Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Prostitutes & sin - Halacha is not bean counting

shoshi - comment to "Non-Jewish prostitutes - how serious a sin?":

The original question was:
"what is worse: a married jewish woman who does not always cover her head in public or a jewish man who has sexual relationship with a person to whom he is not married?"
And this ex-kolelnik's answer was:
A woman who does not cover her hair is worse, since she openly rejects part of the halacha, while the poor guy just is not able to restrain himself momentarily. So he would not trust the woman who does not cover her hair for kashrut (since all her standards are lower), but he would have no problem in trusting a man who occasionally uses the services of prostitutes as far as kashrut is concerned.
===============================
Soshi in response to my list of eight alternative understandings of her question wrote:

Well the questions that particularly intrigues me would come right before your question 3):

3.1. Is it worse to have sexual relationships with a jewish woman who is not married and not nida (she went to the mikve) or with a non-jewish woman?

3.2. In the above case, (if a jewish woman who is not married and not nida and a jewish man have intercourse) who does the worse aveira, the Man or the Woman?

3.3. So why should the woman be shunned if she gets pregnant?

And of course the subject that was raised in an answer earlier:
Is going to see a prostitute really less a sin than masturbating.
========================================
You are asking very solid and reality oriented questions. I will try to deal with them individually after a more general discussion of the significance of the questions.

These questions are reflections of either an academic or scholarly attitude or a minimalistic concern for yiddishkeit. Instead of focusing on what is the best way for self improvement and becoming closer to G-d - the questions reflect - "what is the most efficient way to sin so that I get maximum pleasure and minimum punishment." However questions which asks "which is better?" are different than questions of "is something permitted or forbidden.? Hierarchies depend upon context which are dependent on the goals the posek sees for the person as well as realistically what is in the questioner's best interest. Thus they would be answered differently for different people. It is not simply based upon which is the way to incur the smallest punishment. Sometimes greater punishments should be incurred to bring about a greater future good.

That is why I have put up a number of posts on related issues such as the nature of Chazal. Psak is not bean counting. Halacha is the path to serving G-d. That is why I posted the comment of Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky that a nidah is preferable to a non-Jewish woman - the psak being based on the non-halachic issue of Jewish identity.

To return to your original concern, I am in the middle of answering your original question as to the halachic status of non-Jewish prostitutes - is it true that there is no Torah prohibition and that it is at most a rabbinic prohibition. I will post soon on the Torah basis for prohibition of a non-Jewish prostitute as well as the nature of the rabbinic prohibition.

However, let me illustrate this non-halachic or agadic nature of psak with the following gemora
Sanhedrin (75a):
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A man once conceived a passion for a certain woman,3 and his heart was consumed by his burning desire [his life being endangered thereby]. When the doctors were consulted, they said, ‘His only cure is that she shall submit.’ Thereupon the Sages said: ‘Let him die rather than that she should yield.’ Then [said the doctors]; ‘let her stand nude before him;’ [they answered] ‘sooner let him die’. ‘Then’, said the doctors, ‘let her converse with him from behind a fence’. ‘Let him die,’ the Sages replied ‘rather than she should converse with him from behind a fence.’ Now R. Jacob b. Idi and R. Samuel b. Nahmani dispute therein. One said that she was a married woman; the other that she was unmarried. Now, this is intelligible on the view, that she was a married woman, but on the latter, that she was unmarried, why such severity? — R. Papa said: Because of the disgrace to her family. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: That the daughters of Israel may not be immorally dissolute. Then why not marry her? — Marriage would not assuage his passion, even as R. Isaac said: Since the destruction of the Temple, sexual pleasure has been taken [from those who practise it lawfully] and given to sinners, as it is written. Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.

33 comments:

  1. Dear Rabbi,

    thank you very much for your answer.

    My main, underlying concern is:

    If a woman gets married to a man "kedat moshe veyisrael", can he cheat on her and then say "after all, it's permissible".

    Is she allowed to seek divorce if that happens?

    Will rabbis support her in obtaining a get, etc?

    And what can a wife answer to a husbund who says things like that after having studied in kollel for more than 10 years?
    (Don't worry, it's not my case, I'm not married)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem you're discussing in these subsequent posts is simply a flaw in the original question.

    "What is worse?" assumes we measure things on only one axis. However, in the real world, things can be worse in one way, better in another. The mishnah tells us we can't know the sechar of a mitzvah, and I am sure Rebbe knew their respective oneshim.

    In the spirit of that mishnah, I think the original question is simply unanswerable. Which is worse probably depends on knowing the person's soul and the battles it must fight at a level of detail that only Hashem knows.

