{"id":15562,"date":"2010-01-01T13:58:24","date_gmt":"2010-01-01T21:58:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=15562"},"modified":"2010-01-01T13:58:24","modified_gmt":"2010-01-01T21:58:24","slug":"the-jewish-press-sued","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=15562","title":{"rendered":"The Jewish Press Sued"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s a pdf of the dispute (YAAKOV ABDELHAK suing The Jewish Press)<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Here’s an excerpt:<\/p>\n

Plaintiff is a physician specializing in high risk
\nobstetrics, whose patients are, almost without exception, women
\nof the Orthodox Jewish faith. Plaintiff is a practicing
\nOrthodox Jew and was raised as such by his parents. Plaintiff’s
\nfather was an ordained Orthodox rabbi.
\n4 A-2023-08T3
\nIn August 2004, defendant Tito, who was plaintiff’s wife,
\ninstituted divorce proceedings and informed him that she would
\nseek custody of their two daughters and did not intend to honor
\nher earlier promise to raise the children as Orthodox Jews.
\nAlthough Tito had renounced the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, she
\nnonetheless demanded that plaintiff provide her with a Get,
\nwhich is a religious divorce granted by a husband to a wife.
\nUnless granted a Get, an observant Orthodox Jewish woman is not
\nfree to marry again; a civil divorce is not sufficient.
\nMoreover, children born of any subsequent marriage are deemed to
\nhave been born out of wedlock and bear a considerable stigma
\namong Orthodox Jews. Based on advice and counsel purportedly
\nissued to plaintiff by his spiritual adviser, Rabbi Rudinsky,
\nplaintiff took the position that so long as Tito continued to
\nrefuse to raise their children in the Orthodox tradition, he was
\nnot obliged to grant her a Get.
\nWhile the divorce proceedings were pending in the Family
\nPart, plaintiff’s and Tito’s rabbi, Aharon Ciment, of
\nCongregation Arzei Darom in Teaneck, provided testimony at a
\ndeposition that was favorable to Tito. Rabbi Ciment’s
\ndeposition testimony caused a deep schism in the congregation,
\nwith some congregants supporting him and others, including
\nplaintiff, insisting that Ciment’s contract not be renewed.
\n5 A-2023-08T3
\nDefendants Rivkin and Scharlat became ardent supporters of
\nCiment. At a meeting of several members of the congregation
\nthat Rivkin hosted, he and Scharlat vowed to “destroy
\n[plaintiff] socially and professionally” unless plaintiff ceased
\nhis criticism of Ciment. Rivkin also commented he would see to
\nit that plaintiff would never be able to remarry, promising to
\nsend letters to the Orthodox community stating that plaintiff
\nwas unworthy and attacking his character. Rivkin’s and
\nScharlat’s antipathy to plaintiff grew so intense that the
\nTemple’s board of directors was forced to convene a special
\nmeeting in December 2005 to “formulate the Board’s response to a
\ncampaign that is going on to slander [plaintiff].” Ultimately,
\nthe Board requested Rivkin to cease “his methodical campaign of
\nlashon harah1 against [plaintiff].”
\nRather than refrain from further activity, as the Board had
\nrequested, Rivkin, as well as Scharlat, intensified their
\ninvolvement in the dispute between plaintiff and defendant Tito
\nover whether plaintiff would provide her with a Get absent her
\nagreement to raise their children as Orthodox Jews. On January
\n12, 2006, they presented the Board with a “Confidential
\nMemorandum” requesting that the Board discuss “the continuing
\nrefusal by [plaintiff] to give a Get to his wife . . . despite
\n1 This Hebrew term translates as “using insults.”
\n6 A-2023-08T3
\nher repeated requests.” Defendants Rivkin and Scharlat further
\nasked the Board to “consider the implications of this continuing
\nrefusal . . . in connection with [plaintiff’s] continuing rights
\nand status as a member of this congregation.” Defendant Rivkin
\nalso initiated a conversation with defendant Tito’s divorce
\nattorney, in which he discussed possible witnesses. For his
\npart, defendant Scharlat contacted Rabbi Rudinsky in an attempt
\nto verify whether the Rabbi had, as plaintiff claimed, advised
\nplaintiff that defendant Tito’s repudiation of Orthodox Judaism
\njustified plaintiff’s refusal to provide a Get.
\nAs a result of plaintiff’s resistance to providing
\ndefendant Tito a Get, she instituted a proceeding before the
\nBais Din2 of America (BDA). By its ruling of July 28, 2006, the
\nBDA ordered plaintiff to “give a Get immediately” and “without
\ndelay.”
\nShortly thereafter, defendant Tito contacted The Jewish
\nPress, a newspaper that bills itself as the “largest independent
\nweekly Jewish newspaper in the United States.” The Jewish Press
\nchampions the cause of women whose husbands refuse to provide a
\n2 Also known as a Beth Din or a Beit Din, the Bais Din is a
\nrabbinical court composed of a minimum of three rabbis who are
\nauthorized to pass upon questions of Jewish law and practice
\npresented to them.
\n7 A-2023-08T3
\nGet by listing such men’s names on its Seruv list.3 The Seruv
\nlist is designed to publicly shame such recalcitrant husbands
\ninto providing the requested Get.
\nUpon being notified by defendant Tito that plaintiff was in
\ncontempt of the Bais Din for his refusal to provide her a Get,
\nThe Jewish Press contacted the BDA to verify Tito’s claim.
\nRather than seek written confirmation from the BDA, The Jewish
\nPress telephoned the BDA and spoke to an unnamed staff member
\nwho confirmed, erroneously, that a Seruv order of contempt had
\nbeen issued, when in fact the BDA had merely directed plaintiff
\nto provide the Get immediately.
\nUpon receiving the supposed confirmation that a Seruv had
\nbeen issued, The Jewish Press, in its September 6, 2006 print
\nedition, listed plaintiff’s name in its regular column entitled
\n“Seruv Listing.” Specifically, the “Seruv Listing” falsely
\nstated that a Seruv had been issued by the BDA against “Dr.
\nYaakov Abdelhak, of Teaneck, N.J.” in August 2006. Of the ten
\nindividuals listed in the September 6, 2006 Seruv Listing in The
\n3 A Seruv is an order of contempt issued by a Bais Din, a
\nrabbinical court, to a husband who refuses to comply with the
\norder of the Bais Din to give his wife a Get. A person issued a
\nSeruv is known as a mesarev ledin. Such person must be shunned
\nby all Orthodox Jews. He is also forbidden from reading the
\nTorah aloud during religious ceremonies, from being called to
\nthe pulpit as an honor, from participating in any form of prayer
\ngathering, and from being buried in an Orthodox Jewish cemetery.
\nThe word Seruv is spelled alternately in the record as Siruv.
\n8 A-2023-08T3
\nJewish Press, plaintiff was the only person whose professional
\ntitle was included, even though one other doctor and a lawyer
\nwere also on the list.
\nThree days later, plaintiff was advised by Rabbi Rudinsky,
\nfor the first time, that he should provide defendant Tito with a
\nGet. The next day, September 10, 2006, plaintiff did so.
\nOn September 15, 2006, after plaintiff notified The Jewish
\nPress of its error and advised the newspaper that no Seruv had
\nbeen issued against him, The Jewish Press issued a retraction in
\nits print version on September 15, 2006, blaming the error on
\nmisinformation provided by the BDA. The retraction notice added
\nthat “we also note that on Sunday, September 10, 2006,
\nDr. Abdelhak gave his wife a Get.4
\nOn November 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a nine-count
\ncomplaint in the Law Division against The Jewish Press, Rivkin,
\nScharlat and Tito alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and
\nintentional infliction of emotional distress arising from their
\nroles in the false Seruv Listing published by The Jewish Press
\non September 6, 2006.
\n4 The Jewish Press also published a retraction on its website.
\nThe retraction did not include the announcement contained in the
\nprint version that plaintiff had given his wife a Get.
\n9 A-2023-08T3
\nAs a result of plaintiff filing a complaint and seeking a
\nremedy in a secular court, a different Bais Din, the Mechon
\nL’Hoyroa (MLH), issued a Seruv against plaintiff on March 13,
\n2008 for refusing to resolve his grievance against Scharlat, an
\nOrthodox Jew, in the Bais Din “after [receiving] several
\nsummonses” issued on Scharlat’s behalf by that religious body.
\nThe Seruv labeled plaintiff a “Mesarev Lavo L’Din” because his
\n“conduct violate[ed] Jewish law” by “willfully declinin[g] to
\nappear in front of Jewish courts.” The Seruv document commanded
\nthe Orthodox Jewish community to “treat[] [plaintiff] in the
\nmanner specified by Rabbi Moshe Isserless (Rama) in Shulchan
\nAruch Choshen Mishpat 26:1.” The March 13, 2008 Seruv has never
\nbeen rescinded or withdrawn.
\nIn October 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss
\nfor lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the
\nresolution of plaintiff’s complaint would entail excessive
\nentanglement of the court into religious affairs and practices.
\nOn November 7, 2008, after oral argument, Judge Miller rendered
\na lengthy decision, supplemented by a written opinion, granting
\ndefendants’ motions to dismiss. A confirming order was issued
\nthe same day.
\n10 A-2023-08T3
\nIn particular, the judge observed that the proofs to be
\npresented by plaintiff at trial must be examined to determine
\nwhether the jury’s task
\nwould require excessive procedural or
\nsubstantive interference with church
\noperations. If the answer to either of
\nthese inquiries is in the affirmative, then
\nthe dispute is truly of a religious nature,
\nrather than theoretically and tangentially
\ntouching upon religion, and the claim is
\nbarred from secular court review.
\nJudge Miller found that adjudication of plaintiff’s claims would
\nrequire the court and jury to make no less than eleven
\ndeterminations regarding questions grounded in religious
\ndoctrine:
\n1. the nature of a Seruv
\n2. whether [plaintiff’s] indifference to
\nthe MLH Seruv indicates that it does
\nnot hurt his reputation in the eyes of
\nJews.
\n3. the difference in the alleged damage
\nto [plaintiff’s] reputation being called
\na Mesarev Ledin by the MLH as compared
\nto the BDA.
\n4. the effect of being classified as a
\nMesarev Ledin.
\n5. whether the publication of [plaintiff’s]
\nname in the Seruv Listing made the
\nfollowers of Orthodox Judaism in his
\ncommunity shun him socially and
\nprofessionally.
\n6. whether Jewish women are not comfortable
\nusing a male obstetrician who is not
\nmarried.
\n7. the significance of a husband withholding
\nor giving a Get.
\n8. was the plaintiff justified in withholding
\na Get from defendant Ms. Tito.
\n11 A-2023-08T3
\n9. whether Scharlat was justified in
\nforwarding the Beth Din of America’s
\nJuly 28, 2006 letter decision to the
\nJewish Press.
\n10. whether plaintiff withholding and
\nlater giving the Get involves a matter
\nof legitimate interest within the
\nOrthodox Jewish community.
\n11. would a reasonable observant Orthodox
\nJew experience extreme emotional
\ndistress as a result of his name being
\nincluded in a Seruv.
\nThe judge reasoned:
\n[A]lthough plaintiff has purportedly
\nasserted claims secular in nature, the
\nadjudication of such claims would require
\nthis [c]ourt to determine issues of
\nreligious doctrine in violation of the
\nEstablishment Clause. . . .
\n. . . .
