≡ Menu

Hey Ahron Friedman – Just give her the mothertrucking get already

social-media campaign is being waged to pressure Rep. Dave Camp to encourage a top staffer to grant his wife a Jewish divorce, and the lawmaker restricted public posts on his Facebook page after a flood of comments about the issue.

Camp, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, employs a staff member, Aharon Friedman, who is the subject of intense anger from some in the Orthodox Jewish community for refusing to provide his wife with a Jewish divorce decree, known as a “get,” despite the finalization of their civil divorce nearly two years ago.

I’ve been bugged to write about this and it is a worthy cause, so jump on the bandwagon and get this MFer to give a get…Dudes who don’t give women gets are the scum of the earth. In honor of this occasion I bring you the Get Song by the Groggers.

{ 66 comments… add one }
  • Synapse February 28, 2012, 12:10 AM

    This should have been on the reasons to hate frumkeit. Douchebags like this. Where are the Rabbis and the bans and proclomations when there’s a serious issue at stake? Guess they must be busy writing a ban on rugelach for being untznius.

    • Dan February 28, 2012, 7:46 AM

      You retard. There is a letter signed by Rav Belsky and others about this very case.

      You are so busy living in your hatred, that you never even bother to read about the things you pretend to care about.

      • Sarah February 29, 2012, 11:53 PM

        Just because they write it doesn’t mean they enforce it. My aunt is an agunah, and the community is doing nothing. Not only that, but they’re actually giving him money to help pay rent and such.

  • B. Careful February 28, 2012, 3:28 AM

    You are 100% right on this one. My cousin was married to a piece of garbage who beat her and the kids. He was holding out on the get to further punish them. He finally gave her one when an organization contacted him everyday to ask if he gave it to her. Rabbis should make it mandatory to put an automatic get provision in every ketubah.

    • Ksil February 28, 2012, 4:36 AM

      B. Careful, i agree with you. The rabbis should put in every keaubah that “should the wife request a get, the husband is required to give it, and if he does not within 3 months, then the local bais din can give it as his shaliach,….signed…the chatan”

      • Dan February 28, 2012, 7:47 AM

        I have a better idea. They could just say that you don’t need a get to get remarried. Once we’re not caring about the torah anymore.

        • G*3 February 28, 2012, 11:13 AM

          Except that Ksil’s suggestion is a workable halachic loophole, not “not caring about the torah anymore.”

          • Dan February 28, 2012, 3:49 PM

            It is controversial, and most mainstream orthodox rabbis counsel against it. Thus, ksil’s suggestion is not that there is a way to solve the problem within the torah framework that we rely on, but that I should go against my torah framework.

            And I decline. I’ll follow my rabbis regardless of what the feminists say.

  • IMA2FOUR7 February 28, 2012, 5:03 AM

    From one happy and better off g’rusha!

  • A. Nuran February 28, 2012, 7:06 AM

    This is why all that tortured logic that goes into Talmud and rabbinic fatwas needs to be applied to useful things once in a while. The Pilpul Brigade can make black white and night day. If they had an ounce of compassion they’d find a way to let women divorce.

    • Dan February 28, 2012, 7:50 AM

      It’s opinions like this that make you lose credibility for all your others. You are inventing bad faith out of thin air. You’ve never learned a word of torah in your life, and you think you’re a big posek.

      As it happens, the rabbis do have a system. It is called beating the guy until he gives the get or dies. And just a few months ago you same people and failed messiah were all up in arms that they actually did it.

      • G*3 February 28, 2012, 11:16 AM

        Beating a guy until he gives a get “of his own free will” is itself a legal fiction. Why not skip the barbaric method, and write into the kesuba that the husband agrees that if the couple gets a civil divorce it automatically empowers the local beis din to grant his wife a get?

        • Dan February 28, 2012, 3:54 PM

          There are no legal fictions in halacha.

          The term “willing” when used in halacha is a term of art, and is unrelated to the regular usage of the term. It includes any manifestation of assent, even when incurred under duress.

          And it applies to selling things also. If I beat you until you agree to sell me your house, I own the house. You can take me to beis din and charge me for beating you, but I keep the house. (Observe, how when you learn torah, you actually know stuff beyond what is spewed on the internet.)

