The Brodericks

Sarah Ort (-Broderick) changed the account status so that she could take the money in the account:

Note:; this all was being done December 1999, when R’ Avraham was still living at home, trying desperately to make the marriage work!

R’ Avraham only became aware of this on the date of the letter, Septemer 2002, three years later. That is why when Mrs. Broderick came to him saying that she “has no money” he gave her $2,500 in April 2000. See a copy of the actual check in the section at the right entitled ‘day to day support’: 

Cover of the two married daughters suing their father in secular courts without permission of Beis Din. The basis of the claim is his allegedly withholding part of the income from a piece of real estate he had put in their name.

When questioned by Rav Nota Greenblatt shlit”a, Av Beis Din of Memphis Tenn., what gave her the right to take her father to court, her husband, Raanan Broderick responded that they had a Heter from a Secret Rov, whose reason for the Heter was “also a secret”.

Lawsuit amount: 1 million dollars, plus interest and legal fees.

This was repeated THREE times:

The letter from Beis Din denouncing their actions:

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

Rav Nota Greenblatt writes:

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 Ort 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 who 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 Beis Din would not permit to adjudicate before the civil courts EXCEPT AFTER HEARING THE CLAIMS FROM BOTH SIDES, and then after great consideration, they would 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

Rabbi Greenblatt shlit”a kindly requests the Brodericks to come to a Din Torah before Beis Din:

Mrs. Broderick wrote back in response:

An open response to R. & Mrs. Broderick:

Dear Rabbi & Mrs. Broderick

We are responding to your letter to the Bais Din.

1. You state (par. 1) “while Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi Shlita does serve as the Rabbinical advisor to Yeshiva Tifereth Torah”… he is not “connected to them… in any way”. You further state (ibid) “the indication that my mother made large donations to those institutions is simply untrue”.

lt is common knowledge that Yeshiva Tifereth Torah (founded and administrated by R. Abadi’s gabbai R. Yisroel Gelbwachs, and housed in R. Abadi’s house for many years) is completely R’ Abadi‘s Yeshiva in the fullest colloquial sense of the words. Anyone not from Lakewood can ascertain this from anyone in Lakewood.

As to your claim that Mrs. Ort did not make “large donations” to R. Abadi‘s institutions, we attach below the list, provided by Mrs. Ort’s lawyer, of her donations to Y.T.T. and R. Abadi‘s Shul, in the amounts of $70,000 & $29,000 respectively [totaling $99,000]. Perhaps you do not consider that “large donations”.

We do.

2. You state (par 2) that Rav Hershel Shechter is a “nogeiah b‘davar”, “and would certainly not be an impartial Dayan in this case”.

You present two factual reasons:

1. When applying to R.l.E.T.S. Kollel, your father was tested by R. Hershel Shechter.

2. Ray Shechter “signed a siruv against my cousin R. Yitzchak Adler“.

In short, you present that any Rav is “nogeiah b‘davar” if they either: a) had given one party a 15 minute bechina 27 years before, or: b) if they issued a siruv on a ba‘al din for refusing to come to Din Torah (as is standard practice in all Botei Din, as prescribed in Choshen Mishpat 11:1). It follows that no Bais Din can ever issue a siruv because they thereby render themselves unfit to be the Bais Din on that case.

We find it surprising that someone is not embarrassed to make such a ridiculous statement in public.

3. You state (par 4): “I have never spoken with R. Greenblatt and he has never discussed this issue with me”.

In his letter (below), R. Greenblatt quotes the answer which your husband gave him when he discussed this issue with him. Do you mean that your husband never told you about that conversation? Or, if you mean that your husband did not accurately present your position to R. Greenblatt, why not speak to him yourself and do so?

You also claim (ibid) that R. Greenblatt “doesn’t even remember writing that letter”. Are you implying that he never wrote it, even though it is entirely in his handwriting? Did you ask him to sign a disclaimer on our “forgery”? On the other hand, if you do acknowledge it as authentic, then what difference does it make if Rav Greenblatt “does not even remember” a letter he wrote, over 10 years after it was written?

We are baffled by your intention in that statement.

4. In your previous letter to the Bais Din, dated March 5, 2013, you wrote: “they (the Baltimore Bais Din) have especially attacked my mother by issuing a siruv against her when they knew that my father had signed an arbitration agreement to abide by the decision of the majority of three arbitrators”.

