Monday, March 5, 2012

Aide to top Republican refuses to divorce wife

Aharon Friedman seruv




















Cross Currents by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein

Tamar Epstein is an agunah with an impressive list of rabbinic supporters. Her ex, Aharon Friedman, has exhausted all his legal options, both in beis din and in secular court. The divorce has been granted, but Friedman is unhappy with the way he has been treated, and is denying his ex-wife a get, trying to leverage terms more to his liking.

Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky is one of the signatories to a shtar seruv against Friedman. Rav Yisrael Belsky, who at one point was counted in Friedman’s camp, has turned against him. R[av] Hershel Schachter has taken a personal role in applying public shame pressure against Friedman. While it is always possible to empathize with both sides in a dispute, at some point the law must speak. After a person has been given every opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings, any assistance given to the losing party is nothing less than a stab at the process of law itself. We are well past that point in the case of Aharon Friedman.

You can help by simply signing a petition, and urging your friends to do the same.

=====================
update:
my  brother Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn wrote:
I told Mr. Friedman not to give a GET because of coercion and humiliation, as such as GET is invalid, and the wife could not remarry anyway. On my website  http://www.getamarriage.com/ I have the sources from the Rashbo, Bais Yosef, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish that it is forbidden to produce a GET by humiliation and that such a GET is invalid. I wanted to talk to the Epstein side but Ora and others on her side refused. They want to win with terror, even if in halacha the new children would be mamzerim.

I discussed coerced Gittin with posek HaDor Rab Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit"o and he told me that any Beth Din that cuts corners to produce a GET for an "Aguinah" that he takes away from them the status of a Beth Din.
See also the article by Rabbi Tzvi Gartner for a full discussion of a forced get.

 the article by Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz dealing with the New York Get bill.

the article by Rabbi Gedaliah Dov Schwartz  dealing with the New York Get bill

127 comments:

  1. You might wish to sign a change.org petition: U.S. Rep. for the 4th District of Michigan: Stop Supporting Abuser Aharon Friedman. (At the time that I write this, they show 3,491 signatures, aiming for 5,000 before sending.)

    I don't think on-line petitions are worth much, but then, signing doesn't take much either. Here, though, it's not only an issue of getting Rep Camp to change his mind. It's also letting him and others know that supporting this kind of Jew doesn't help your standing with the Jewish community, either. That we don't circle our wagons around such people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was quite surprised to see Fox putting this story under top national news. As tragic as this might be for Mrs. Friedman, it certainly does not rank as top news and just feeds the canard that we control the media, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know there have been some controversial attempts for batei din to "annul" marriages in this situation. Not being very learned on this topic, I wonder why the person refusing the get can't be excommunicated, making the person in effect "dead" and thus the spouse can remarry? Maybe that's too creative.... Anyway, if someone is cruel enough to withhold a get, their soul must have left their body (making them a kind of walking dead person), or they never had a Jewish soul to begin with -- leaving the marriage void in either case!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why can't all Jewish couples sign a legally binding prenuptual agreement saying if the wife wants to get divorced, the husband must give a get or else owe the wife all of his salary?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shaya- If your proposal worked, we could end spousal abuse, child abuse and a whole host of other problems that way too. For that matter,we could open the prison gates too. Once the person is dead/excommunicated they'll be of no danger whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  6. rav moshe sternbuchMarch 4, 2012 at 6:27 AM

    Once again without knowing the facts you advocate involving yourself in matters which show how you are a sonei Hakodosh Boruch Hu. There is no Get on demand just because Belsky who changed his mind for a few thouusand quid and shmuel kamenetsky who received much more support means less than nothing, it means she is an abuser who prevented the father from having a relationship with his daughter and a woman who has the staus of a moredes who is entitled to marry a goy from now on. Go to h-ll, that is where you and Tamar belong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Obviously you are directly involved in the case - instead of simply shooting off your mouth - why don't you explain your side of the story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I told Mr. Friedman not to give a GET because of coercion and humiliation, as such as GET is invalid, and the wife could not remarry anyway. On my website www.getamarriage.com I have the sources from the Rashbo, Bais Yosef, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish that it is forbidden to produce a GET by humiliation and that such a GET is invalid. I wanted to talk to the Epstein side but Ora and others on her side refused. Thety want to win with terror, even if in halacha the new children would gbe mamzerim.

    I discussed coerced GIttin with posek HaDor Rab Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit"o and he told me that any BEth Din that cuts corners to produce a GET for an "Aguinah" that he takes away from them the status of a Beth Din.

    Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn - www.getamarriage.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, as long as Mr. Friedman understood that he should give a get, but not out of coercion, I think this is a fine piece of advice.

      However, I fear Mr. Friedman will understand "Don't give a get". In this case, Mr. Eidensohn will have encouraged Mr. Friedman to perpetuate a situation that constitutes a stumbling block for the wife.

      I cannot understand why Mr. Eidensohn would not recognise that fact that a husband is hateful to his wife as grounds of divorce, but the fact that he is sterile would constitute a proper reason.

      Why does he think that a wife should have marital relations with someone she finds repugnant?

      Why can he not say, in the sense of the mutual respect he preaches, that the husband had his chance of not being repugnant, he missed it, so he should assume the consequences?

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:32 PM

      – I make it very clear on my website that in the case of MOUS ELEI although we don't agree with the Rambam that the husband is beaten to divorce his wife, this is because we don't know what happened and maybe the wife just wants a nicer husband. But if the husband himself knows that the wife really hates him, the husband must give a GET. I say this to the various husbands I deal with. But this is only true when the GET will be kosher. ORA is making a situation where the GET will be tinged with terror and invalid. The laws that extremists in the Agunah camp want to pass to force husbands to give a GET will have the effect of invalidating all Gittin in America, until the most senior poskim finally decide that no fear is involved, but then, of course, the husband or anyone else could question their findings, and cast aspersion on the GET. There is no room for terror with MOUSE OLEI. See my various videos on the real issues in the modern Orthodox camp that play into this using terror, at youtube.com/mons5555.

      Delete
  9. Tamar Epstein has no heter al pi halocho to move the child away from her father so she is simply not entitled to a Get. Problem solved. Mr Epstein or the yorshim please ask for refunds from Belsky, Kamenetsky and other dons in Mafia Inc and Ora Mafia Inc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether she is "entitled" to a get or not, common sense should push rabbanim to always recommend giving a Get when the wife wants one, especially once she has the civil divorce.

      It might be regretable for the husband to be bereaved of his wife, but on the other hand, if he does not give a get, he puts a stumbling block in front of her (since she might want to engage in a relationship without a get).

      The first priority of the rabbonim who claim to watch over the purity of Am Israel should be to avoid those stumbling blocks.

      So they should communicate clearly to their communities: Hevre, if you are not nice enough for your wife to want to stay with you - tough luck: give her a get.

      And even in the case where she is at fault and just falls in love with another man: tough luck for the husband, but to avoid the stumbling block (with even greater risk in this case), he should give a get, and he will be considered a Zaddik....