          A legal fiction is something else. According to Wikipedia, “A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way.”

          • Susan February 28, 2012, 4:05 PM

            “There are no legal fictions in halacha.” And “da Nile” is not just a river in Egypt.

            • Dan February 28, 2012, 4:18 PM

              Yes, but it is also a river in Egypt.

              How do you even imagine that your opinion on halacha is worth anything, when you know absolutely nothing about it?
              Would you make claims about French law? Or about Economics? Or about chinese history?

              I find it quite amusing and astounding that you read a couple of idiotic things on a few websites, and you think you have an opinion.

              • Susan February 28, 2012, 4:22 PM

                You don’t know me. You don’t know what I know about halacha. I believe the opinion of every Jew is worth something.

                • Susan February 28, 2012, 4:25 PM

                  Apologies. I should have said I believe the opinion of every person is worth something.

                • Dan February 28, 2012, 5:05 PM

                  Ignorant opinions are worth nothing. I know you are ignorant based on the facts you are saying which are simply untrue.

                  • Susan February 28, 2012, 5:40 PM

                    We disagree about opinions and interpretations, not facts.

                    • Dan February 28, 2012, 5:48 PM

                      Of course sweetheart.

                • Rob March 1, 2012, 5:42 PM

                  An opinion is like a tuchis… everybody has one, even some are better than others.

          • A. Nuran February 29, 2012, 12:04 PM

            Halacha is ALL legal fictions. There’s a kernel of Bronze Age documents, some of which were stolen from other people. The rest is sophistry, argument carried to the point of absurdity, accretion, prejudice, legalism and thousands of years of human creation.

            Judaism is no different than Brahmanism, Sharia, Christian theology or the commentaries on the commentaries of Chandrakirti’s commentaries on Nagarjuna that way. It’s only your delusions of being “special” that make you swallow the self-serving lies whole.

            • Dan February 29, 2012, 12:10 PM

              You apparently don’t know what a “legal fiction” is. Because even if that whole post is correct, that is not a legal fiction.

              Do you know anything?

            • Lex Luthor February 29, 2012, 12:15 PM

              “The rest is sophistry, argument carried to the point of absurdity, accretion, prejudice, legalism and thousands of years of human creation.”

              Uh huh. Because you’ve studied it all, right? And you’ve studied Brahmanism, Sharia, Christian theology and the commentaries on the commentaries of Chandrakirti’s commentaries on Nagarjuna as well, I presume?

      • A. Nuran February 29, 2012, 12:11 PM

        The only people with whom I “lose credibility” are mindless sheep who psychotically cling to a past that never was and are terrified that they might not be God’s Annointed Lords of Creation. The simple fact is that there are ways out, and whenever it’s convenient the rabbis find a way to create them. But it has to be something that serves THEIR interests and THEIR prejudices.

        God trumps everything unless there’s a “tradition”. Then that tradition must have been passed down from Sinai. But if they don’t happen to like your tradition they invoke the Book. And if pressed on inconsistencies they fall back on “It was said by people earlier than us, so it must have better Daas Torah” or “But all Israel demanded it” or “There’s a mystical reason”.

        Get it through your head. Your witch doctors and navel-gazing legalists are no different than anyone else’s. Treating women like human beings doesn’t make them happy, so they find ways to make them miserable.

        • Lex Luthor February 29, 2012, 12:22 PM

          A. Nuran, you are a pretentious moron for being so judgmental about people who abide a system you are utterly ignorant of.

  • Telz Angel February 28, 2012, 8:29 AM

    I think they should deny the guy from the honor of getting shelishi. That will piss him off to no end and he’s sure to cave in. I know how upset I am that my shul only gives me the crappy revi’i aliyah, and only once in a blue moon. Social pressure like that — or worse, intentionally spelling his name wrong on the shul membership list. And if that doesn’t work — put the wrong date for his birthday and parent’s yahrzeit on the shul calendar. That drives people to insanity in my shul.

    • Yochanan February 28, 2012, 5:40 PM

      Change his name to Friedwife.