Your father responded by providing that siruv, and the arbitration agreement, showing that the siruv was issued six months before the arbitration agreement (documents available here).

To this you respond in your letter (par 5): “the Baltimore Bais Din has written so many false siruvs and letters… it is just a matter of looking at the correct ones to make the dates coincide”.

If you can “make the dates coincide”, why not do so and prove your innocence? How can a siruv be “false” because of an arbitration agreement, if that agreement did not exist at the time of the siruv? And what does it mean the siruv is “false”? The siruv simply states that your mother refused to participate in a Din Torah. Is it your position that your mother agrees to come to Din Torah? If so, let her put that in writing to the Bais Din and all issues will be resolved.

This is all that we are trying to accomplish for years.

Also, your insinuation that had there been a binding arbitration agreement, albeit court ordered, that would invalidate the siruv, is untrue. Your father asked for a Din Torah. Your mother issued a summons on him, thereby forcing him to adjudicate in Arkaos, either by means of one judge or a panel of three arbitrators. Why your father chose the latter course of Arkaos is explained in the letter of his attorney here. It does not change the fact that your mother forced him into this choice of Arkaos which is a very severe sin (see Choshen Mishpat 26:1) as explained in the siruv.

By the way, you call the Baltimore Bais Din authors of “false” letters. Do you realize you are talking about people of the caliber of Rav Moshe Heinemann and Rav Yaakov Hopfer shlit”a, known worldwide for their gaon’us in Torah and unimpeachable integrity? And yet, without even presenting any facts or basis, you call such Gedolim liars?! Is that also your attitude toward the letter of the Gedolei Hador in Eretz Yisroel? This letter specifies “Mrs. Ort and her family members.”We deeply regret having to speak so harshly, but your language and behavior leave no alternative. Please consider the shame you are bringing on yourselves and every mosad you are affiliated with, and submit an honest Din Torah K’daas Moshe V’Yisroel. Do not force Rav Greenblatt shlit”a to issue a siruv on you, now that the third hazmanah has been issued (above).

For the sake of Emes

For the sake of Shalom

For the sake of stopping this terrible chillul Hashem,

Please…

Sincerely,

– Your True Friends

The Brodericks’ letter revisited:

You state in Par. 1 that Rav Avrohom had a “good relationship” with Rabbi Abadi for the ten years that he davened in R. Abadi‘s shul.

That statement is correct, although he is completely out of touch with R. Abadi for over 15 years. But Rav Avrohom did not accept him as a Dayan only because of the fact that his mosdos received approximately $100,000 from Mrs. Ort. This demonstrates that there are still some people that accept or reject a Dayan based on the halachic parameters of “nogeiah b‘davar” rather than with whom they enjoy a “good relationship”.

You seem to have difficulty grasping that concept.

Incidentally, for most of the ten years that Rav Avrohom davened in R. Abadi’s shul, the Rabbi was living in Eretz Yisroel.

In Par. 2 you state: ‘my father mentions not having met Rav Hershel Schachter when he spent time in R.l.E.T.S. and states “I never attended Yeshiva University”. In fact in order to be accepted to the R.l.E.T.S. program of Yeshiva University my father was tested by Rav Hershel Schachter’

.In Rav Avrohom’s letter to the Bais Din he wrote: ‘I never had the privilege of making the acquaintance of Harav HaGaon Rav Hershel Schachter shlit”a’. He never said or implied ‘not having met him’.

But even this is irrelevant to the Din Torah at hand, because, as stated in our open letter to you, your entire premise  that a 15 minute bechina which took place over 27 years ago renders someone as ‘nogeiah b‘davar’ is comical.

As to your claim that Rav Avrohom had a ‘close relationship’ with Rav Shechter ‘after the time he spent there’, your father denies this (although he says he would have been honored by the opportunity!).

Your father also points out that he was a talmid in the ‘Gruss Kollel’, whose Rosh Kollel was Horav Aharon Kahn shlit”a. Rav Schachter was Rosh Kollel of the Katz Kollel, which had a different limud in a different Bais Medrash a few blocks away. Hence, he rarely even saw Rav Schachter, let alone ever had a chance to speak with him.

