Letters from all the Rabbanim

New letter from the Gedolim in Eretz Yisroel;

letter-from-rav-shternbuch

Here is a selection of letters from the various Rabbanim involved with the case over the years;

These are categorized in the following groups;

The siruv on Mrs. Ort

heineman

KSAV SIRUV
Summoned: Mrs. Manya Ort
Lakewood N.J.
This is to make known that the above mentioned has refused to appear for a din torah as required, regarding the monetary claims between her and her husband, and has gone to gentile courts contrary to Halacha and without permission from Bais Din. She is summoning him there to obtain money from him contrary to Jewish law.

She is committing thereby three transgressions: One, the mere utilization of gentile courts is a severe transgression as is explicitly stated in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat (chapter 26: I ) that the person “is called a rosho and is considered as if they blasphemed and rebelled against the Torah of Moshe”.
Two, the refusal of a summons from a Jewish court constitutes a rebellion against the laws of the holy Torah, as Chazal teach “these are the laws which you should place before them” – and not before the gentiles”.
Three, there is a possibility of actual “gezel” on any money taken from him through them contrary to Halacha, as is explained in the commentary of Rebbe Akiva Eger in Shulchan Aruch (ibid), aside from the enormous expenses she causes by going to gentile court, which is in itself a damage which one is liable for if they go to gentile court contrary to halacha, as is stated in Shulehan Aruch (14:5).

The excuse which she gives that she had no choice because her husband will not listen to what the Bais Din says is a RIDICULOUS and FALSE claim WITH NO BASIS as was already declared by the Rabonim, Horav Tuvia Goldstein shlit”a and Horav Dovid Feinstein shlit”a, and we the undersigned attest that he was READY AND WILLING to come to a Din Torah FROM BEGINNING TO END, AND TO ADHERE TO IT. But she, the above mentioned, is the one going to court contrary to the din.
All this we are making known with great anguish to protest against the wrongdoing, perhaps there is hope to save the victim from the wrongdoer, and we should not persist in making the gentile to be our judges, and may we merit the establishing the authority of the Torah in our community.

To this we affix our signatures on Isru Chag Shavuos; the occasion of the giving of the holy Torah, 5762.
(R.) Yakov Hopfer (R.) Simcha Bunim Shafrin (R.) Mordechai Shuchatowitz

The Ikul

heinemao

Translation:

Mrs. Manya Ort from Lakewood was already summoned many times to come to Beis Din concerning the disagreement between her and her former husband HaRav Reb Avraham Ort.

She has refused to come before our Beis Din or any other Beis Din and instead has gone to a secular court. This is against the halacha and was done without permission from any Beis Din. She is still persisting with her refusal.

We have heard that there is reason to believe that she is trying to sell their previous house at the address 1015 Forest Ave. Lakewood NJ. Determining the ownership of this property is dependent on this controversy and its sale could cause an irreplaceable loss.

Therefore, we are issuing an injunction from Beis Din to forbid her to sell this property and to make known to anyone involved with this sale, that’s it’s forbidden according to halacha to help with the sale of this property. It is also forbidden to buy from her or from her representative until the two parties come before a Beis Din that they choose and a ruling according to halacha is issued.

To this we have affixed our signature on 2 Menachem Av 5768,

Rav Moshe Heinemann

Rav Yakov Hopfer

Rav Mordechai Shuchatowitz

Bais Din ruling that aside from the issur of Halicha L’arcka’os, a much more severe issur of Mesira was commited:

shuchato

Translation:

Mrs. Manya 0rt has committed a terrible act and has gone to secular court for “Equitable Distribution”; to demand and to aquire the property of her former husband.

This is against halachah, and was done without permission from Beis Din. She refuses to bring their disagreement before a Beis din as we have written in the Ksav Siruv that was issued last year on lsru Chag Shavous.

To our sadness, it has come to light recently that she is threatening her former husband with criminal allegations. This is one of the most serious Aveiros, as an informer has no portion in the World to Come. We are shocked that a Bas Yisrael, who was always considered to be an isha kesheira, could sink to such a low level as to do these actions that are not done in Klal Yisroel.

Therefore, let it be known that it is forbidden to aid her in going to a secular court or in her informing. Anyone who is in a position to convince her to stop these terrible action, it is a mitzvah to do so; to save the victim from his oppressor and to uphold the authority of the laws of the holy Torah.

To this we have affixed our signature on Tuesday, 14 Kisleiv 5763,

Rav Moshe Heinemann

Rav Yakov Hopfer

Rav Mordechai Shuchatowitz

The following is the siruv issued against R’ Avraham’s daughter Miriam Ort-Hirsch when she and her sister Sarah Ort-Broderick sued their father in court for over a million dollars

letter_against_hirsh1

Translation: This is to make known that Mrs. CHANA MIRIAM (wife of R’ Eliezer Chaim) HIRSCH of Monsey N.Y. IS GOING TO COURT AGAINST THE DIN AND WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM BAIS DIN, to draw out huge amounts of money from her father contrary to Jewish law. One who does so “is called a rosho, and is as if they blasphemed and rebelled against the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu”, as is paskined in Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 26).

This is aside from (the issur of) absolute THEFT and CAUSING OF DAMAGE involved in such claims, “AND BAIS DIN HAS THE RIGHT TO EXCOMMUNICATE HIM” as the Rema paskins (ibid) and adds: “AND SO TOO WE EXCOMMUNICATE ANYONE WHO HELPS SOMEONE WHO GOES BEFORE GENTILE COURT”.

Based on that we have also summoned her husband, but he excuses himself by claiming that he cannot stop his wife’s actions.

Therefore, with great anguish, we publicize this for all to know to protest against her actions, to save the victim from the wrongdoer, in order that all should know about this and desist from making the nations to be our judges.

