his location. It is forbidden to tell him explicitly that these actions are taken in order that he divorce. [citing multiple sources] And in our case, they repeatedly and explicitly call upon Aharon to divorce, whether in the letters of rabbis and batei din, in the newspapers, or in the public protests of the thugs of ORA where they scream at the top of their lungs that he should give a get. Third, Poskim have ruled that in modern times, the harchakos are forbidden because they are considered a form of ex-communication which are considered complete kefiya according to all
12

opinions. [citing multiple sources] [] And if this is true regarding harchakos, which consist of passive measures, this is certainly the case with regard to the measures taken against Aharon, which constitute kefiya according to all. Fourth, even where permitted, harchakos can only be applied in a manner in which the husband can move to another place in which the harchakos against him are not known. [citing multiple sources] This is not applicable today, since every bit of information travels instantly across the globe. With the attacks against the husband publicized in the newspapers and Internet including with the husbands picture, there is no place to which he can travel in which the actions against him are not known. Fifth, and this is the main point, the harchakos are only permitted against a husband upon whom there is a chiyuv gerushin. If there is no such chiyuv gerushin, the poskim, including Rabbeinu Tam who originated the harchakos, rule that even telling the husband privately that there is such a chiyuv invalidates any resulting get. [citing multiple sources] And now, anyone with a brain in their head must realize that harchakos, which are harsher than telling the husband privately that there is a chiyuv gerushin [which is why Rabbeinu Tam created the harchakos for cases where privately telling the husband there is a chiyuv gerushin does not work] certainly invalidate a get in circumstances where there is no obligation to divorce (such as the husband of a moredes) where even telling the husband that there is a chiyuv gerushin invalidates a get according to even Rabbeinu Tam himself. It is settled amongst the poskim (100 of them) that it is prohibited to coerce based on a claim of maos alai. And if the harchakos were permitted in our case, how did they not explicitly inform us of their applicability? The Lev Sameach writes that where any posek does not explicitly states that harchakos are permitted, this is a sign that harchakos are prohibited. The Levush is the only opinion permitting harchakos in a case of maos alai, and even his opinion was likely based on a misunderstanding of Rabbeinu Tam, who invented the harchakos, who ruled that the harchakos could be applied in a case of maos alai only where the couple never actually lived together. And it is a fundamental error to rule according to one opinion that is disputed by the overwhelming majority of poskim. And in this case, there is no meisus, and therefore even according to the Levush, the harchakos are prohibited. To the contrary, she is required to return to him. On what basis do they distance him? 5. The woman had no halachic right to relocate their daughter far away (preventing the husband from having equal custody rights) and the husband has the ability to demand she move closer or that he be given full custody with visitation rights to the wife. Even concerning a husband who can otherwise be coerced with sticks, it is impermissible to do so in a manner that denies his rights according to yashrus; for example, providing for a proper custody arrangement. If a husband is coerced despite being willing to give a get if his rights were respected, the get is invalid. And this certainly applies where coercion is forbidden and harchakos are forbidden and even telling him privately that there is a chiyuv gerushin is forbidden so certainly if he divorces because of the embarrassments (which are pure coercion) while his rights are being denied, any get would be invalid and void. Everything we have written thus far is true and just even if the husband were completely unwilling to give a get as there is no chiyuv gerushin. To the contrary, she is obligated to return to him. This is certainly the case if the husband were willing to give a get (beyond the requirement of law, and despite his great sorrow at the destruction of his household and family for no reason) if all he wanted were that
13

he be able to have an appropriate custody arrangement with his daughter who is as beloved to him as his soul. In addition, even from the standpoint of pure law he has the right to demand this. The rule that a daughter goes to the mother applies only to a widow, not in the case of divorce or separation. Thus, the husband has the right to full custody. Even according to those holding that custody of a daughter generally goes to the mother, the overwhelming majority of them hold that the mother cannot relocate the daughter far away. And even according to the minority opinion that the mother can relocate a daughter far way, the husband cannot be coerced into giving a get (even in those cases in which coercion otherwise applies) if he requests that the daughter return and the mother refuses to do so. [citing multiple sources] Even according to the MAHARAM De-Botton who holds that if a woman already took a daughter far away, there is no requirement that she return, in our case, the wife had stipulated that she would not remain there for more than two months and she tricked him. She must return so as not to benefit from sinning and deceiving. And in any case, most poskim disagree with this opinion. [citing multiple sources] Thus, the overwhelming majority of poskim hold that he has the ability to force her to return with their daughter, and if she refuses to do so, he would receive full custody and she would have the right to visits. The Maharsham states that even for a husband who may be coerced with sticks, he may only be coerced if he categorically refuses to give a get. If he agrees to give a get only if his reasonable rights are respected (even concerning matters that do not have a halachic source) it is prohibited to coerce him, and it is even prohibited to apply harchakos against him. [also citing multiple other sources] If all the husband seeks is that his wife allow an appropriate custody arrangement in a manner that would be possible if the child were living nearby, in other words, that he not be punished because she relocated the child without his permission, an action which is against yashrus and against halacha, all the pressures applied by the rabbis and Batei Din invalidate any get in this case. And this would be true even if the halacha were (which it is clearly not in this case) that he can otherwise be coerced to give a get with sticks. And it should be noted: there is no conflict with regard to what many poskim [citing multiple sources] have written that a husband who can be coerced into giving a get cannot put conditions on the giving of a get. First apply the principle that possibly conflicting opinions should be interpreted to avoid conflict even if such interpretations are not the most straightforward. This is particularly so here where here the possibly conflicting opinions can easily be understood as only applying to a condition that is not appropriate. Second some of the cases reaching this conclusion involve a marriage that is prohibited in the first place, such as a divorced woman to a Cohen which is not the case here. Third even if there are conflicting opinions on this point, where there are conflicting opinions on the validity of a get or whether coercion is permitted, we rule that the get is invalid and coercion is not permitted because the starting point is that they were married. [citing multiple sources]
14