Rav Avrohom further states that this claim of yours is particularly sad, because with your having grown up in the house, and been aware of his acquaintances, it is a deliberate falsehood. The real reason for your rejecting him is that you know that he will be dan din emes l’amito, precisely what you are trying to avoid.

As for your referring to R.I.E.T.S. as a ‘program of Yeshiva University’, this statement, unlike your previous one, could possibly be a result of plain ignorance. R.I.E.T.S. (Rabbi Isaac Elchonon Theological Seminary, named after Horav Yitzchak Elchonon Spector ztz”l, the Kovner Rov and author of Shu”t Beis Yitzchak, is an independent Yeshiva, founded in 1888 under the name Yeshivas Eitz Chaim and changed to its present name in 1896. It is a Yeshiva Gedola which, like most Yeshivas Gedolos, offers only Limudei Kodesh. Yeshiva University, founded in 1928, is a college, not a Yeshiva, and like most colleges offers only Limudei Chol.

Although many talmidim of R.l.E.T.S. also attend Y.U., many, such as your father, did not. As a matter of fact, in the application to the Gruss Kollel Elyon (the branch of R.l.E.T.S., which your father attended for two years), question #11 reads: “if you never attended Yeshiva University, list all Yeshivas or other education…”. We are posting this to the website for the benefit of anyone that feels it to be relevant. Anyone interested in a complete history of R.l.E.T.S./Y.U.

should visit: YU.EDU/RIETS/ABOUT/MISSION-HISTORY/TREE/LlFE. 

We must admit we do find this whole issue rather amusing. What did you hope to gain by making it look as if your father attended Y.U. anyway? Is it your position that that would permit your taking him to arkaos without a Heter Beis Din?

Your statement in Par. 3 is, again, pure assertion: your father claims the opposite. The point is totally moot however, as R. Landessman already issued a written opinion on this matter to your brother-in-law, R. Eliezer Hirsch, without having heard from the other side, as your father pointed out in his letter to the Beis Din.

Your points in par 4 and 5 have been thoroughly addressed in our letter posted above.

Mrs. Broderick: you have received your final Hazmono by the Bais Din of Rav Nota Greenblatt shlit”a. The entire Olam HaTorah everywhere know his sterling reputation and unimpeachable character. Even had you any serious claims it still would not exempt you from appearing in a Beis Din Shel Yisroel and presenting them, kol shekein that you could find nothing better than the ridiculous assertion that a Dayan that summons someone to a Din Torah, ‘possuls’ himself if he issues a siruv when they do not respond.

Please, for your own sake, have pity on your family name and your mother’s, and do not force the Bais Din to issue a siruv on you. Your father has submitted seven choices for a shalish, all names of unquestioned integrity throughout the Olam HaTorah. Names such as Rav Yaakov Hopfer, Rav Herschel Schachter and Rav Nota Greenblatt shlit”a. He also suggested Horav Shlomo Miller shlit”a from Toronto who presumably never even heard of your mother and yourself having gone to Arkaos. He also agreed to bring in a Dayan from Eretz Yisroel who has no knowledge of any of the issues. Yet all these are unsatisfactory to you. And whom do you offer as more preferable than these? Three Rabbonim, two of whom have already put in writing their opinion that your father has no right to a Din Torah, of course without even trying to contact him, and one whose Mosdos have received $100,000 from your mother, as documented.

What excuse can there be for people calling themselves Bnei Torah to refuse to come to Din Torah, while every month receiving thousands of dollars through the power of Arkaos shel Aku’m?? Chazal say (Sotah 7) that even the greatest people may be challenged to admit the truth and by doing so earn themselves Olam HaBa. You too can gain Olam HaBa by coming to Beis Din and accepting the truth of the Torah’s laws.

For the sake of Emes

For the sake of Shalom

For the sake of ending this terrible chilul Hashem

Please…

P.S. Any responses to the above can be sent to EmesVyosher @ gmail.com. We will b”n post it here.

Letter of lawyer attesting to the donations to Yeshiva Tifereth Torah:

(Note: The names of all other recipients of her enormous distributions of “charity” are deleted, as investigation of their legitimacy is a question pending in N.Y. State Supreme court)

Rabbi Greenblatt’s letter noting that he had discussed the issue with Rabbi Broderick (translation of letter posted above): 

This was subsequently signed by many more Rabbanim: