Note: All individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. A social media comment may provide fodder for concerns, but only a fact-based investigation can yield conclusions.
Okay, so I’m sure we can all understand this basic principle. If you are judging a matter, you cannot have any other interests that would conflict with you judging the matter. In the case of Kohn v. Stein, where Adeena Kohn got a seruv against Raphi Stein, the Beth Din of America said, you know, “She’s free to pursue other options. He’s not answering the beth din,” aside from every other consideration.
What did we not know before today—or did I not know before today in my conversations and blogs and videos about this—that I now know? It appears that the Beth Din of America works with the courts.
Now this is all new information to me, and I want to emphasize that I’m coming in very cold. But it looks like there are lawyers who work for the Beth Din of America, and then they represent the client, and then they go before the civil court where the Beth Din of America is a witness, and the court strikes the fact that the lawyer used to work for the Beth Din of America. I’m completely confused, but I know something is fishy when I smell a fish.
If there is any conflict of interest between the Beth Din of America and the civil courts—in other words, if there’s a working relationship there where the Beth Din of America has an interest in pushing clients into the civil court system and working around the actual halacha, which says the couple is supposed to come before the beth din first. If there is a conflict of interest going on, if there was a conflict of interest in the Raffi Stein case, then automatically whatever seruv they issued against him has to be nullified. Only an objective court can judge a matter, and especially when it comes to giving someone a bad name in the community.
If you’re doing that, you better be objective.
Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.