      I do not understand why Rabbis always want women (like agunot) to foresake their rights, but never think of doing the same to men.

      Delete
    2. "It makes so much more sense to discuss a GET only after you know exactly that a GET means in practical terms."
      http://www.getamarriage.com/a_peaceful_get.htm

      This sounds reasonable. But how do you avoid Get-Extorsion in this context. i.e. the attitude, by the husband, to say "If I don't get this, I will not give you aget" "If you want alimony, I will not give you a get"?

      And how do you avoid promises being broken, as I saw not so long ago. i.e. a husband promising a get under certain conditions, obtaining all he wants (including payments by the wife or her family), and still refusing to grant a get?

      Delete
    3. Pudd please read the article by Rabbi Gartner that I linked as well as that of Rabbi Malinowitz

      Delete
    4. "And how do you avoid promises being broken, as I saw not so long ago. i.e. a husband promising a get under certain conditions, obtaining all he wants (including payments by the wife or her family), and still refusing to grant a get?"

      This is a good question, because the RCA/Beit Din of America prenup agreement is basically this -- a promise to pay a certain amount and submit to binding arbitration. What if he has no money or just refuses?

      There must be a better way. Could a marriage contract have a clause saying that the marriage is only entered into on the condition that if the wife wants a get, she gets one, and so as soon as he refuses a get the marriage is effectively annulled because the condition for the marriage is broken?

      Delete
    5. I agree with you that this whole coercion procedure on both sides is unworthy. It should not be possible for a man to extort money for a get, it should not be necessary to pressure him with beating or intervening at his employer's etc.

      Therefore, I think that the jewish matrimonial law should be reformed so as to eliminate this get-bias in disfavour of the wives.
      Your idea with the tnai seems quite reasonable...

      Rabbonim have taken courageous decisions on a horaat shaa, when it was necessary.

      Delete
    6. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM

      – It is a free country. What you consider is helping Agunoth I consider making mamzerim. As long as the modern Orthodox children don't want to be Haredim and want to marry their own kind, they will find a shidduch. But if they as many do turn to Haredi or traditional Orthodoxy, the terror of Ora will produce the terror of mamzeruth. This is the ultimate child abuse. I will fight it tooth and nail. For shame on those who don't realize the pain of a child to watch his father being humiliated in public. This, too, is child abuse. But the fanatics know only one thing. Help an Agunth. And this help leads her to be an adulteress with an invalid forced GET and her children are mamzerim. Incidentally, this problems exists now outside of the modern Orthodox world, where certain rabbis make big bucks by beating up husbands. There was recently a case where the couple remarried with a questionable GET promising not to have children. That is one approach. But I don't guarantee you that no children will be born. These things happen. There are mamzerim in the world. I have worked with this issue and seen the rabbinical and personal agony when this comes up.

      Delete
    7. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

      reply to Pudd 2:35
      And how do you avoid promises being broken, as I saw not so long ago. i.e. a husband promising a get under certain conditions, obtaining all he wants (including payments by the wife or her family), and still refusing to grant a get?
      ========================
      This is a very serious matter, not just because it touches a nerve in all Gittin issues, but because this very issue conflicts with what we consider Torah miSinai. Thus, those who demand a change in halacha are really challenging the entire system of Torah halacha given at Sinai. I have a video on youtube.com/mons5555 that goes into the nitty gritty of just why the modern Orthodox who cannot live with this halacha, are being pushed into non-Orthodox Get procedures, such as Ora is doing, with the full blessing of many modern Orthodox rabbis. Thus, I am publicizing that the Orthodox who believe in Torah from Sinai cannot trust modern-Orthodox Get procedures, as they are deviating from traditional halacha. The time is rapidly coming when modern Orthodox Beth Dins will not have their divorces recognized by people like me, as I heard the Pesak from Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev shlit”o, that he takes away the authority of Beth Din from any Beth Din that deviates from traditional halacha to help an Agunah. But I say this again. If we get a community project going, as I have done, we can solve the vast majority of the problems. Terror is never a solution, and don't think that men can't make terror. And don't think they can't find a clergy to back them

      Delete
    8. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM

      Pudd 2:26I do not understand why Rabbis always want women (like agunot) to foresake their rights, but never think of doing the same to men.
      ====================
      It would help a lot if you knew all of the facts. I, for instance, do not know all of the facts, hearing only one side. So I stay out of commenting about anything personal. But if the stories the husband say are true, and maybe they are, people owe him the time and effort to validate his complaints. Besides that, I don't like things done in this case, which made things more messy. I have worked with AGUNOTH and it is bloody and hard, but at the end, nobody hated anyone. That is what happens when the community pitches in with rabbinical guidance and does it job properly

      Delete
    9. Well.. I suppose the best solution is to say that we all have a safek mamzerut today. (since Mamzerut is transmitted by both parents, it is only a question of time till everybody is "infected" by it, with the exception of Gerim, but they don't have a problem with this either.

      Delete
    10. "It would help a lot if you knew all of the facts."

      As I said: even if she eloped with someone else, he should be a gentleman and grant a get in order to avoid the production of mamzerim.

      Delete
  10. Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn said... I discussed coerced GIttin with posek HaDor Rab Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit"o and he told me that any BEth Din that cuts corners to produce a GET for an "Aguinah" that he takes away from them the status of a Beth Din.
    ===================
    Did Rav Eliashiv say that public humiliation is forbidden? What did he mean by "cuts corners"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM

      Public humiliation is not a teaching of Reb Elyashev, but it is an accepted Rashbo quoted by Reb Yosef Karo, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish. Anyone who humiliates the husband and gets a GET has an invalid GET. I discusssed this with the rabbis who made the SIRUV on Mr. Friedman. I was told that the SIRUV does not permit public humiliation, as anyone who learns about Gittin knows this is forbidden. They only demanded that he come to Beth Din to deal with the issues. Of course, we could comment on this, but not now.

      Delete
  11. "It is said: In cases of granting a get to a woman, the man is forced until he says, 'I wish to do so'" (Babylonian Talmud, Arachin 21a; Rambam, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Gerushin, 2:2).

    "As ruled by Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer HaYashar, Response 24; Rema, Even HaEzer 154:21), pressures that can be exerted against the man include shunning, denying him communal benefits and honors, and in extreme cases even imprisonment."

