This should have been a good New Year’s for Aharon Friedman, a 34-year-old tax counsel for the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee. He spent time with his 3-year-old daughter, and could have been thinking about the influence he will have starting Wednesday, when his boss, Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, becomes chairman of the powerful tax-writing committee.What a surprise, a Republican is being a selfish asshole.
Instead, Mr. Friedman, an Orthodox Jew, finds himself scrutinized in the Jewish press, condemned by important rabbis, and attacked in a YouTube video showing about 200 people protesting outside his Silver Spring, Md., apartment on Dec. 19. They were angered by Mr. Friedman’s refusal to give his wife, Tamar Epstein, 27, a Jewish decree of divorce, known as a get.
While I do understand that he has issues with the custody arrangement, using the get as a way to extract concessions is beneath contempt.
That being said, I am aware of a number of these cases, and while I strongly object to these enforcement of these medieval (actually pre-medieval) religious statutes, I am aware that this happens dozens, if not hundreds of times a year.
What got to me was this paragraph:
Mr. Friedman and Ms. Epstein have been civilly divorced since April and share custody of their daughter, but they are still married according to Jewish law. And without a get neither he nor Ms. Epstein can remarry within the faith. She is considered an agunah, or chained woman.(emphasis mine)
If the Jews run the New York Times, they are incompetent, because it misses two points:
- First, if Mr. Reiedman gets civilly remarried, and has a child, a likely thing for a 34 year old Orthodox Jew, the child will not be a mamzer, who would be forbidden from marrying other Jews, while any child that Ms. Epstein has will be a mamzer. (3500 year old religious law is such a joy, huh?)
- Second, it is possible for Mr. Friedman to get a rabbinical ruling allowing him to take a 2nd wife, while Ms. Epstein cannot.
- This has been done in some cases where a wife is in a persistent vegetative state, or completely delusional, since a get cannot be granted under those conditions, it requires the knowing receipt of the get by the wife, so permission for a "2nd" wife has been given with the the "1st" wife continue to be financially supported by the husband.
- In this case though, a rabbi approving a 2nd marriage is basically zero.
Clearly, I need to contact the local president of my ZOG chapter and pass my complaint up the chain.
While Mr Friedman may or may not be an asshole, and I think your blog entry is unfair to him. The text below, from the NY Times, shows that Mr. Friedman is perhaps also not being treated fairly by the divorce procedings. I'm not saying that I approve of Mr Friedman's methods (being non-Jewish, it is not for me to say), but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his motives. Perhaps he is not reacting in anger to his wife's asking for a divorce. Perhaps he is a loving father who is trying to spend more time with his child. Such a father must often use any leverage available, especially if the ex-wife is being unreasonable or vengeful. I don't think that we know enough about what is going on here to pass judgement. Based on the text below from the NY Times, I think that he (as an Orthodox Jew) does have some legitimate complaints.
ReplyDeleteAll parties have said that Mr. Friedman is angry about the custody order, which grants him three weekends a month with his daughter, two of them in Philadelphia, beginning at 6 p.m. on Fridays. As a religious Jew, Mr. Friedman will not drive from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday — so he cannot see his daughter until Sunday.
The custody order is “a joke,” said Yisroel Belsky, a prominent Brooklyn rabbi. “The court decided in a bullheaded way not to respect the Shabbos,” or Sabbath, he said in a interview."
In looking at the custody arrangements, it is clear why Mr. Friedman would be unhappy with them.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am with Rabbi Jonathan Reiss, who is not involved in the dispute, "Even if one party acts wrongly to the other, it is never correct either for the husband to withhold a get or for the wife to refuse a get when a marriage is clearly over."
It is never justified to withhold a get.
My central point though was not about the withholding of the get, as repugnant as it is, but rather my disapproval of how a New York Times reporter blythly papered over the asymmetry of power in this dispute.
Ms. Epstein already offered to remove the 6 PM clause, and Mr. Friedman rejected that offer, so clearly he wants more. In addition, Ms. Epstein always allows Mr. Friedman ample time before the Sabbath for Mr. Friedman to take the child. He is using the get to extort ridiculous concessions to the detriment of the child.
ReplyDelete