    -micha

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Micha points out, such a question is basically unanswerable, especially in general terms.

    Two things are clear:
    1. Fornication with a non-Jewish woman is completely assur.

    2. Fornication with a Jewish woman outside of marriage is completely assur.

    Both involve both serious halachic and moral violations.

    Any discussion of this topic where the focus is on "which one should I do?" runs against the basic spirit of the Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. shoshi said...

    what can a wife answer to a husbund who says things like that after having studied in kollel for more than 10 years?

    If he is saying it in a serious way then she should be very worried and she should quickly get competent help for her marriage.

    Otherwise, well, guys say stupid things sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ...(if a jewish woman who is not married and not nida and a jewish man have intercourse) who does the worse aveira, the Man or the Woman?

    I would assume they have both committed precisely the same sin. That seems to be the general rule in cases of arayos.

    As for moral culpability, that would depend on a great deal and, ultimately, only Hashem can truly know.

    So why should the woman be shunned if she gets pregnant?

    Is "shunning" the proper response for such a moral violation? There are strong arguments both ways. In my opinion, such questions can only be answered by a gadol b'Torah on a case by case basis. There are simply too many factors and too much hanging in the balance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shoshi wrote:

    My main, underlying concern is:

    If a woman gets married to a man "kedat moshe veyisrael", can he cheat on her and then say "after all, it's permissible".
    ========================
    Adultery is really for the married woman not the man. Just as theoretically a man can have many wives but she can't have many husbands. Thus his cheating is not permissible but it is not the same as her cheating on him.
    ======================
    Is she allowed to seek divorce if that happens?
    ===================
    A woman can always attempt to get a divorce for anything - the problem is whether the court will put any pressure on him to grant it.
    ======================
    Will rabbis support her in obtaining a get, etc?
    ========================
    The rabbis will probably suggest that they go for marriage counselling. If she has a smart lawyer it is possible she can convince the court that because he is cheating on her she is 1) afraid that he will get aids or some other disease [that is much more influential a charge than cheating per se] and she should complain that her sexual rights are being neglected because he is getting attention elsewhere. She might also assert that not only is he no longer affectionate with her but that his openly admitted cheating has made him repulsive to her. Thus she is being denied her rights as a wife and she wants out.
    =====================
    And what can a wife answer to a husbund who says things like that after having studied in kollel for more than 10 years?
    ========================
    She should say two things in a calm tone. 1) that this is obviously not a halachic issue but that he is trying to hurt her. She should ask why he is angry with her. 2)She should also ask why is he angry with G-d that he thinks that a gross concern with physical pleasure is more important that holiness and sensitivity to the feelings of others. Does he think that his actions are pleasing to G-d? if he says that he doesn't care that is another important fact to present to the rabbis.
    If she loses her temper or becomes hysterical this will just be understood by the court as showing she has problems and make the husbands cheating more acceptable.
    It is also important that she keep a clear record of what he has said and done. Recordings of him bragging about being with other women or evidence that he has been abusive -physically or verbally with her help.
    Everytime she loses her temper or becomes hysterical - it weakens her case. She has to accept that the laws are stacked against her and that the burden of proof that the marriage is not viable is on her - not him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If she loses her temper or becomes hysterical this will just be understood by the court as showing she has problems and make the husbands cheating more acceptable."

    What does that mean?

    I thought we just agreed that sexual relationships out of marriage are "completely unacceptable"?

    Why would rabbis make a case that a woman should stay with a man who cheats on her?

    Why would the wife have to tell that she is worried for her health (which is completely justified, but it goes without saying)?

    If the woman cheats, there is no other solution then divorce. Why should it be different the other way round?

    ReplyDelete
  8. shoshi said...

    "If she loses her temper or becomes hysterical this will just be understood by the court as showing she has problems and make the husbands cheating more acceptable."

    What does that mean?

    I thought we just agreed that sexual relationships out of marriage are "completely unacceptable"?
    =====================
    You are confusing halachic prohibiting an act and the halachic consequences of doing a prohbited act. The halachic consequences of the husband sinning and the wife sinning are not the same thing.