    These clearly indicate coercion and humiliation are acceptable. How can Chazal, Rambam and Rabeinu Tam be overruled by R' Elyashiv?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not overruling - it has always been a major machlokes - Rav Eliashiv simply is agreeing with poskim you disagree with

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM

      A bad misquote, for two reasons. One, the Ramo you quote clearly permits only passive ostracizing, not active measures. Second of all, as I explained in a previous post here, the Ramo quotes this only in chapter 154 dealing with people that the Talmud clearly says must give a GET, but does nto permit active coercion. The laws of a wife who wants out when the husband is not in the above category, and has not been ordered by the Talmud to divorce, is in chapter 77. There the Ramo does not bring any permission to even pressure passively with ostracizing.
      The Beis Ephraim even discusses what a Beth Din is allow to say to the husband orally in such a case, but surelyl public or active humiliation is or pressure is absolutely forbidden and the Chazon Ish says it produces an invalid GET

      Delete
  12. Of course when some big rabbi in Lakewood needed a get and it wasn't appearing by normal means, a 'heter meah rabbanim' appeared!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dovy major halachic issues can't be reduced to sound bites

      Delete
  13. regarding the honorific given Rav Shechter - that was how Rav Adlerstein published it in CrossCurrents - obviously no slight was meant by either him or myself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. they give him makot until he says rotze ani

    how is this different?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should read the article on my brother's web page

      Delete
    2. I read his article and several others on his website. I think that some of his views (spouses should have mutual respect for each other) are praiseworthy, others seem to be ill-reflected.

      Combine, for example, those statements:

      "The halacha today is clear: A woman who leaves her husband or who demands a divorce may not force the husband to divorce her with a GET."
      (article Ruining marriage by Dovid Eidensohn)

      (i.e. if a woman leaves her husband, for whatever reason, he will always be able to deny her a get.)

      "Unless there is physical abuse, and of a sustained nature, and a true danger, going to court and calling the police can be a great sin."
      (Letter to Mark dratch)
      (How often must the wife sustain beatings from her husbund till this Rabbi will allow her to call the police?)

      (A men threw something at his wife in anger for a remark she made)
      "We would allow the woman to forgive her husband. We would even allow the woman to apologize for causing the anger that resulted in the violence, in the light of the fact that it was not a dangerous violence."
      Letter to mark dratch
      (So it is her fault because she provoked him.)

      In light of these arguments, I ask myself whether this case of domestic violence could not have been prevented by a Rabbi who has a more open eye and ear to the pleas of women who suffer violence:

      "If someone is a clear danger, such as the man who axed his wife's head and her brains spilled out that I put in jail, put him in jail."
      Letter to mark dratch

      Delete
    3. Is this the Rabbi Eidensohn that is very connected to the extremist group from Bet Shemesh? Raises money for their rallies and police needs.

      Delete
    4. My brother lives in Monsey and is not connected with extremist groups in Beit Shemesh. His son lives in Beit Shemesh but is also not connected to extremist groups - he runs a major chesed organization there which helps many people in Beit Shemesh.

      Delete
    5. The organization run by R' Eidensohn in Ramat Bet Shemesh is well known to local residents. Some non-Chareidi residents have expressed concerns with some "extra-curricular" activities, as exemplified by the report at http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2008/02/giving-legitimacy-to-hooligans.html .

      Excerpt: "When asked why he was going to be speaking there (someone present at the conversation told me) considering it gives legitimacy to the hooligans and they will use it to control their neighborhood even though they are a minority within it, he responded that he has to give them legitimacy because otherwise RBS will become too modern."

      I don't know if this is a true story, but I do know that it fits with the attitude of many of the DL and the few remaining chilonim in RBS-A towards the local kupa shel tzedaka.

      Delete
  15. this Duvid Eidensohn is a very strange person, or at least he presents himself as such in the videos he publishes...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow, as somebody who's daughter went thru the process, one should realize two things. Holding back a get will get you no where. You can't get married and no one will want to be part of your family in the future. Being a mensch means, if your wife left you because you behaved like a dictator even if al pi Halacha you don't have to give a get, you would be stupid to hold back. The next big problem is extortion. It's now common and accepted to extort money from the other side even if their is no right from the Torah. Beis din will agree to it, in order to have a get given willingly. Even supposedly frum people feel extortion is ok. The question is ,where did menschlichkeit go?

    ReplyDelete
  17. As I delve further into the story, I see that the civil divorce is already settled. This means that both parties had an occasion to agree on the conditions of divorce.

    Once a civil divorce is pronounced, there is no reason whatsoever to withhold a get! That's pure evil!

    ReplyDelete
  18. R' Willig worked with Marc Shapiro (who himself is a musmach), a lawyer of some note, to make sure that the prenup is legally binding in every US jurisdiction as well as avoiding the halachic problems of asmachta (no one takes the clause seriously, and thus the whole contract becomes legally void) and of get anusah (a divorce that is neither halachically mandatory nor willingly given).

    ReplyDelete
  19. I dont understand your point. In this case a bais din has said to do evereything possible to get him to give a Get. here is the letter https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.getora.com/Seiruvim/Aharon%2520Friedman%2520seruv.pdf
    In additional support to pressuring him to give the get, i would think that marrying someone who is abusive is in the modern age a Mekach Tais.

    ReplyDelete
  20. pudd writes: Therefore, I think that the jewish matrimonial law should be reformed so as to eliminate this get-bias in disfavour of the wives.

    Next Sanhedrin will certainly discuss the topic. Until then, we have no legislative body. It seems the most we can do is what Rabbeinu Gershom did -- put a cheirem on anyone who violates his terms. He couldn't declare a gett that was given against the wife's will was invalid, nor could he eliminate polgyny; he instead excommunicated anyone who would do so.

    And how does the creation of women in the Israeli court system who keep their husbands from remarrying solve the problem of men who do the same? It solves a different problem, but not the one under discussion.

    BTW, I know of a number of cases where the man got the woman to accept horrendous terms in divorce court in exchange for a gett -- and then the terms were overturned in court after the gett was delivered. US law understands such blackmail to be agreement under duress. So, often, the woman can win the money back in a later suit.

    ReplyDelete
  21. An enlightening overview of the topic is R' Gedalia Dov Schwartz's (head of the RCA beis din) discussion of the NY State "Get Law" at
    http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/get_law1.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your brother's reasoning that the threat of humiliation or actual humiliation is like a threat of death is a huge stretch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Israelis have picked up from their Arab brethren this huge H word called, "Humiliation"....it has lost its thunder outside of the borders of the Holy Land.

      Delete
  23. Ramo EH 154:21 quotes Rabbeinu Tam to permit passive PIRUD from a husband who is commanded by Chazal to divorce his wife, but who is not in the most severe category of a sinful marriage whereby physical force is permitted. However, the Ramo does not quote Rabbeinu Tam in EH 77 regarding a woman who is repelled by her husband and demands to leave him. The Shach and Chazon Ish forbid even a passive PIRUD and certainly in the case of the lesser problem of MOUSE OLEI when the Talmud does not clearly rule that the husband must give a GET, they would forbid even a passive PIRUD. Thus, briefly, in the Friedman case it is only MOUSE OLEI, and the Ramo does not permit PIRUD even passively. But ORA is doing an active public humiliation which is forbidden by Rashbo, Rav Yosef Karo, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish. Furthermore, the Gro and others who quote Rabbeinu Tam permit it only if the husband can simply leave town and be safe from the PIRUD. But today, ORA follows him where he goes and it is forbidden to make even a passive PIRUD surely for MOUS OLEI.

    I have several videos on this issue at youtube.com/mons5555 where I explain that the Conservative movement foundered and went Reform on the issue of women rabbis and Gittin, and the modern Orthodox are denying traditional Torah teachings by defying the Rashbo, Shach, Chazon Ish, Reb Yosef Karo and Radvaz, even though they have no opposing sources. I spoke to the senior rabbi of the modern Beth Din Gedaliah Schwartz after he sent a couple away without a GET claiming MEKACH TOOSE because they were together a few weeks, and he claimed they had no relations. I asked him how he knew that. Because BIAH cannot always be proven, even by a doctor, and I asked him his sources, and he had none. But he is part of the Rackman movement to change the laws of Gittin. I heard this from the daughter of Rackman, years ago, when I suggested working together with her to help Agunoth, as I was heavily involved helping them. She answered me, "We don't want to work with rabbis. We want to change the halacha." That is now happening in the modern Orthodox world.
    Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn www.getamarriage.com and youtube.com/mons5555.

    By the way, I have haskomose from Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev shlit"o for my Beth Din for Gittin, and haskomose from Gedolim Reb Moshe Feinstein, Reb Yaacov Kaminetsky zt"l for my halacha seforim on monetary and family law. I also learned by Hagadol Reb Aharon Kotler. Some of these Gedolim told me to go on media and defend the Torah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What in the world are you talking about ? You think this is a case of maois alei. You have no idea what your talking about ! In the letter of seiruv it says that he is commanded to give her a get according to Jewish law !
      The issues involved here were many ,but they do not need to be made public. When a bais din gives a ruling your supposed to except it. As an outsider you can only get involved after speaking to the bais din and the otherside , which you obviously did not !
      Maybe to your religion emotional abuse and other abuses are ok , but then I guess you would be an Iman .

      Delete
    2. The senior signer of the Siruv told me that the Siruv is not to command him to give a GET, and it not a permission to publicly humiliate him, but merely requires him to go to a Beth Din. Of course, that is not what it says in the Siruv, and it is not what Ora is doing. But that is what two people involved with the Siruv told me. But it doesn't matter. No rabbi in the world, period, can argue with the Chazon Ish, the Shach, the Radvaz, the author of Shulchan Aruch Rabbi Yosef Karo, and the Rashbo. To do so is such an outrage that it is probably apikursus and makes the rabbi conservative. Rabbi Elyashev told me he takes away from a Beth Din that cuts corners for Agunoth the authority of a Beth Din.

      Delete
  24. haskomose from Gedolim Reb Moshe Feinstein, Reb Yaacov Kaminetsky zt"l for my halacha seforim on monetary and family law

    Please read carefully, HASKOMOSE on his halacha seforim of monetary and family law.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I spoke to the senior rabbi of the modern Beth Din Gedaliah Schwartz

    Is it your word that he is "part of the Rackman movement to change the laws of Gittin"? and female Rackman is the witness...INTERESTING!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the female head of Agunoth Inc or whatever the name is tells me her goal is to change the laws of Gittin, that is not the act of a witness, it is the confession of the person herself. I believe people when they explain what they are going to do, why should I not? And she said it in front of her assistant head of the movement, so she probably said something that she meant. ANd of course, today we see it is true. ORA can only exist in a changed halacha environment, and the children born from it will come to marry Orthodox people and be refused as mamzerim.

      Delete
  26. Accusing R' Gedlia Schwartz or R' Mordechai Willing of being part of some kind of quasi-Conservative Mod-O Kabal has cost you all credibility.

    (The sound of me dropping off an absurd debate with the irrationally prejudiced.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM

      The accusation I make is known to Rabbi Willig. I think when it happened he went bananas, and I respect him for that. But he is not the boss. Rabbi Gedalia Schwartz is, and I spoke to him, and I made a tremendous stink about it. I don't know if he will do this again, and if he does, I will consider putting him in Cherem. By the way, my impression is that Rabbi Gedalih Schwartz is an honest person. Why don't you call him up and ask him if he ever allowed a couple who came to him for a GET to leave without a GET, claiming MEKACH TOUSE? On the other hand, I heard from someone who challenged him on this and he indicated that he doesn't want to discuss it. I know it happened, and you are no under no obligation to believe me. But if it ever happens again, heaven forfend, you will hear from me again.

      Delete
  27. R' Dovid Eidensohn: Why don't you tell Friedman to give the get, not because of the public pressure, but because it's the right thing to do? You say you want to defend the Torah. How does it defend the Torah to instruct a man to continue cruelly oppressing his (ex-)wife, creating a huge chillul Hashem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:05 PM

      I have dealt with difficult Agunah problems, and the first and last thing to keep in mind is to treat the husband with respect, and not to push him. I have discussed a GET with Mr. Friedman, and I don't think he is going to be a monster. But I told him he must give a Kosher GET not one tainted with terror and therefore invalid.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the responses. My question was, can't he give a get now and say he's doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do, and not because of the public pressure? Otherwise he would have to wait until all the aguna activists just give up and stop pressuring him, and that will never happen (though things might die down a bit sometime in the future, I suppose). So just because a large segment of Orthodoxy today believes pressure on get-refusers is legitimate, this woman has to be chained for life? It can't be. "G-d does not rule over his creatures with tyranny" (Avodah Zarah 3a).

      Delete
    3. what do you mean "not to push him"? The civil divorce was granted in 2010! So he had more than a year to give the get without being pushed...

      Delete
    4. Can Mr. Friedman pretend he has no pressure? What kind of life is that? I want the pressure to completely stop before we talk about a GET. Otherwise, we will publicize that the wife is still married and her children may be mamzerim. This is going to be a bitter war, and it will probably end with the modern Orthodox changing the laws of Gittin, and therefore Orthodox people will not marry their children. That is why I am fighting, to save the large number of modern Orthodox children who want to be Orthodox, and who will now be suspected as possible mamzerim. But the fanatics don't care. Tell them a Rashbo and they say, "My rabbi said it is okay." That rabbi is an apikores.

      Delete
  28. R' Dovid Eidensohn: You can't seriously make this out to be a battle between you and some supposed would-be Reformniks within Orthodoxy. How can you suggest that rabbis like Shmuel Kamenetsky and Yitzchok Alderstein (who have joined the chorus of voices calling on Friedman to give the get already) are Conservative rabbis in disguise? See R' Alderstein's explanations here (and in brackets in response to the comments):

    http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/03/02/help-an-agunah-virtually/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM

      You make a good point. Allow me to clarify something. The issues within the modern Orthodox movement are one thing, and the issues within Haredi Jews who do the wrong things with Gittin, and there are constant problems in this regard today, are not Conservative, but they are doing wrong things. I will not make a major issue of this now, but the Mishneh says in Berochose that one who takes money for a ruling has an invalid ruling. But today there are huge sums exchanged for certain escapes from marriage, and Gedolim such as Reb Elyashev are furious. Yes, in the coming generaiton we are going to have a big mamzer problem. I spent a lot of time talking to Gedolim about real mamzerim, and it is a terrible thing. My rebbe the Strassberger Rov zt”l who gave Gittin in Jerusalem in Aydo HaCharedis sent me to Reb Moshe Feinstein about a doubtful mamzer, and I spoke at length with Reb Shlomo Zalman, and took a lot of advice from Gedolim, until things were arranged properly with a Pesak from the Gedolim. But a real mamzer, what can be done? Will they change the Torah for h im too as they did for his mother?