  • truth February 28, 2012, 9:02 AM

    I know Aharon personally he would never hurt a fly He is very happy to give the get if she will allow amicable visitation with their child. Basically the only visitation she allows would cause him to be mechallel shabbos if someone could convince her party to sit down and come up with an amicable solution he will definitely give it. Come on frum satire you can be a hero. Get it done

    • blah blah February 28, 2012, 9:52 AM


    • Bearcat February 28, 2012, 12:14 PM

      O RLY?

      “That issue appears to have been resolved in a July 22 ruling issued by Montgomery County Circuit Judge Steven G. Salant, who ordered that Friedman’s weekend visitation hours would no longer begin on Friday evening, but rather on Thursday evening, thereby eliminating any Shabbat-related conflict. ”


    • Anonymous February 28, 2012, 12:31 PM

      When a lady walks away from beis din she can not be called an agunah. Its very sad, but this lady has done this to herself. If she would have just played by the rules she would have her get. She is ruining it for the real agunahs out there.

      • Bearcat February 28, 2012, 12:46 PM

        Neither Anonymous at 12:31 no truth are correct.

        Friedman was the one who walked away. She is a true agunah in the opinions of Rabbis Ralbag, Belsky, Wolmark, Stern, Kamenetsky and Schachter. I will post the link to the seruv in a separate comment so it is not held up by moderation.

        As for the Shabbos issue: “That issue appears to have been resolved in a July 22 ruling issued by Montgomery County Circuit Judge Steven G. Salant, who ordered that Friedman’s weekend visitation hours would no longer begin on Friday evening, but rather on Thursday evening, thereby eliminating any Shabbat-related conflict. ”
        (link in another comment currently in moderation).

        • Anonymous February 28, 2012, 1:04 PM

          There is proof that Ms. Tamar is the one whom walked away from beis din and that is why many other batie diinim refused to take her case. Ralbag (hebrew national) was paid off big time $$ for his involvement. Yes, the court order was changed because Tamar went back to court with false witneses, lies and pathetic tracking devices planted in their childs clothes, WHICH THE JUDGE THREW OUT, along with a spiteful previous ‘vicinity’ restriction and gave the husband better custody rights. If she wants to walk out of beis din and bring false witneses to court – let her get her get from court and stop making a chillul hashem.

          • Dave March 1, 2012, 8:54 AM

            Brave “anonymous” cites no sources for anything he/she asserts. Probably a family member of Mr. Friedman.

        • Izzy February 28, 2012, 10:24 PM

          I note that there was a protest against the guy in December 2010: http://wheaton-md.patch.com/articles/protesters-rally-in-support-of-tamar-epstein. To me, the fact that people were protesting before the shababt visitations issue was worked out suggests that they didnt know what they are getting involved in. It seems to me that its irresponsible for people without direct knowledge of the facts of the case to take sides. That goes for Heshy too.

          • Dan February 29, 2012, 12:13 PM

            I myself have a policy that my only comment about individual cases is that I am sure I don’t know enough about the case to comment. [Lawyers hired by] women know how to play the game just as well as [lawyers hired by] men.

          • Bearcat February 29, 2012, 3:20 PM

            Or it suggests that many people, like me, don’t believe that visitation disputes justify withholding a get. Visitation disputes, like it or not, are a common feature of divorces and I see no reason to give frum guys extra leverage over and above what any other husband would have.

            • YU S'micha Lamdan February 29, 2012, 3:25 PM

              Thank you Bearcat! Someone with a sense of decency!

            • Dan February 29, 2012, 3:27 PM

              Sure, but that is not the relevant question here in this case.

              The relevant question (assuming the facts as presented by poster “truth”) is whether he is a morally bad person for using the leverage that he happens to have.

              It could have been any leverage. It could have been that he had nked pictures of her with congressional interns, and wanted to use that as leverage against unfair visitation decisions. I don’t see why it is immoral for someone to use all the leverage he/she has–if they happen to be in the right.

              And I’m not interested in deciding which one of them is in the right. (of course I am, I just don’t have access to the information.)

              • Bearcat February 29, 2012, 3:39 PM

                If you think that all means are permissible when the end is a good or correct one, then I get why you believe that the question of who’s ultimately “right” (whatever that means) is the only one that matters. But I believe most people, secular and religious, Jewish and non-Jewish, do not agree with you. And our society is not run that way.