    If he sins he is not prohibited to her - but if she sins she is prohibited to him.
    =====================
    Why would rabbis make a case that a woman should stay with a man who cheats on her?
    ========================
    Because of the above halacha. We are not dealing with niceness or psychological appropriateness. His behavior does not destroy the marriage halachically but her adultery does. Of course psychologically the marriage has been destroyed or severely damaged. But there is no clear cut halachic requirement that they get divorced if he cheat while there is if he believes she has cheated.
    ====================
    Why would the wife have to tell that she is worried for her health (which is completely justified, but it goes without saying)?
    =================
    It doesn't go without saying. He must divorce her if she has committed adultery. His adultery does not have the same halachic impact and so therefore since the marriage can continue - she has to come up with reasons other than the fact of his cheating.
    ========================
    If the woman cheats, there is no other solution then divorce. Why should it be different the other way round?
    =====================
    Because the halachic significance of a man cheating is different than that of a woaman cheating.
    ===================
    You are coming from the point of view of equity and fairness, from non-Jewish values of equality between man and woman. The halacha is the halacha and has differential consequences for the man and woman.

    There is one counterbalancing decree to preserve the marriage if the woman cheats or if she is the wife of a cohen who is raped [and thus is prohibited to her husband]. Chazal said that the husband should not believe that she has had a sexual relationship which would prohibit her to him.
    This is discussed in Igros Moshe (E.H. 3:16).

    ==============
    Bottom line - you are starting with your concept of what should be and assume that the halacha is in agreement with you. It just isn't so. This is also similar to your understanding of the Anusim.
    You can't insist that the halacha come to the same conclusion as you. You need to ask what the halacha says and what possible halachic mechanism might accomplish what you want.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you, you answered my question.

    So husbund cheating on wife is not a recognised reason for divorce.

    So if a wife comes to the Rabbi and says "My husbund cheats on me", he will answer her "Try being more attractive", or something like that. That's all I wanted to know.
    ... And if she wants to divorce, she has to go with another man, because than Rabbis will agree that he has to divorce her.

    But tell me. Is there not an issue called "Lifney Iver al tasim Machshol"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. shoshi said...

    Thank you, you answered my question.
    ============
    You are welcome.

    So husbund cheating on wife is not a recognised reason for divorce.

    =====================
    But tell me. Is there not an issue called "Lifney Iver al tasim Machshol"?

    You are mixing apples and oranges.
    If halacha is valid it is valid and you need to work within that system. If you assert that the halacha is wrong and that the rabbis today are dealing with lies or that they lack the understanding that even an ignorant baal teshuva - then you are dictating not asking.

    =========
    Your postings reflect a lot of pain and feelings of betrayal.

    There is an inherent problem of communicating these type of meta issues in the comments section of a blog. You would be better served by speaking in person with a talmid chachom.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am not betrayed, it is not a personal problem.

    I just want to know what the "legal situation" is.

    As far as I understand, 10-year-kollelnik was right in essence:
    Perhaps a husbund should not cheat on his wife, but if he does, nothing happens. (Perhaps someone will say "mai, mai, don't do it again" but that's it). It's not even quite so sure that it is forbidden.

    I suppose that this is the reason why the kinds of rationalisations I was speaking of in the beginning is so wide spread.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Grounds for divorce" means sufficient reason for a spouse to elect to divorce. We're talking about mandatory divorce.

    -micha

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well I do not want to know about mandatory divorce. I do not want to know about the case when she says: Well, let's forget it and go on with our mariage.

    I want to know what her chances are if she feels she cannot accept it and wants a divorce.

    Will she be supported? I understand: a priori no, but she can argue that she is afraid of getting sexually transmissible diseases. (Then he can go and have the necessary tests, and she has to resume marital relations?)

    ReplyDelete
  14. shoshi said...

    I want to know what her chances are if she feels she cannot accept it and wants a divorce.

    Will she be supported? I understand: a priori no, but she can argue that she is afraid of getting sexually transmissible diseases. (Then he can go and have the necessary tests, and she has to resume marital relations?)
    ================
    The above depends on the attitude of the rabbis involved. There are some who would say that he is a disgusting person and that since she finds him repulsive they will tell him to give her a get. Some will say that anyone with this life style is in danger of getting aids etc and therefore he should give her a get.
    Then there are others who will tell her to go for counselling and that everything will be alright.
    If you want an answer concerning an actual case contact Rabbi Yisroel Belsky and ask him.

    The pendulum seems to be swinging in the direction of greater sensitivty to the woman and less concern with the man's "rights".

    A brief example. A rav recently asked me about a divorce case he is dealing with. The man acknowledges that he is a homosexual i.e., he is sexually attracted to men only. However he claims he fulfills his marital obligations according to halacha and they have several children to prove it. She says that it is quite obvious that he has no interest in her as a woman and that sexual relations are very unpleasant. The rav's question which he asked me in all sincerity, "Is it possible that there is a man who has absolutely no interest in a woman?" In other words he was working on the assumption that while the man might be attacted to men and maybe have sexual involvement with men it doesn't preclude fulfilling his wife's needs. I explained to him that in fact there are such men who have absolutely no interest in woman and that in fact it is unpleasant and unsatisfying for the wife. The wife now has justification in her claim for divorce in that the husband is incapable of satisfying her - while the rav had previously been dismissive of such a claim.

    You need to find a decent advocate who knows which rabbis to go to and how to present the case.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The guy would probably get dumped.

    However, if it was his wife who was unfaithful, she would definitely get dumped -- even if the husband didn't want a divorce. That's what "mandatory" means.

    -micha

    ReplyDelete
  16. "In other words he was working on the assumption that while the man might be attacted to men and maybe have sexual involvement with men it doesn't preclude fulfilling his wife's needs."

    But here I have another questions.
    If he is not only attracted to men but actually has intercourse with them. Would this be ground for divorce?

    Because you seem to assume here that the rabbi was ready to hold up the mariage even if the husbund acted upon his homosexual inclination.

    ReplyDelete
  17. shoshi said...

    I just want to know what the "legal situation" is.

    As far as I understand, 10-year-kollelnik was right in essence:Perhaps a husbund should not cheat on his wife, but if he does, nothing happens.
    ===================
    No he wasn't right. He was saying it was no big deal and that is wrong. There are two domains. 1) The spiritual - in which a person going to a non-Jewish prostitute is suffering a severe loss including kares (which is not a minor consequence). 2) Practical consequences - that there is no mandatory divorce. So on the practical level there is a good chance that he will stay married - even though it will not be a happy or healthy marriage. If he didn't have a happy marriage in the first place than nothing changes in this dimension.
    ========================
    I suppose that this is the reason why the kinds of rationalisations I was speaking of in the beginning is so wide spread.
    =============
    Rationalization are the result of not being concerning with the spiritual aspects of religion and viewing it as a social framework similar to the tax code. In other words if he can get away with cheating - why not?
    Such an attitude permeates his whole existence and therefore even though he is physically alive he is seriously diseased and perhaps even spiritually dead.

    Being dead spiritually is a pretty horrifying condition - but perhaps it doesn't bother your acquaintance. If a person says I don't care what happens after I die - even if my soul ceases to exist - there is not much more that can be said.

    ReplyDelete
  18. But there is not only the question of "being dead spiritually".

    There is also the question of
    1) the reaction of the jewish-orthodox society
    2) verdicts rendered by batei din.

    Let's take this case:

    A married man has a relationship with a jewish woman who is not married and not nida.

    He is a teacher in a jewish-orthodox school.

    His wife seeks divorces. She wants the children and adequate alimony.

    She can prove that the relationship took place.

    1) Will she be granted divorce at these conditions
    2) Will the school continue employing this teacher after the facts become known (suppose they become generally known during divorce procedure)?

    ReplyDelete
  19. shoshi said...


    A married man has a relationship with a jewish woman who is not married and not nida.

    He is a teacher in a jewish-orthodox school.

    His wife seeks divorces. She wants the children and adequate alimony.

    She can prove that the relationship took place.

    1) Will she be granted divorce at these conditions
    2) Will the school continue employing this teacher after the facts become known (suppose they become generally known during divorce procedure)?

    ==================
    There are definitely courts that would tell the husband to give his wife a get under the above circumstances and he would be fired.

    Problem is if he refuses what recourse is there

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well I would say the easiest way for women around the get-refusing-problem would be not to marry a Jew to begin with.

    Since marriage to a non-Jew is considered null and void from the beginning, the problem will not arise.

    Or would it be a possibility to marry a cohen while divorced, etc? Is this also null and void?

    ReplyDelete
  21. shoshi said...

    As far as I understand, 10-year-kollelnik was right in essence:
    Perhaps a husbund should not cheat on his wife, but if he does, nothing happens. (Perhaps someone will say "mai, mai, don't do it again" but that's it). It's not even quite so sure that it is forbidden.


    No, there is no question that it is forbidden. Sexual relations outside of marriage is not permitted.

    However, if a married woman commits adultery, it renders her forbidden to her husband. He is not allowed to remain married to her. Even if the husband is convinced that they can save the marriage.

    If a married man has extramarital relations, he has comitted a serious sin, but it does not render him forbidden to his wife. This is no different than if he was caught eating a cheeseburger. No one says that he is permitted to do this. But, if he does, he is still permitted to his wife.

    Being that, ideally, we would want to preserve any marriage that can be saved (for many reasons), Jewish courts are strongly biased against requiring a divorce when they are unconvinced that it is necessary. If a woman wants a divorce against her husbands will, she will need to prove that her marriage is not worth preserving.