      Delete
    2. Yeshaya: ORA, which now has the backing of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, is a Reformniks organization - just look at this article from the other day. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/29/congressman-facing-pressure-from-jewish-groups-on-advisers-religious-divorce/

      "The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (figuratively "chained") has been leading a campaign against Friedman. In a letter to Friedman last fall, director Rabbi Jeremy Stern called his actions "tragic."

      "We see the refusal to issue a get as a form of domestic abuse," Stern told FoxNews.com.

      He said the Jewish community certainly has started to discuss whether a rabbi should be able to officiate a divorce without one party's permission -- but said the community "is not at a point right now where they're willing to fundamentally change how Jewish marriage and divorce works."

      They want to "fundamentally change how Jewish marriage and divorce works" - Does that not sound like the Reform movement to you?

      Delete
    3. It sounds like Reform to me. The Forwards had a similar article quoting a modern Orthodox rabbi that we need rabbis of courage to change Gittin laws. But don't call Rabbi Kaminetsky a Reform rabbi. I know that he is not an expert on the laws of Gittin, he is after all a Rosh YEshiva, and they are generally not involved with Gittin, or they could quit the Yeshivas. He made a mistake, but not because he is trying to change the laws of Gittin. He just doesn't know the laws of Gittin. That is my take on it, based on a conversation I had with him a few years ago. He is also a very old person who is quite active, but we have to be careful how we talk about him. Again, a mistake does not make a person an apikuress. The other rabbis may want to change the laws, and they are outside of the Torah world. I don't think a rabbi can succeed in YU or the modern Orthodox world unless they really would like to change Gittin laws. There is too much pressure. But Rabbi K has no pressure in this regard. He just wants to help someone form PHiladelphia as I understand it.

      Delete
  29. Rabbi Eidensohn it happened again. it happened to Ariel haCohen who lived with his wife for 6 years and she suffered at least one if not 2 miscarriges so clearly there was biah and "Rabbi" Schwartz was mevatel the kiddushin le'mafraih. So what are you wating for? Please contact Ariel haCohen who Rabbi Schwartz allowed his wife to remarry without a Get. Get on with it and put a cheirem on the man.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMarch 7, 2012 at 2:17 AM

    There is a terrible crisis with divorce and broken families in the religious Jewish world. A lot of it is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of Torah because certain extremists reduce the Torah to this or that and ignore what Chazal felt were important. I have a large DVD on this, but I say briefly that the Hassidic world suggests that a wife is muktseh, the Litivsher world decides that the husband must only learn and not earn, and the modern muddle along with years of singledowm that leads straight to Gehenum and gender war. You can't beat biology, translated, you cannot date, watch the worst movies and Internet, be part of a world that has no idea of marriage and family, and not be abused, bitter and eventually turn to hate. That is what is happening in the modern Orthodox world. The rest of the Orthodox world has the above problems, and Gedolim have told me the worst things about waht is going on. My brother quoted one Gadol that Yeshiva is Hashchoso. Okay, but it is not mamzerut and adultery. And it is not apikursus of rabbis who invent a new Torah. But so what. Isn't Hashchoso wrong? If everybody would go back to the original Torah without selecting what part to keep and ignoring the other parts, what a wonderful thing marriage would be. If things are not changed, in the coming generation we will see what we can't imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The YU affiliated ORA ( Organization for the Resolution of Agunot ), whose adviser is Herschel Schachter of YU, is leading the lynch mob against Mr. Aharon Friedman. ORA is an anti-Torah, Reform feminist organization responsible for terrible violations of Torah law and great injustices against Jewish men.

    ORA's gangsters and supporters are promoting forced and PASUL GITTIN, MAMZERIM, public slander, harassment, and abuse of decent Jewish men, fake SERUVIM, MESIRAH in non-Jewish courts, destruction of Jewish families, etc.

    See the cherem put on Herschel Schachter accusing him of Reform feminist practices:
    http://rabbischachter.blogspot.com/

    In the words of a Chareidi Bais Din in Monsey:

    "... the "ORA" group - shamefully known for their disgraceful actions against the Torah ... to whom many False and invalid GITTIN could be credited - which is causing the sin of ESHES EISH and ARAYOS to be allowed, as well as MAMZERIM B'MACHANEINU ... They (ORA) are following the crooked way of the Reform movement, as if in every conflict between husband and wife - the wife has to have the upper hand - to be able to force him to give a GET while depriving him of his rights, as well as in every detail of the conflict she has to have it all according to her wishes. And a husband who is willing to give his wife a GET, but insists on his basic human and halachic rights ... is being shamed, humiliated and embarrassed ... while quite the contrary, whereby the wife would only want a GET in a way that deprives her husband of his rights, it is only the wife that is chaining herself ..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The supposed beis din quote you give is quite odd. It is written as if it is a man's right to get want he wants in negotiations by threatening to refuse a get. Is that how is it supposed to work? No. Where is it written that a get is legitimately used by the man as a tool of extortion? (On the contrary, going back to Rabbeinu Yerucham it is forbidden.) If a woman wants a divorce, and has had his say and lost in a court or beit din, he has to give the get. That doesn't give the wife the upper hand in negotiations -- it makes it even-handed.

      Delete
    2. Have you not read the Seiruv. If you are told by a bais din of Rabbis - Belsky, Kaminetsky , Ralbag ,Stern , Wolmark to do everything possible to get a get. Then yes you can use Ora to get a get.

      Delete
    3. No rabbi can defy an open halacha in the poskim based upon a Rashbo that it is forbidden to humiliate a husband to coerce a GET, and that such a GET is invalid and the children are a problem. I spoke to two of the people involved with the Siruv and they agreed with this. How they could tell the wife to do whatever she can is beyond me, but the halacha does not change. No Beth Din can defy a Rashbo, Radvaz, Beis Yosef, Shach and Chazon Ish. The Shach and Chazon Ish even forbiden a passive ostracizing in this case.

      Delete
  32. Recipients and PublicityMarch 7, 2012 at 12:01 PM

    In the spirit of PURIM:

    Wow! Reading TWO Rabbis Eidensohns replying reminds me of that old joke that was told right after the 1967 Six Day War when Israel trounced ALL the Arab states in less than one week!

    This is how it goes:

    An Egyptian army general sends out a scout to check out the Israeli front line positions -- and never returns.

    The Egyptian general then sends out a squad of about seven soldiers to check out the Israeli front line positions -- and they just don't return.

    The Egyptian general then sends out a company of about 300 soldiers to check out what the Israelis are up to -- they also don't come back.

    The Egyptian general then gets frustrated and sends out a brigade of about 5,000 soldiers to confront the Israeli patrols -- they also disappear.

    Now the Egyptian general is really angry, he decides he has had enough of the games and will send a full division of about 15,000 thousand troops (that should do it) and once and for all find out what the Israelis have been up to across the horizon -- a few days go by, nothing...and then...the Egyptian general sees something crawling towards his lines in the distance...it gets closer and closer...and lo and behold it is a lone single survivor of the division...the survivor is muttering something and is brought to explain what happened on the front lines with the Israelis...slowly the surviving soldier says:

    IT WAS AN AMBUSH !! THERE ARE TWO OF THEM !! (Meaning two single Israeli soldiers of course !!)

    A Freilichen Purim !!

    P.S.

    By the way, Ester the Queen sacrificed herself to EVENTUALLY accept Achashverosh as her "husband" WILLINGLY (some commentators say she sacrificed her marriage to Mordechai who even advised her to do it) to save the Jewish people, a good lesson to all men and women who are fighting for their own selfish needs and not for the well-being of the Jewish people!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying that women should sacrifice themselves to all types of abuses and sick people.
      Is this also a purim joke ?
      ( buy the way the Zohar says the Esther made a Shade take her form and replace her in the intimate encounters, and that the Shade had the baby from Acheshvarosh.)

      Delete
    2. Recipients and PublicityMarch 8, 2012 at 4:48 AM

      "avf...Are you saying that women should sacrifice themselves to all types of abuses and sick people."

      RaP: No, I am not saying that. What I AM saying is that "all men and women who are fighting for their own selfish needs" need to display more "self-sacrifice" for "for the well-being of the Jewish people" by taking a few steps back from the brink and find ways to resolve their problems without ripping each other's guts out.

      "Is this also a purim joke ?"

      RaP: No, it's deadly serious.

      "( buy the way the Zohar says the Esther made a Shade take her form and replace her in the intimate encounters, and that the Shade had the baby from Acheshvarosh.)"

      RaP: I think the transliterated spelling for that is "shed" or "sheid" (but NOT "Shade" that sounds like a lamp-shade). The Zohar is a mystical interpretation that cannot always be take literally. The reality is that Ester became Queen of Persia by marrying Achashverosh (Ahasuerus or Xerxes) and from their marriage they produced one of the next Persian kings, Darius who allowed the exiled Jews to return to Zion and COMPLETE the rebuilding of the Second Temple that was already decreed and granted by Cyrus prior to the rise of Ahasueras.

      Delete
  33. Yeshaya, you are a disgrace toy your anmesake. This supposed baid din is the bais din of choice of the feinstein's (R ruevein feinstein's grandson Weiss), the brisker rov's great grandson meyerson and the bais din of the kashu rov's grandson.

    on the contrary, see the p'sak of rav elyashiv that it is virtually impossible to force a get al pi haocho unless you fall into a few categories. if you don't like the p'sak join the catholic church which doesn't even believe in divorce at all and wars were fought over this principle.

    who cares what arko'oys rules.

    are you aware of the fact that furthermore rav elyashiv has disqualifed belsky and walmark from writng gittin? no you are obviously not.

    are you aware of the fact that epstein's father has given thousands of $ to kamentsky? let'ds get real, is this the type of bais din you respect?

    is herschel schlachter who converted ivanka trump for $$$$$$$$$$$$ and more $$$$$$$$$ the type of rabbi you believe in?

    you are filth and so are the people supporting epstein.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, you didn't address the substance of my criticism of the alleged quote from the beit din. Isn't it written as if a man has a right to refuse the get if he doesn't get what he wants in negotiations? I was questioning the legitimacy of that assumption. Do you have sources legitimizing withholding of a get as a tool of bargaining or extortion?

      Stan, you said, "if you don't like the p'sak join the catholic church." Thankfully that's not necessary, since not everyone holds by Rav Elyashiv on everything (either his official positions or rumors about what he has said).

      Your position is that anyone supporting Epstein is filth? You've just insulted quite an array of rabbis.

      Delete
    2. Stan you and everyone else throwing accusation's of corruption are obviously not aware of ANY facts.

      Tamar's father passed away 2 years ago after being sick for a while , he and the rest of his family have never given any money for a bais din ruling.

      He has supported the yeshiva in the past with financial contributions and by selflessly being the doctor for the yeshivas bachurim and rebbeim .

      Any one who says horrible Motzei Shem Ra to twist the facts , you should know that their is a very very hot place in Gehenim for YOU.

      Delete
    3. I don't think the word corruption is the right one. A judge recuses himself when he had some benefit from one of the two litigants. If Rabbi Kaminetsky had benefit from the father, and I don't know if he did, as I don't live in Philly, then he should not have signed the Siruv, as this leads to talk and Chilul HaShem. But if Rabbi Kaminetsky had a long relationship with the father who did many favors to him, I can't understand how Rabbi Kaminetsky could think he was beyond being influencd by this. See Choshen Mishpot 9 if the Dayan is influenced by a gift to have good feelings for one person he may not be a judge. See BK 92B how sensitive we are for a favor, and must appreciate even an inanimate object such as a well. If you drink from it, you don't throw something in it.

      Delete
  34. I, however, am very much aware of the case you were referring to. The first issue is that the wife began the divorce by kidnapping the couple’s infant daughter and moving out of state without permission of the husband, a Bais Din or even a secular court. The husband tried everything to make Shalom Bayis but the wife did not want. The matter went before the Baltimore Beis Din but the wife was not compliant with the Bais Din and prefered to use the court system. After spending many sessions with the Baltimre Bais Din, the wife walked out of the process and reused to comply. Therefore, the Baltimore Bais Din which was in fact the ONLY Bais Din that heard both sides of the case, did not render a Psak in the matter. Instead of going back to her Bais Din, the wife has involved a radical left wing organization called ORA to hold a public campaign of terorism against the husband, his parents and even his uncle and cousins. They are even tryng to get him fired from his job which is totally not in the intrest of the couple’s child as the father presently pays a generous amount of child support. The “seruv” is not from any Bais Din- these people never sat and heard the case or sent Hazmones. The wife comes from a very, very wealthy family that supports the Yeshivos of some of those signed on. Look at the document and it is obvious that it is not a Bais Din but a compilation of 5 signatures. (Also a Bais Din will usually only ahve 3 signatures on their seruvim) Not one of them sat on the Bais Din in Baltimore who actually heard this case. This is total falsehood- and gangster behavior and should be frowned upon and condemned in our community. Speaking of gangster behavior, Mrs. Friedman and her cohorts are sending numerous postcards to Mr. Friedman’s cousins threatening that they will never get Shidduchim and other obscene things. How can anyone condone threatening these girls in the name of obtaining a get for Tamar Friedman??? What makes Tamar’s situation more important than everyone else’s? Could it be becuase her family is very wealthy???? Tamar has perpetuated her own situation and the media circus she has created and her attempts at even invlving her child’s school where her mother is a prinicpal in protests and attempts to allienate her daughter from her father is despicable. When she learns how to act like a mench, the parties can come and resolve all outstanding issues. Until then, maybe she can seek the help of the gangsters to try to “annul” her marriage. One of the other ladies ORA has helped has done that and is now “remaried” and ready to create mamzerim. Another woman involved with ORA had her husband beaten up by some of the same gangsters who signed Mr. Friedman’s bogus “seruv”. She then “remaried” without a Kosher Get. The Edah HaCharedis Has come out to say thta if she has children, they will be Mamzerim. This woman is actually front and center protesting against Mr. Friedman in Maryland, along side her so called “new husband” who is a rabbi there