                • Dan February 29, 2012, 3:45 PM

                  I do believe that all means of negotiation are acceptable when you are in the “right”.

                  (By which I mean, I don’t think it is ok for him to kill her to get the kids even if she is totally unfairly depriving him of visitation. But I do think that it is ok to threaten to kill her. Or to not give a get.)

                  Also, let’s take this one step further. Maybe we can get a case where yo will agree it is ok to use “bad” leverage. Suppose she is using “bad” leverage to bargain with (like making up false stories of molestation). So then she is already using a leverage which we don’t want her to have. Is it then ok for him to use his bad leverage?

                  Or flip the case. Suppose he is withholding a get, and he is in the “wrong”. Do you think it is ok for her to falsely invent stories of molestation about him? Do you generally think that women should have leverage of making up false molestation stories?

                  • Dan February 29, 2012, 3:54 PM

                    I’m going to agree with you partially though.

                    I think society should think it is unacceptable to use “bad” leverage, because otherwise everyone will use it and claim that they are in the “right”.

                    Kind of like how we make blackmail illegal, even though sometimes it will be used by people who are in the “right”. And murder.

                    So I sort of get it on a societal level, but I also think that if I was in the situation, I’d do the same thing, and that doesn’t bother me. The same way it doesn’t bother me to think that I’d kill someone who was molesting my daughter if that was the only way I could stop it, even though it would be murder. (Murder is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.)

                    • Bearcat February 29, 2012, 5:53 PM

                      No, I don’t think we should treat one party’s violation as justifying another party’s violation. Society can legalize something that is usually a violation under certain circumstances (e.g. killing in self-defense or in defense of a third party), thus making it no longer a violation. It can even institute last-resort break-glass-in-case-of-emergency type measures that enable it to short circuit the rules in cases of rare and truly horrifying injustice (e.g. jury nullification). But I think it would be terrible to have a general rule that says: “Whenever you know you’re right on something, go ahead and disregard all other rules except ones against murder and maybe sometimes those too if you think you’re right about something important enough.” Or “When someone claims he was wronged, nobody should condemn or punish any of his actions relating to that dispute unless they thoroughly investigate the entire matter and conclusively determine that he was wrong about the majority of related issues and is generally a bad person.”

                      No, you can’t make false accusations because another party did. You can’t falsify photographs to use in court, even if the thing depicted really did happen and you just don’t have any proof and are worried that the other guy lies very convincingly. You can’t lie about how you conducted a search, even if you know the truly guilty defendant is likely to go free if you tell the truth. You can’t bribe someone to provide you with a fake alibi even if you really are innocent. And so on. I might personally have some sympathy for people who did the things I just listed, but I would want society to punish them nonetheless. And if I found out that a defendant bribed a witness to give a fake alibi, I wouldn’t say “I can’t condemn it (the bribery) until I thoroughly investigate whether the defendant was guilty of the crime or not.” Or “I can’t condemn it until I determine if the defendant is a bad or good person overall.”

                      So my original point, is that “the fact that people were protesting before the shabbat visitations issue was worked out” can suggest something other than “they didnt know what they are getting involved in.” It can suggest that they were simply not interested in who was right on the visitation issue (or other typical divorce issues) or who was a better person on some holistic scale. Instead, they could have believed that, barring truly extraordinary injustice, the optimal rule for society is that a get be given within a short time of civil divorce finalization. And that a visitation dispute is far too common and nowhere near significant enough to qualify as an extraordinary injustice that would justify condoning a violation of the optimal rule for society. So they attempt to reinforce the general rule by protesting, both to eliminate this particular violation as well as send a message to other would-be violators. Deciding that Friedman (or any other man) should be pressured to give a get doesn’t require believing that he is a 100% terrible human being, that he is a worse human being than his ex or that he is wrong on most of the logistical issues involved in the divorce.