    ReplyDelete
  22. shoshi said...

    Well I would say the easiest way for women around the get-refusing-problem would be not to marry a Jew to begin with.
    ===================
    If you really meant the above as a serious comment there is no basis for further discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I thought that you would not like my last comment, since your homepage is dedicated to "preserving Jewish identity" and "preventing intermarriage".

    However, objectively, what I say is true:
    If a jewish woman does not want to run the risk of being an "aguna", the best solution to exclude the risk is not to marry jewish (even if this is considered a sin in itself, it's not as bad a sin as commiting adultery, I suppose)...

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Being that, ideally, we would want to preserve any marriage that can be saved (for many reasons), Jewish courts are strongly biased against requiring a divorce when they are unconvinced that it is necessary. If a woman wants a divorce against her husbands will, she will need to prove that her marriage is not worth preserving."

    1) She can never get a divorce against her husband's will, since it says per definition the get has to be given with his ascent.

    2) So perhaps you mean that rabbis would be ready to pressure the husband into giving her a get only if she proves "that her marriage is not worth preserving".

    3) As far as my experience goes, men are generally not caught the first time they are unfaithful. So when they are caught for some reason, this means, in genral, that "unfaithfulness" has been going on for some time.

    4) As far as my experience goes, it is very "unpedagogic" to give men a second chance after they were caught with infidelity, since this makes the sin light in their eyes, and it will become easier and easier to do the same againg.

    5) So why should a wife give in all this "marriage Counseling" and "save your marriage stuff"?

    6) Therefore I find outrageous what you suggest: "the infidelity of the husband in itself is not sufficient proof that the marriage cannot be saved". (one more time: we are speaking about a wife who goes to see a rabbi because she wants a divorce, we are not speaking about the cases where she is ready to forgive and go on).

    ReplyDelete
  25. shoshi said...

    1) She can never get a divorce against her husband's will, since it says per definition the get has to be given with his ascent.
    2) So perhaps you mean that rabbis would be ready to pressure the husband into giving her a get only if she proves "that her marriage is not worth preserving".


    While this is technically true, if a beis din is convinced that the wife has a strong enough case, the beis din has the right to use coercion to force the husband to consent. In Israel, where batei din have legal status, recalcitrant husbands can be sent to prison. In America, batei din have no power of this sort and can do little more than rely of communal pressure.

    Regardless, a beis din will not do this unless it concludes that the man is morally obligated by the Torah to divorce his wife. (Otherwise, the use of coercion would be meaningless.)

    A husband's infidelity, in of itself, may not constitute a strong enough claim. Moreover, experience, both in and out of the Jewish world, has shown that the strain on a marriage caused by infidelity can be overcome. Such marriages can be, and frequently are, saved.

    With regard to a woman's infidelity, we simply don't have that option. We do have that option with a man's infidelity, and it would be improper for a beis din to simply ignore it.

    3) As far as my experience goes, men are generally not caught the first time they are unfaithful. So when they are caught for some reason, this means, in genral, that "unfaithfulness" has been going on for some time.

    I am not sure why this is relevant to this discussion. The issue before the court is not the husband's sin. In galus, batei din do not have the power to punish anyone for their sins.

    The issue before the court is whether the couple before them are so estranged that a divorce is morally necessary. The beis din will have to weigh many factors in making such a decision (one of which may well be the frequency of the husband's immoral behavior).

    4) As far as my experience goes, it is very "unpedagogic" to give men a second chance after they were caught with infidelity, since this makes the sin light in their eyes, and it will become easier and easier to do the same againg.

    This is a legitimate concern. In galus, when batei din have no power of corporal punishment, there is always a risk that a sinner will feel that he "got away with it." This is a serious concern both for the individual and for the community.

    In my opinion, this would seem to be a legitimate factor for a beis din to weigh.

    At the same time, there are other factors, such as the negative impact of divorce on the community and on the children.

    5) So why should a wife give in all this "marriage Counseling" and "save your marriage stuff"?

    Well, first of all, if there are children, then this is a very serious issue which should be weighed very carefully. In many cases, an unhappy marriage is better for the children than a divorce. The mental and spiritual health of the children is a very important moral factor and cannot be simply dismissed.

    Secondly, the fact is that such marriages frequently are saved and, eventually, the couple goes on to a satisfactory married life. To throw that away because of anger, even if justified, is short-sighted.

    6) Therefore I find outrageous what you suggest: "the infidelity of the husband in itself is not sufficient proof that the marriage cannot be saved". (one more time: we are speaking about a wife who goes to see a rabbi because she wants a divorce, we are not speaking about the cases where she is ready to forgive and go on).

