One-Sided?

Posted February 3, 2013.

Scans: on the arkaos question at the heart of this exchange — five-rabbonim letter on arkaos ; see also Court vs. Beis Din .

Yossi Writes:

While I don’t claim to know both sides of this story it is quite clear to me that this site is not just to provide information. This is rather a forum for a one sided story to be told.

I do however know some well respected people that have worked for Mrs. Ort because they are aware of the details that represent her case.

In addition to my knowledge she was instructed by a well respected Rav to take her case to court. So before you portray your site as just information and a willingness to “help” the Ort Family be honest and admit that everything on this site portrays R’ Ort’s position.

I will once again say that I am not drawing conclusions as to who is right or wrong but I don’t believe that this website is as you “advertise”, and it is certainly not bringing any Shalom.

Our Response:

We appreciate your comment very much because, although the fallacy in your logic in really simple, it could be overlooked by others just as it seemingly was by you. Thank you for providing the opportunity to point it out.

If a plaintiff in court obtains judgment in his favor by default (i.e. his adversary offers no counter-claim), you cannot call that ruling “one-sided” even though it only offers one side of the story. “One sided” is when you refuse to present the other side, not when it’s not there to present.

This website has constantly offered to present any claims and/or documentation that Mrs. Ort may have. That offer still stands. The glaring lack of any documentation on their side may or may not be an indication that there just isn’t any, but it certainly does not make us “one sided”.

You claim that she was “instructed by a well known Rav to take her case to court”. If this is true, why can she not present a single document to be publicized to support that claim? All the Gedolim supporting Rav Avrohom, who have consulted both sides, have issued public statements on his behalf. To reject the printed psak of all the Gedolim here and in Eretz Yisroel, in favor of a rumor about one individual Rav, seems to us to be pretty one sided.

As to your claim that we are “certainly not bringing any Shalom”, well it depends: If shalom means Rav Avrohom forced to remain in golus, penniless, while his former wife sits happily on the riches that she misappropriated from him by going to arkaos she’lo k’din, then you are right. We picture shalom as Mrs. Ort and the children being adequately provided for by an impartial Bais Din shel Yisroel Kdin Toraseinu hakedosha while R’ Avrohom is allowed to return home and have a remainder of his parents’ yerusha. That shalom has not been accomplished yet, but we are certainly working toward it.

• A Pushita Yid