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Advocate613, the seruv says it is from the "Beit Din of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of United States and Canada." If no Beit Din has heard both sides of the story, it is Friedman's own fault, because he has refused to appear before the beit din despite numerous subpeonas. Here's the translation of the seruv:

      DECLARATION OF CONTEMPT
      (translation from original)
      On the 26th of Sivan 5771 the Beth Din of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada issued a "Final Warning" to Mr. Aharon Friedman wherein the history of the matter between him and his wife Tamar Epstein was summarized and particular reference was made to his continued and repeated refusal to give her a get in accordance with Jewish law. He was requested to appear before the Beth Din for a final adjudication
      on the matter of his refusal as well as other matters but he refused to even respond to their request.
      Several Gedolei Yisroel have spoken to him about this matter and he has previously received subpoenas to a Beth Din, letters, and other requests both formal and informal but to the dismay of the Beth Din he has ignored them all and turned a deaf ear to their pleas. The Beth Din is therefore left with no other alternative but to declare him in "Contempt of Beth Din" and to regard him as "One who does not heed Jewish law" – as such status is described in Shulchan Aruch etc.
      Any person who has the ability or opportunity to influence him to free Tamar Epstein from the chains of her agunah status is obligated to do so and doing so will indeed be the fulfillment of a great mitzvah. Tamar Epstein is hereby granted
      permission to take whatever appropriate steps are necessary to extricate herself from the chains of this agunah status.
      Accordingly we have affixed our signatures this 9th day of Elul 5771
      s/ Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag
      s/ Rabbi Yisroel Belsky
      s/ Rabbi Mordechai Wolmark
      s/ Rabbi Gavriel Stern
      s/ Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky
      The words of the revered rabbis, signatories above, do not need any further
      endorsement, and certainly the entire community should urge the husband to
      give his wife a Jewish divorce.
      s/ Rabbi Hershel Schachter

      Delete
    2. I spoke to some of the people involved with the Siruv and was told that public humiliation of the husband is forbidden. I don't know how that can be if the siruv tells her to do whatever she can, but that is what they told me. The fact is, all of the Gittin rabbonim including the people involved with this siruv agreed that it is forbidden to publicly humiliate the husband. Shach and Chazon Ish prohibit even a passive ostracizing.

      Delete
  35. If the Epstein Family is rich, it could well be that the divorced husband is trying to extort money for the get...

    So I have a question to R. David Eidensohn:

    What is your attitude to a Get against payment? Are you as opposed to it as to the get under pressure?

    If you are not: Can you see how immoral torah law looks in view of this wide-spread practice? Can you see how biased Rabbis seem who accept Get-extortion?

    So I would assert that supporting Get against money - for whatever reason - is an outright Chillul hashem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have gotten a GET for the worst cases in Monsey, and money was never a factor. If the community, the rabbis, askonim and the right people get involved, these things can be solved. But when you have terror as the main weapon, you have mamzerim and counter-terror.

      Delete
    2. If you got a Get in a peacefull way without any extorsion of money, I draw my heat.

      Because the reality is that many women, especially the well-educated, self-sacrificing hareidi ones forgo many things just so that they will obtain their get.

      Over here, it is a huge problem: hareidi women forgo alymony so that they will obtain their get. However, social services have a rule that they do not pay anything if someone else could pay, so women who forgo alimony are not entitled to social help... They truly remain with nothing, and their children too.

      Delete
  36. It is clear that the proponents of the Get here are absolute am horatzim. If Aharon appeared before one Bais Din, his wife doesn't like this bais din and runs off to another feminsist bais din and he tells her he won't go there because he is in the first bais din, please supply me with a source in shulchan oruch where he is mechuyev to go to the bais din his wife has absconded to?

    on the contrary she is a mesarves le'din and the bais din which chooses to here her case is CORRUPT, MORE CORRUPT AND MOST CORRUPT. THEN THEY ADD INSULT TO INJURY BY ISSUING A SIRUV. PLEASE.

    Belsky ans Wohlkmark have long ago been passuled by the gedolim as corrupt thugs involved in the Rubin and Fuchs case by both the Bedatz and Rav Elyashiv. Ralbag people don't even rely on his triangle K kashrus let alone aishes ish stuff and he is firmly in the belsky camp. the best that can be said about belsky is acharei mos kedoshim here.

    the kashu rov long ago said belsky's heter of a rubo de'laiso kamon is a heter of shtus and in the fuchs case where belsky received over a million $$, for being mafkia kidushin le',afrai, he was even forced to retract by the kal she'be'kalim aharon schechter of chaim berlin who refused to appear before rav moshe.

    herschel schlachter converted invanka trump and he has already been put in cheirem by rav gestetner so we are dealing with real yirei shomayim here.

    as for kamenetsky, $$$ and more $$$ and even more $$$. let him explain how the agudah's archivist is machzik his tzatskah in arko'oys and the agudah doesn't care. Let him also explain how the agudah ignored child molestation in its camps for 4 decades.

    cut the bull, we live in a dor which is leaderless.

    there is 2 rab bonim alive today who are standing between us and oblivion, rav gestetner and rav abraham both of monsey, who will not tolerate any arko'oys and do not care what anyone thinks. the rest are phoney baloneys interested in their kovod, their fancy trips and $$$.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Great posting Stan!

    You hit it "right on the money" because that's the real problem we're dealing with here - corrupt rabbis being bought off to harass a decent Jewish father by issuing a bogus SERUV against him.

    This same pattern repeats itself over and over in every high profile Jewish divorce case - ORA gangsters terrorizing HALACHA compliant Jewish fathers, bogus SERUVIM issued by corrupt "rabbis", and a rogues gallery of feminist "agunah" supporters cheering on the public lynching of decent Jewish fathers.

    I say to Mr. Aharon Friedman and all Jewish fathers - if you're caught in a divorce conflict, try to settle it honorably and AL PI HALACHA, but never compromise your relationship with your children, and never give a GET until all issues are properly settled AL PI HALACHA. If necessary fight like lions against ORA's gangsters and henchmen to preserve your relationship with your children. There's nothing more worthwhile fighting for than your children.

    ReplyDelete
  38. That's not true, if she was misareiv to the first bais din then where is their a letter of seiruv from them. Second, what does arkayos have anything to do with this case.

    ReplyDelete
  39. A husband who already declared his intention of not fulfilling his chiyuv onah by giving her a civil divorce is chayav to give a gett, and any beis din initiated kefiyah does not invalidate the gett.

    This is not a simple "ma'us alai".