    I don't know who you are quoting. I never wrote those words and I cannot find anyone else who did either. Quotation marks should only be used for exact quotes.

    In any case, whether you find it outrageous or not, the fact is that such marriages can be saved. The fact that the woman wants a divorce proves nothing other than that she is currently unhappy. She may have good reason to be unhappy, but that does not prove that the marriage cannot be salvaged.

    It seems clear from this discussion that your main concern is not the practical risk of an Orthodox husband's infidelity (which is relatively low) but the inequity inherent in Jewish law. For a person whose attitudes are shaped primarily by non-Torah influences this will be a serious concern. Unfortunately, there are no simple responses to such problems.

    ReplyDelete
  26. shoshi said...
    If a jewish woman does not want to run the risk of being an "aguna", the best solution to exclude the risk is not to marry jewish (even if this is considered a sin in itself, it's not as bad a sin as commiting adultery, I suppose)...

    Your original question was about whether it is permitted for a Jew to have relations with a non-Jew. The answer you received was unambiguous: It is absolutely forbidden.

    Now it seems that you are ready to seriously consider the commission of precisely the same sin as a way to avoid the "risk" of becoming an agunah.

    It is precisely this kind of thinking that leads to these kinds of problems.

    ReplyDelete
  27. No, I want to say something else:

    In this case, we a situation of strong bias to the disadvantage of women.

    And the rabbis say: that's what the halakha is, we cannot do anything.

    And some rabbis agree for the husband to do extortion on their wives or their families so that they will give a get (You give me half a million dollars, I give you the get - Or you renounce all kinds of alimony - I give you the get).

    As long as the situation is as it is, rabbis are satisfied and are not prepared to act. So it is the women and their families who pay the bill.

    But some women will not agree to play along: They will say: keep your get, and I do what I want.

    In such a case, I would say that the husband and the Rabbanut enfringed "Lifney Iver al Tasim michshol": they put these women in a situation where she would be an idiot not to do this.

    So I think the Rabbis should start thinking and acting right now to do something about the situation, so as not to bring women into a situation where they will commit adultery.

    And the same goes for infidelities of the husband: If rabbonim say "Mai, mai, but it's OK, stay with him", they will bring a wife in a situation where she is cheated, nothing happens, so eventually she will think: Why should I not do the same.

    So I think that all this unsensivity to those situations ("go to marriage counseling") is nothing else then putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "It seems clear from this discussion that your main concern is not the practical risk of an Orthodox husband's infidelity (which is relatively low) but the inequity inherent in Jewish law."

    I think the risk is not as low as this, otherwise prostitutes near Bnei Brak would not say that 1/4 of their clients are religious-orthodox. Of course, I do not know how much of a percentage it is on all the population of Benei Brak...

    The fact that I hear from so many sides "it is allowed" "it is not really forbidden" intrigues me. I get the impression, that people do it but are careful not to get caught.

    "In any case, whether you find it outrageous or not, the fact is that such marriages can be saved. The fact that the woman wants a divorce proves nothing other than that she is currently unhappy. She may have good reason to be unhappy, but that does not prove that the marriage cannot be salvaged."

    Of course the marriage can be saved: The wife has just to shut up and bear it in silence, and then everything is fine:
    - the rabbanim are happy, there is one divorce less.
    - the marriage counselor is happy, he made money
    - the husband is happy, he can go on as he did, but he has to be more careful not to be caught
    - the children are happy since there is no divorce.

    Which yiddishe Mame would not suffer a bit of unhappyness to make so many people happy, I ask you?

    I personally find this as outrageous as sending a beaten wife back to her violent husband (which, I suppose, most Chareidi Rabbonim will also do).(and no you can write pages and pages about how rare violent husbands are in orthodox society, it is still outrageous in the "rare" cases, where it appears.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. PS: what about all the concerns you cite (children, community etc) if the wife commits the infidelity.
    Then there is no leeway, halakha says "dump her" and she is dumped, regardless of the husband's opinion, the children's opinion, etc...

    So what you say is really hypocrite:
    If the primary issue was to save the marriage, it should be possible in both cases.

    So the primary issue is not saving marriage. It's halacha. Fine.
    So let's do it according to halacha.

    But why do the welfare of children and community take precedenc over the wives wish? Where is it written in halakha that the woman has to be sent to a marriage counselor who will talk her out of divorcing? And in the end word of mouth spreads, so women do not even try to get a divorce, and live with the diseases their husbands bring home?

    I'm not making a case against halakha. I make a case against the way it is handled and what you tell me seems deeply immoral.

    But I suppose that you do have some practical experience in this field, and I suppose that this is the way you handle things.