Fourth and is the main point, all the cases reaching that conclusion involve a chiyuv gerushin but in this case, he has no obligation to give a get and she is obligated to return to him. To the contrary, he is prohibited from divorcing her under the current circumstances. Thus, according to all he can set conditions upon the giving of a get, and if he is pressured to divorce without those conditions being met, the get would be invalid. More so it is clear that since Tamar is depriving Aharon of what should be rightfully his, the halacha is clear to all that he is permitted marry another and not give a get until she ceases such behavior. [citing multiple sources] In short, we have more than 40 sources, upon whom all our halachic practices are based, that have ruled that if a wife deprives a husband of what should rightfully be his, that he is permitted to marry another and not give a get until the woman ceases her behavior. And there is not even a single posek who argues with this. The only exceptions are the rebels in modern times who suffer from the disease of feminism and the idea of equal rights, which causes them to violate their own will and the will of their creator and they wish to argue against the Torah, G-d have mercy, but they cannot change even one letter of our Holy Torah. 6. A get given under the pressures in this case is invalid according to 170 poskim. And anyone involved in these pressures falls under the prohibitions of lifnei evar [deliberately causing another to sin], malbin pnei chavero [embarrassing someone], and motize shem ra [spreading malicious lies], concerning which the injured person has no obligation to ever forgive. If Aharon gives a get while under the heavy pressure of the seruv, and the derogatory letters, and the public demonstrations, the get would be invalid according to about 170 poskim. All of the actions to humiliate the husband such as the writing and signing of the letters against him, not to mention those who took part in the demonstrations against him are all against the multitude of poskim, and cannot be justified by even a single posek. And in any case, in such matters relying upon a small minority of opinions against the majority is a fundamental error, particularly with regard to matters such as a get where even a lone stringent opinion must be respected. Therefore, anyone involved in this activity, whether the writers and signers, or the distributors or the demonstrators, transgresses the Torah prohibition of deliberately causing another to sin, by misleading a woman with an invalid get, which leaves her married, and her children from another person complete mamzerim for all generations, and also the severe prohibitions of publicly embarrassing another person, and spreading malicious lies about another person, whom, the sages say, have no portion in the World to Come, are permanently sent to geheinom, and can never be forgiven. [citing multiple sources] This is because the damage done by such behavior can never be rectified. And in particular, those who signed on the seruv against the husband should fear for their souls for one who wrongfully ex-communicates another is himself considered ex-communicated. In conclusion: for four fundamental reasons, each of which would be determinative on its own, any get the husband gives under pressure would be invalid, and certainly when these four reasons are taken together. [A] Even if it were permitted to coerce the husband to give a get (which is not the case here), the coercion would be prohibited if he were to agree to give a get on the condition that his rights were not denied. [B] Certainly given that it is prohibited to coerce the husband in this case, coercing him
15

would invalidate any resulting get even if he were obligated to divorce and even if he were to categorically refuse to give a get. [C] When there is not even an obligation to divorce, and, to the contrary, she is obligated to return to him, even telling him privately that he is obligated to divorce without embarrassing him invalidates any get even if he were to categorically refuse to give a get. [D] And certainly in our case if the husband were to agree to issue a get [beyond what is required of him under the law] as long as his rights are not violated, there is certainly no room to permit what has been done in this case. The observer will see that all the halachic underpinnings of our Psak Din are based on strong sources from the sages, and one who looks up these sources will see that most of our halachic underpinnings are based on all the poskim with not even a single dissenting opinion, and the remaining small minority of our halachic underpinnings are based on the overwhelming majority of the poskim. Anyone disputing these halachic underpinnings takes himself out of the rules of instructions and judgments that the poskim have set for us, and enters into the category of a false judge, uprooting religion, heretic, and wicked whose instructions are void. According to the clear Halacha, the husband in this case is prohibited from issuing a get as long as the pressures continue, so that he doesnt mislead her and her future husband regarding the severe prohibition of Eshes Ish, G-d forbid. And since one of the heaviest pressures results from the seruv that was issued contrary to halacha, it is prohibited for the husband to issue a get (even if an appropriate custody arrangement were implemented) before the signers of this letter publicly acknowledge their error and cancel the letter. And we find ourselves in a situation where the seruvs existence serves as the strongest meagen [chainer] of the woman, the opposite of what she views as the source where only she can set herself free of her chains. This also describes the straits of the seruv and those who signed on it who face a difficult test. If they are honest and loyal to their words that the persecution of the husband and their permitting the shedding of his blood stems from their great mercy for the miserable so-called aguna [which even if true would not justify their actions because we dont rescue one life at the expense of another persons life] they can uphold their words when they establish in front of all that they care so much for the aguna that they have the courage to waive their (imagined) honor in order to release her by publicizing their admission of error in issuing the seruv and cancel it altogether (without setting a precondition that a get be given since that would maintain the coercion as is clear to everyone). In this way, they could establish that it is not only the husbands blood that they are willing to sacrifice on the altar of the release of the aguna but also their own honor. But the truth of the matter is that admitting the truth is not an embarrassment at all, but would elevate their honor amongst all who would see that they are men of truth. And we have seen previously in many places that the giants of the Jewish People have admitted their errors and not been embarrassed. And in any case they must make amends to him [and he is not obligated to forgive them], and the admission of error by rabbis is to their praise.

16