\nSpecifically, for the defamation
\nclaims, the [c]ourt would be required to
\nascertain the difference between the MLH
\nSeruv and the initial Jewish Press Seruv
\nlisting and how such are considered within
\nthe Orthodox Jewish community. . . . [T]he
\ncase is similar to Klagsbrun [v. Va’ad
\nHarabonim of Greater Monsey, 53 F. Supp. 2d
\n732 (D.N.J. 1999), aff’d, 263 F.3d 158
\n(3d Cir. 2001)], in that plaintiff’s claims
\n. . . are all rooted in claims of plaintiff
\nthat deal with religious shunning as a
\nresult of a Seruv. . . . The Orthodox
\nJewish community is a closed community and
\nclaims and remedies are rooted on
\npronouncements within that community as
\nreflected by the Bais Din, and grounded in
\nreligious doctrine and having a defined
\nmeaning only within the Orthodox Jewish
\nfaith.
\n12 A-2023-08T3
\nLikewise, the invasion of privacy
\nclaims would also require this Court to
\nengage in an analysis of how a Seruv listing
\nis viewed within the Jewish faith and
\nwhether it would be considered “highly
\noffensive to a reasonable person,” here
\nmembers of the Orthodox Jewish community, to
\nbe accused of withholding a Get.
\n. . . .
\nWhile there are no shortage of Rabbis
\nfor a Court and jury, the need for such
\nshows the excessive entanglement of the
\n“core ecclesiastical issues” in this case
\nwhich requires the Court to dismiss under
\nthe Establishment Clause. Moreover, the
\ncourt also notes that a determination of why
\nthe plaintiff’s medical practice allegedly
\nwas damaged may rest not only on the issue
\nof the Seruv listing, but also the fact that
\nplaintiff is an unmarried man, with an
\nexclusive clientele for Orthodox Jewish
\nwomen, from an Orthodox Jewish community,
\nand their mores.
\nConsequently, only through excessive
\nentanglement with the Jewish faith,
\ndoctrine and practice would such a
\ndetermination be possible. Such a
\ndetermination is inherently religious, and
\nwhile there may be some secular
\nramifications in this ecclesiastical matter,
\nas there are in most ecclesiastical matters,
\nthe “heart” or core of plaintiff’s dispute
\nis inherently religious in nature. The
\n“get” and the rationale of withholding such
\non religious grounds, even the consequences
\nof the purported “legitimate second Seruv,”
\nas well as the claims and remedies are all
\ninextricably meshed in the Jewish faith,
\ndoctrine and practice.
\n[(internal citations omitted) (paragraph
\nbreaks added).]
\n13 A-2023-08T3
\nOn appeal, plaintiff maintains that the Law Division’s
\ndismissal of his complaint was error because, contrary to Judge
\nMiller’s conclusions, plaintiff’s cause of action can be
\nadjudicated by applying neutral principles of law and without
\nexcessive entanglement in religious doctrine and practices. In
\nparticular, he argues the Law Division’s opinion focuses on
\nissues “irrelevant to the resolution of [his] claims.” He
\nmaintains that the judge wrongly focused on the issue of the
\n“‘significance of a husband withholding or giving a Get’ and the
\nnature of a Seruv.” He argues that by focusing on such issues,
\nthe judge “bought into the defendants’ attempt to confuse the
\nissues and create new irrelevant issues.”
\nHe also observes that because The Jewish Press has conceded
\nthat a Seruv was never issued against him, the listing was
\ntherefore false, and thus the only issue that requires
\nresolution in relation to his claim for damages is whether “such
\ninclusion was defamatory.” Such factual determination, he
\nargues, does not require the court to consult or become
\nentangled in religious doctrine because his claims “are not
\npredicated on a religious institution’s procedures and
\ndecisions.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here’s a pdf of the dispute (YAAKOV ABDELHAK suing The Jewish Press): Here’s an excerpt: Plaintiff is a physician specializing in high risk obstetrics, whose patients are, almost without exception, women of the Orthodox Jewish faith. Plaintiff is a practicing … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[596,45],"tags":[20807,20804,6542,1949,20805,20806],"class_list":["post-15562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-divorce","category-the-jewish-press","tag-civil-divorce","tag-deposition-testimony","tag-divorce-proceedings","tag-orthodox-rabbi","tag-religious-divorce","tag-risk-obstetrics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15562"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15562\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15563,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15562\/revisions\/15563"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}