    ReplyDelete
  30. PPS:

    "Well, first of all, if there are children, then this is a very serious issue which should be weighed very carefully."

    Well, I think that he could have thought of his children before he did it.

    Because here you subtilely lay the blame on the wife:

    Who wants to destroy this poor family? The wife who seeks the divorce.

    In the opposite case: Who destroyed the poor family: the evil wife who cheated on her husband.

    So, no matter what happens, it's always the wive's fault.

    And this is not written in Halakha. This is what you guys make up.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wow! Well, at least now we know what is really bothering you.

    shoshi said (in several posts)...

    ...some rabbis agree for the husband to do extortion on their wives or their families so that they will give a get (You give me half a million dollars, I give you the get - Or you renounce all kinds of alimony - I give you the get).
    As long as the situation is as it is, rabbis are satisfied and are not prepared to act. So it is the women and their families who pay the bill.


    It would seem unlikely that a responsible beis din would take this position in a case of a husband's proven infidelity. Mere accusations of infidelity are, of course, a very different matter. (Obviously, I cannot speak about batei din that may act irresponsibly or corruptly.)

    As for the general issue of "extortion", if the beis din decides that the wife does not have a compelling case, then any divorce would have to be granted with the willing consent of the husband. A responsible beis din will not force a husband to divorce his wife simply because she wants a divorce. This is doubly true if she has already gone to the secular courts for a divorce (as appears to be the situation in most so-called "agunah" cases). The dayanim are not hatchet men for the secular courts; they will not force the husband to consent to the decisions of the secular court unless the wife makes a very compelling case.


    But some women will not agree to play along: They will say: keep your get, and I do what I want.
    In such a case, I would say that the husband and the Rabbanut enfringed "Lifney Iver al Tasim michshol": they put these women in a situation where she would be an idiot not to do this.


    I would agree with you regarding the husband. He will certainly be held to account for the spiritual fall-out of his sinful behavior.

    As for the beis din, however, this would only be one of many important factors for them to weigh in making a decision. Moreover, if the wife is of such low moral or religious character that she would seriously consider this path, that is a major factor against her case.

    So I think the Rabbis should start thinking and acting right now to do something about the situation, so as not to bring women into a situation where they will commit adultery.

    Within reason, this is a legitimate demand. Changing core aspects of Torah law, however, is not a valid solution. This would be akin to annulling the laws of Shabbos in order to save people from the temptation to violate them. No one has the ability to change Torah law.

    And the same goes for infidelities of the husband: If rabbonim say "Mai, mai, but it's OK, stay with him", they will bring a wife in a situation where she is cheated, nothing happens, so eventually she will think: Why should I not do the same.

    Such calculations are clearly invalid. If the woman is seriously considering this, then she is not of much higher moral character than her husband.

    (BTW, what is "mai, mai"?)

    So I think that all this unsensivity to those situations ("go to marriage counseling") is nothing else then putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person.

    Since when is recommending marriage counseling insensitive? It's funny how rabbis are accused of being irresponsible when they don't send people for professional help and insensitive when they do.

    I think the risk is not as low as this, otherwise prostitutes near Bnei Brak would not say that 1/4 of their clients are religious-orthodox. Of course, I do not know how much of a percentage it is on all the population of Benei Brak...

    Asides from the fact that I really doubt that any serious scholar would consider your "statistic" valid (was this a professional survey?), the fact is that the number that matters is the percentage of the population. For all we know, these prostitutes are all servicing the same relatively small group of men.

    The fact that I hear from so many sides "it is allowed" "it is not really forbidden" intrigues me. I get the impression, that people do it but are careful not to get caught.

    I don't know who you are talking to, but, as an Orthodox man, I have to say that I have NEVER heard anyone say this. Moreover, while I am certain the problem exists (as per the Rambam הל' איסורי ביאה כב:יט), in my personal life I have never encountered a case involving such behavior. I hear the same rumors and scandals as everyone else, but it is always about strangers. I feel that your "impression" is the result either of the moral quality of the circles you deal with or your personal bias.

    I personally find this as outrageous as sending a beaten wife back to her violent husband (which, I suppose, most Chareidi Rabbonim will also do).

    I doubt your assumption is correct. If the dayanim are convinced that the husband is actually violent, then this would be grossly irresponsible. However, the simple fact that the wife says he is not sufficient. Remember, in divorce cases, all kinds of accusations get thrown around. A husband may well be accused of violence with little or no justification. A husband may also be accused of infidelity. (Of course, wives may also be falsely accused.)

    Also, there are cases where men who have been violent can, with professional help, change for the better. So, again, the dayanim have to assess the situation. And, again, their bias is not in favor of the husband but in favor of preserving the marriage.

    PS: what about all the concerns you cite (children, community etc) if the wife commits the infidelity.
    Then there is no leeway, halakha says "dump her" and she is dumped, regardless of the husband's opinion, the children's opinion, etc...
    So what you say is really hypocrite:
    If the primary issue was to save the marriage, it should be possible in both cases.


    That would be my feeling as well, but Hashem apparently disagrees. We are required to work within the framework that the Torah gives us.

    So the primary issue is not saving marriage. It's halacha. Fine.
    So let's do it according to halacha.
    But why do the welfare of children and community take precedenc over the wives wish? Where is it written in halakha that the woman has to be sent to a marriage counselor who will talk her out of divorcing?


    There is no halachic imperative requiring divorce in such a case. On the other hand, there is a well established Torah value in favor of marriage and against divorce. Even when divorce is necessary, it is still a tragedy. As such, the beis din has moral responsibility to look for a viable way to preserve the marriage. Obviously, if the husband continues his immoral behavior, or there is a risk to the wife's health, then there is no such viable option. In some cases, the damage to the marriage may be so severe that there is no viable option. All of this must be assessed by the beis din.

    One thing a responsible beis din should not do is simply force the husband to divorce his wife without careful consideration of all of these aspects.

    And in the end word of mouth spreads, so women do not even try to get a divorce, and live with the diseases their husbands bring home?

    Every Jewish man and woman should belong to a community and have an existing relationship with a competent rabbi. Thus, if such situations arise, they can consult with their rabbi and get competent and valid advice. No one should be relying on rumors and innuendos ("word of mouth") to determine how to deal with major life issues.

    I'm not making a case against halakha. I make a case against the way it is handled and what you tell me seems deeply immoral.

    It is normal for people with differing moral systems to see alternate systems as immoral. Jewish law, and Jewish courts, follow the Torah's moral system. The Torah's morality is not identical with current Western morality. There is some significant overlap, of course, but there are critical differences.

    One of the critical differences between modern Western morality and the Torah is the value of marriage and family relative to one's personal satisfaction. While both Western morality and the Torah see both family and personal satisfaction as valid moral concerns, they differ in how they weigh these values against each other. Current Western morality is moving rapidly away from a strong value for marriage and quickly towards an extreme value for personal satisfaction. In such a value system, a system that "traps" a woman in an unsatisfying marriage because of its value for marriage and family would indeed seem immoral. From the perspective of Torah morality, however, a system that allows a marriage and family to be broken up without strenuous efforts to salvage it is grossly immoral.

    It is possible to be a nominally observant Jew without fully adopting the Torah's values. However, this will be a frustrating and conflicted observance.

    But I suppose that you do have some practical experience in this field, and I suppose that this is the way you handle things.

    Actually, I have no practical experience in this field whatsoever.

    Well, I think that he could have thought of his children before he did it.

    Yes, of course he should have.

    Because here you subtilely lay the blame on the wife:
    Who wants to destroy this poor family? The wife who seeks the divorce.
    In the opposite case: Who destroyed the poor family: the evil wife who cheated on her husband.
    So, no matter what happens, it's always the wive's fault.


    No, clearly, if the husband has engaged in immoral behavior, then the whole mess is his fault. (And, yes, if the wife cheated, then it IS her fault.) The issue isn't blame - this isn't a criminal case - but whether the court should force a divorce. In many cases, the court would side with the wife. What we have been discussing is reasons why that is not always true.

    And this is not written in Halakha. This is what you guys make up.

    (Who are "you guys"? Is Hashem one of "you guys"?)

    Frankly, your arguments are not based on halacha, they are based secular values.

    ReplyDelete
  32. By the way, I found an argument that will perhaps be more convincing to a beith din than anything that was mentionned before.

    If I understand you right, it is a major Issur to have sexual relationships without being married (even if it is with a jewish woman who is neither married nor niddah, all the more so with all other possible mates).

    So if the husbund is ready to transgress this major issur, he cannot be trusted anymore for kashrut.

    So it would be impossible to live in the same household as him.

    So the marriage has no more sense.

    I suppose if a man declared that he had become a heretic, this would also be considered a valid ground for divorce by the Beith Din.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Soshi's complaints about how the halakhah is often handled matches Rav Moshe Feinstein's harsh words against a famous rav who abused Heter Mei'ah Rabbanim to allow a get-refuser to remarry. Might be the sole case in Igros Moshe where another rabbi is villified, but our host would know for sure.

    -micha

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.