                    • Izzy March 1, 2012, 8:56 AM

                      Bearcat and Dan, good analysis of the issues. So I guess the crux is, who gets to decide whether there should be an optimal rule for this issue, or what that optimal rule should be?
                      For what its worth, I have seen statements from rabbis that said that withholding a get is never justified, and I have heard of situations where rabbis specifically recommended withholding the get, as that was the only leverage the husband had, given the situation. A get is the document that terminates the marriage. Typically a party to a legal dispute will not sign an agreement regarding one part of the dispute, without settling other parts of the dispute. Why should a get be any different?

                    • Izzy March 1, 2012, 9:01 AM

                      Further people (men and women), use custody issues as divorce disputes all the time. Why is there no “optimal rule” for that? Why do I never see protests against using access to someone’s children as leverage against them?

                    • Dan March 1, 2012, 9:40 AM

                      I hear your side. I suppose it might depend how bad we think withholding a get (in negotiation) is. (Recall, that if it is in negotiation, she can always just give in and get it.)

                      I don’t think it is as bad as falsifying stories, or bribing people.

          • Dave March 1, 2012, 8:49 AM

            Izzy: A get is for the benefit of BOTH parties, freeing them to remarry. A get is to be neither withheld nor coerced. For the man to grant it, for the woman to accept it, and to work out terms of settlement, custody, visitation, etc. in a civilized manner is the mensch-like thing to do, by both parties.

            Tamar eventually agreed to modified visitation terms, which the court approved, as I understand it. Yet Mr. Friedman still refuses to give a get, despite a seruv being issued against him:


            The rabbis have decided that he is in the wrong here.

    • Dave March 1, 2012, 8:32 AM

      WRONG. Tamar agreed to a modified visitation schedule. This is ALL on Mr. Friedman.

      • Izzy March 1, 2012, 8:58 AM

        How readily did she agree to a modified schedule?

        • Dan March 1, 2012, 9:45 AM

          Well, readily or not, if she did agree now, then that issue is over.

          I haven’t the slightest clue about the whole story though, and if she was playing dirty then (of which I have no clue), then there may be other tricks now. I don’t do sensational journalism–I don’t believe a word they say.

          • Susan March 1, 2012, 9:52 AM

            Um, the issue isn’t over if he hasn’t given her the get.

            • Dan March 1, 2012, 9:58 AM

              I’m agreeing with you. I was responding to izzy who said that he had some justification since there was previously a custody issue. I was saying that that issue has been resolved, so the justification disappears.

  • Bearcat February 28, 2012, 12:47 PM
  • YU S'micha Lamdan February 29, 2012, 10:02 AM

    Dear friends, please see the suffering of a human being and look beyond the pettiness of blaming people. Regardless of the details leading to this, which from the dozens of accounts it seems friedman is a vile and disgusting person, there a woman who is being held against her will. Nothing justifies that. Ever.

    Those who care about the well-being of a fellow human, please sign this:

    • Izzy February 29, 2012, 12:33 PM

      You assert that nothing could possibly justify withholding a get. In my mind, I can come up with scenarios that arguably might. Let’s say the mom abuses the children, and it’s the only leverage so that the mom will give up custody. Would that justify it? Arguably, yes. And I’m not saying that is the case here, just making the point that people should not rush to judgement without knowing the facts.

      • Susan February 29, 2012, 2:36 PM

        If the mother abuses the children, the father should call the police and/or Child Protective Services so they can investigate the situation and take appropriate action. That will get faster action and is more likely to help the children than witholding a get.

        • Dan February 29, 2012, 2:50 PM

          Susan, your link links to the google blogs homepage, not to any particular blog.

  • Susan February 29, 2012, 2:53 PM

    Dan –
    Thanks. Apparently there was a dot that converted to a @.

    • Dan February 29, 2012, 2:56 PM

      Thanks, now I’ll check it out. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to be nice. If you want to talk to me where I’m halfway nice, you need to go to YWN. The mods there won’t tolerate the tone I use here.

  • Chyahmeanslife February 29, 2012, 4:17 PM

    I know this has nothing to do with the article but, this is the first time I’ve even heard of the Groggers and can I say BARUCH HASHEM!!! Finally a frum band that sounds awesome!! I have seriously just fallen in love with these guys and watched all thier other stuff on Youtube.

    Heshy, Thanks so much for posting this video!!! They are crazy cool.

Leave a Comment