May we speedily merit the establishment of the authority of the laws of the holy Torah.

To this we sign on I3 Shevat 5763

(R.) Yakov Hopfer

(R.) Simcha Bunim Shafrin

(R.) Mordechai Shuchatowitz

The Baltimore Beis Din asking Rav Nissim Karelitz if one can rely on a psak from a Rov who did not hear both sides of the case in order to be permitted to go to court

shuchatp

Rav Nissim responds:

rnissimk

Translation:

To Horav Hagaon Rav Mordechai Shuchatowitz shlit”a

Av Beis Din D‘Baltimore

Regarding the shaila of Arkaos, when do we permit going to the courts, and who can permit it, we shall copy that which was publicized in Eretz Yisroel.

“Being that there were mistakes in the matter of granting permission to go to courts, therefore we shall establish and clarify and make known: Permission to turn to the courts can be given only in writing and only through experienced Dayanim, after examination which is of the type that is as clear as day and as clear as ‘Achoscha’. We have sealed on this for the sake of Hashem’s true Judgements

Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Shmuel Halevi Wosner, Sh. Y. Karelitz”

And we reply that the question if to permit, has the stringency of Dinei Momonos and the stringency of the issur of going to court. And at minimum, it is forbidden to do anything without a Beis Din that heard from both sides issuing a ruling, and these matters also involve a “chashash gezel”.

Nissim Karelitz

Rav Moshe Shternbuch

rshternb

Translation:

10 Sivan 5769

The words of Hagaon Rav Nissim Karelitz shlit’a are clear: that there is absolutely no heter to go t0 court except by a psak of an established Beis Din that heard all of the claims and issued a “psak” giving permission. And it is forbidden to assist someone who transgresses this, for it is a severe sin.

Harav Avraham Ort shlit’a is presently here and cannot return home as a result of the proceedings in court. Although l am not personally familiar with the stories, one thing is clear: that there must be a heter from a properly established Beis Din that was as I wrote, and only if they heard from both sides.

l am hoping every day for an abundance of rachmei Shomayim,

Moshe Sternbuch

R’ Dovid Feinstein shlit”a

rfeinste

Translation:

I have come hereby to establish, wherever it need be established, regarding R. Avrohom Yehuda Ort shlit”a that he is a person who fulfills his word and if he says that he will do something, he can be trusted to fulfill it. Especially if there is a Din Torah on any monies and Bais Din Would rule that he is liable, he would fulfill it as they ruled without any reservation.

And on this I affix my signature I8 Teves 5762

(Rabbi) Dovid Feinstein

R’ Malkiel Kotler shlit”a

rkotler_

R’ Tuvia Goldstein z”l

Note that in his letter he writes that he has heard both sides in the case!

rgoldste

Translation:

I have spoken with R. Avrohom Ort and his wife Mrs. Manya Ort each separately, and I have heard their claims, and after hearing all the issues, I rule that both parties must appear together before a Bais Din of zbl” a, that the Bais Din should rule regarding the monetary issues, custody of the children, and all other matters, AND NEITHER PARTY SHOULD GO TO ADJUDICATE IN THE COURTS.

And on this I have affixed my signature 6 Marcheshvan 5762, here, brooklyn N.Y.

(Rabbi) Tuvia Goldstein

Rav Nota Greenblatt shli”ta, Memphis

rgreenblatt_letter

Translation:
Regarding the claims in civil court, filed by Mrs. SORO ROCHEL THE WIFE OF R. BRODERICK shlit”a, MEMBER OF THE KOLLEL IN DALLAS, in my area, against her father R. Avrohom On shlit”a who wishes to adjudicate in Bais Din according to the laws of the Torah. They are excusing themselves that they received permission to go to court from someone that is secret, and the reason for the permission is also secret.
But it is absolutely clear that such a critical question whether to adjudicate in the courts, which entails a CHILLUL HASHEM, as Rashi brings in the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim, is not a private shylah, pertaining only to the one making the claim, like a shylah in hilchos Shabbos or something similar. Especially in this country where it necessitates the one being sued to hire lawyers, which, as is well known, is almost an endless expense. and this in itself is A CAUSE OF GREAT MONETARY DAMAGE and surely a reliable Bais Din would not permit to adjudicate before the civil courts EXCEPT AFTER HEARING THE CLAIMS FROM BOTH SIDES, and then after great consideration WRITE THEIR OPINION.
And truthfully there is no need to elucidate on this because EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE SAYING, THAT THEY HAVE A HETER, IS AN ABSURD JOKE, for if so, no one is left safe, for any claimant who feels that it is better for him to sue in court will say the same, and there need be no more Dinei Torah among the Jewish people chas v’sholom.
What‘s more, it is UNBELIEVABLE THAT BNEI TORAH, WHO STUDY TORAH FULL TIME. SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS.
To this I have affixed my signature on the date above, here, Memphis, Tenn.
(Rabbi) Nota Tzvi, son of a.a.m.v. Horav Yitzchok Greenblatt

And again from Rav Nota greenblatt:

rgreenbm

Translation:

As I have previously written, the prohibition against appearing before a secular court when the defendant is willing to apear before Beis Din is something even schoolchildren who learn Chumash and Rashi know.

I have also indicated that at present appearing before a secular court entails hiring lawyers which are an enormous cost, and ruin the livelihood of the defendant. That alone is reason enough that they are prohibited from going to court until a Beis Din will hear the sides out and decide that they may go to court.

And I am pained to hear that Mrs. Avraham Ort has begun to sue her husband in court as if there were no dayan in Klal Yisrael, which (-going to court) is something that needs a clear psak from a Beis Din to be permitted…