Ami Magazine featured the fight for Agunos as its cover story. In the editorial Rabbi Frankfuter writes he did so on instruction of the Munkatch Rebbe from Boro Park. The Rebbe is known for his involvement in Pidyon shvoyim.
While the Judge in the Rabbi Mendel Epstein case has not issued a sentence, the Rebbe felt that publicizing the fight for agunos will give a better understanding of what was going on and hopefully have a good effect.
Ami interviewed controversial Rabbi Jeremy Stern from the ORA organization, many on the right do not agree with its hashkafa and tactics.
AMI Magazine is now the propaganda mouthpiece for the anti-Torah, divorce on demand feminist ORA organization.
ReplyDeleteThe series of pro-ORA propaganda articles in the July 8, 2015 edition of AMI Magazine even included a photo of ORA adviser Hershel Schachter from YU wearing a black hat and conversing with Rav Elyashiv ZT"L, to convey a very deceptive impression that ORA somehow complies with normative Chareidi Jewish law.
Nowhere in AMI Magazine's propaganda articles were cited any traditional halachic authorities from past eras, that allow the ORA agenda of coerced divorce on demand, especially in the present situation when many wives are moredes operating in non-Jewish courts.
Jeremy Stern, ORA's demagogue propagandist, made a completely unsubstantiated claim that "batei din across the spectrum refer cases to us...in Brooklyn...in Lakewood...in Monsey".
Can Jeremy Stern name even one Chareidi Bais Din that is referring cases to ORA, or that gave ORA authorization to force even one GET? The Orthodox community should demand that ORA announce which non-YU Batei Din in Brooklyn, Lakewood, or Monsey have agreed to work with them. If ORA cannot do so then ORA should be exposed as liars.
Those who are concerned about preserving halachic divorce and preserving Jewish families should relay a respectful message to AMI Magazine's advertisers that AMI Magazine's advocacy for ORA is totally unacceptable.
One Lakewood rav has reported that a few Lakewood stores have removed AMI magazine from their shelves and will not sell it in the future. May this trend continue until AMI Magazine ceases all support for non-halachic divorce.
What Epstein did was not coercion!?????????????.
DeleteA win for the feminists
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/07/feminists-applaud-ami-magazines-support.html
There was an article in Ami magazine I think maybe in 2011? about the improvements and liberation of of 'agunos' It featured an glorifying interview with the then fresh new Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Kaufman of Flohrs kollel who was featured prominently in that glossy lengthy article , as the new force in the quest to save these women . The question dealt was How chained agunos can receive better understanding from the orthodox bais din establishment,? I wonder if a copy would be available?
ReplyDeleteI think it may today be an embarrassment to those interviewed .!
But at the time it served an important purpose of establishing his credentials!!
I have yet to see any valid proof that what ORA does is against Halacha . Besides for a few blogs that never offer real proof, there are plenty of heimishe rabonim that are behind ORA. I trust them a lot more then any blogger.
ReplyDeleteNowhere in AMI Magazine's propaganda articles were cited any traditional halachic authorities from past eras, that allow the ORA agenda of coerced divorce on demand, especially in the present situation when many wives are moredes operating in non-Jewish courts.
DeleteYou obviously didn't read the whole article. Instead of trying to comprehend what they do and when they do it, you automatically assume they are going against Halacha without any proof. That's what bloggers like to do, knock other people who have backing from gedolim . Did you ever call up Harav Heineman?
DeleteSam, you're obviously an ORA propagandist and obfuscator. There is in fact a huge MOUNTAIN of proof that ORA's coerced divorce on demand agenda radically conflicts with the PSAK of the greatest Ashkenazi POSKIM in history.
DeleteORA's has no valid traditional Ashkenazi HALACHA sources that allow divorce on demand, and neither ORA nor its apologists like you can quote such sources. ORA's so-called HALACHA is simply feminist kangaroo court justice.
"7. The next level is when a woman demands a GET from a husband simply because she despises him completely. In such a case the Shulchan Aruch rules that no coercion at all is permitted. This is based on the Rashbo VII:414 and it is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Beis Shmuel, Chelkas Mechokake and Gro in Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3.
8. Most Gittin are in this latter category, where no coercion is permitted. This category is not even discussed in the Laws of Gittin Even Hoezer. It is discussed in the Laws of Kesubose, because we want the marriage to continue and refuse the wife the right to coerce her husband to divorce her.
9. When the Ramo discusses the right of ostracizing a husband, he does this in the Laws of Gittin 154:21 and only permits it when the husband is specifically commanded by the Talmud to give his wife a GET. But when discussing the wife who demands a GET Ramo does not mention any kind of coercion that is permitted. See EH 77 par 2 and 3.
10. Therefore, this Beth Din that demanded a GET and coerces it defies the Shulchan Aruch.
11. The fact that the Beth Din decreed upon the husband to give a GET was wrong. And the Chazon Ish says that if the husband obeys the Beth Din and gives a GET when there was no right to coerce him, this is a forced GET and the GET is invalid, for two reasons, by the teaching of the Torah. The children born from such a GET are thus mamzerim. EH 99:2"
http://torahhalacha.blogspot.com/2015/06/chicago-beth-din-coerces-get-from.html
Again, all you are doing are reporting what eidenson holds and so far nobody has proved to me that protesting and asking for a get is considered forced. On the contrary, I have spoken to mane poskim that do not consider it forced at all. The bottom line ,ORA has very big poskim that they follow, and just because eidensohn disagrees with them, doesn't make them wrong or cause forced divorces. Instead of going on blogs and making fun of Gedolim, why don't you phone some of the poskim they have them a haskama. Are you scared to be wrong? Look up the שבט הלוי and the מהרשם who clearly disagrees with you. Why quote a blogger who clearly has an agenda and constantly makes fun of our gedolim(which one is considered an אפיקורס). It's not the place here,but both eidensohns won't let me prove them wrong. I was banned on their site. But you are willing to trust a blogger over a Gadol?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, there has been a few תשובות from the batei dinim of Eretz Yisrael that talk specifically about protesting and they all agree that it's allowed. Why would you trust a blogger that makes fun of Gedolim over our Poskim? And no, I am not an ORA associate in the least way, it just bothers me how you bloggers feel,it's alright to bashmutz gedolim and think you're doing some type of mitzvah where in truth you might be losing any chelek you have in the next world.
ReplyDeleteA "Gadol" presumably does not mean a "big" person, rather it is short for a "Gadol Batorah", which means someone who is "great in Torah". Obviously someone who disagrees with the Torah cannot be a Gadol Batorah.The Torah, as in Rashbo VII:414 Radvaz IV:118, Chazon Ish EH 108:12) considers humiliation to be coercion regarding Gittin. Therefore anyone who disagrees is incorrect and cannot be a Gadol Batorah. Distorting the Halacha is called mgaleh panim ba'torah shel'o k'halacha. We cannot decide to rely on "Poskim" who disagree with the Torah. Our obligation on earth is to follow the Torah.
Deletethere's a letter in ami from an attorney saying don't be so quick to hit the man, (or the woman), just hurts most cases.
ReplyDeleteDue to the tremendous outcry regarding the goings on in Kaufmans Beis din a number of victims are preparing to pursue a class action against the beis din. Please forward your information to classactionkaufmanbeisdin@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteTried emailing. Address not recognized.
DeleteRabbi Shlomo Zalman Kaufman was just removed/Evicted from his office at Chaim Flohrs Kollel!1,This just happened today ,it seems like he went too far and his deeds -misdeeds finally caught up with him!!
DeleteToen freid must be sad!
A yom tov for Monsey!
DeleteI heard there is also a letter from monsey rabbonim including hagaon rabbi moshe green shlit"a against kaufman. Can anyone please post it?
https://daistorah.wordpress.com
ReplyDeleteRead some of the posts. It proves that protesting doesn't cause a forced get and is mutar.
See here another ORA minded Bais Din!
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/06/rav-shlomo-zalman-kaufmans-contract-of.html
All AMI does is backed by the Brisker dynasty in ISRAEL.
ReplyDeleteSo Frankfuter says and so is the truth. It must be if he's a brisker, Israel.