    ReplyDelete
  40. TO Rabbi Eidensohn from Monsey: Thank you for standing up to Halocho in public. Do not be afraid of intimidators who might try to have you back down from your position. Please continue to publicize the "REAL" DVAR HASHEM when it comes to GITTIN as I fear that Many sofek Mamzeirim are living amongst us.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Micha,
    May I humbly suggest that next time you correct me about Hilchose Gittin that you imitate me by quoting five of the greatest poskim who ever lived, Rashbo, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish rather than creating a new Torah. This creating a new Torah to help ladies get a GET is not Orthodox Judaism, which is based on sources of earlier generations. Any Beth Din that thinks the way you do, as the inventors in this case surely do, lose their authority of being a Beth Din, as Rav Elyashev told me.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yehoshua,
    Thank you for the chizuk and good words. Our generation has a mamzer problem and nobody wants to talk about it. At least on this blog people can hear the truth and maybe even appreciate it. Brocho and hatslocho.

    Dovid Eidensohn

    ReplyDelete
  43. You are concluding the halakhah is against R' Moshe Feinstein. I already pointed you to one of his teshuvos on the subject. I thought citing more on your brother's blog was sending coal to Newcastle.
    In any case, you name names -- no places for me to look at. Of them, only the CI is a contemporary poseiq actually dealing with our kind of problem.

    How about EhE 4:106?

    Or, if you really need a list of names, no one can match R' Ovadia Yosef. So, see Yabia Omer EhE 3:18.

    That's what actual poseqim hold about our question. RMF and R' Ovadiah Yosef disagree with what you say is the "clear halakhah".

    So, rather than demonizing every rav they disagree with with such motzi sheim ra as accusing them of accepting shochad, perhaps people should be a little less "my way or the highway".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My sources that it is wrong to do what Ora is doing humiliating husbands in public are as follows:
      Rashbo VII:414 "regarding a woman who says MOUS OLEI we make no pressure on the husband to divorce her." In the teshuva there the Rashbo discusses a case where the husband must according to the gemora divorce his wife but the gemora does not say clearly he must be forced. In that case the Rashbo says, "He must not be pressured by humiliation." Of course, ORA pressures with humiliation. The Bais Yosef Rabbi Yosef Karo author of the Shulchan Aruch in EH 154 quotes this Rashbo as halacha. So does the Radvaz IV:118 and Chazon Ish Gittin 108:12. There the Chazon Ish says that anyone who humiliates a husband to coerce a Get has made an invalid GET. At the end of his sefer Gevuras Anoshim the Shach forbids any pressure with ostracizing even of a passive nature. The Chazon Ish agrees with this. Surely active humiliation is forbidden.

      Delete
    2. I have supplied the list of sources here and the entire listing is on my website at www.getamarriage.com. If you have sources to the contrary, please quote the exact sources you have to defy the Rashbo, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish.

      You say that only the Chazon Ish is a "contemporary poseiq actually dealing with our kind of problems." This is not how I was taught to deal with halacha by Reb Moshe Feinstein, Reb Yaacov Kaminetsky, and many other Gedolim of the past and present generations. The problems we have today they had then, and the halachas they stated are binding on us today. No contemporary posek can override the Rashbo Reb Yosef Caro the Shach Radvaz and Chazon Ish. The "rabbis" who do this are outside of the realm of true rabbis. And the invalid divorces they make produce mamzerim, not liberated Agunoth. By the way, where did you get your halacha training? Who is your rebbe?

      Delete
  44. Reb Moshe as great as he was is in the minority big time on this issue. Rav Ovadiah is not too relevant as there is no Cheirem Rabbonu Gershom by the sefardim. However rav ovadya is adamant that a anyone who goes to arko'oys gets the dinim that shulchan oruch applies so cut the garbage out micha, you are reform or catholic or whatever religion you prefer, which is clearly not torah min hashomayim and the proof of this is simple enough for the kal shebkalim like you and herschel schlachter to understand.

    Since it is clar that the number of women who go to arko'oys instead of bais din is a problem far far bigger than the problem of mwn allegedly witholding gittin and you and your filthy ilk have never organized any moycho'oys, siruvim, lkists in jewish newspapers against the arko'oys and mesirah, it is clear that your call is not a mi 'lashem ailiy but le'hepech motivated by feminism so you don't care about the torah. now that that is clearly established, your opinion is worth less than zero. if the jewish press can only come up with a list of less than 10 men on average witholding a get and the real issue of arko'oys and mesirah is ignored by you, you must be from the eirev rav.



    Furthermore

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan please watch you language. You can make your point without personal attacks - otherwise I will simply reject your comments - which is a shame because you are doing a good job of articulating the other side.

      Delete
    2. Stan,

      Yes, going to arka'os rather than beis din is a problem. R' Yohan Reiss of the RCA Beis Din (now dean of RIETS) tried to allay fears in a 1999 Jewish Action article, but it's worth looking at the article to see what those concerns are. But while it's a real problem, it's not our question. Our question is whether social pressure may be applied to someone who already went to arka'os, gave a civil divorce, and is holding out on a get.

      So, rather than name calling, why not actually open up the Yabia Omer, and see how he deals with our actual question? The Rashba doesn't apply to our case. He brings numerous acharonim who reached that conclusion. Rav Moshe is not a minority, and those who follow his pesaq are not necessarily in the grips of some evil feminist plot.

      Delete
  45. To Rabbi Eidenson: There appears to be a website "mamzeralert.blogspot.com that warns the public of such women that used coercive methods to obtain their gittin and some with annullments. I believe this site appears to mirror alot of ORA's site.It would be nice if you, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Gestetner could all join forces in forming a true Bais Din for Gittin that follows Even Haezer and does not pander to feminist rabbis or groups.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yehoshua, while I am glad you are on the right side, Rav Gestetner and Rav Abraham already run 2 independent Botei Din. They do not need help as they are both massive yirei shomayim who have risked everything to fight the feminisim of the RCA/ BDA in the moderen orthodox world on the one hand, and the violation of basic Halochos by messers belsky, ralbag and the others and implicitely follow everything in Rav Mensashe Klein's magnum opus on Gittin called Get Meuseh agianst the NY Get Law which will one day be recognized as a classic when everyone realizes that the same churban NY had in kashrus at the time of Rav Yaakov Yosef applies to Gittin today.

    Furthermore, it would appear that while Rav Eidenson is getting there, he still thinks that one can interact with people like R Herschel Schlachter, Ralbag, Belsky etc and convince them. Hopefully he will realize that the Rambam is mefuresh that if we live in a world that is completely corrupt (with regards to botei din) we have to seperate ourselves and go to the mountains, not link up with the kal she'bekalim.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Again, ROY shows that poseqim who have dealt with cases of giving a gett after a civil divorce do not consider it a simple ma'us alai situation. Neither does R' Moshe. Thus, posting over and over a list of names that discuss ma'us alai adds nothing to the conversation.

    A man who grants a civil divorce has declared an intent to violate his chiyuv onah, and thus kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani.

    As long as the social pressure originates from a beis din, and not vigilantes acting on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  48. שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג - אבן העזר סימן כ

    (לד) המורם מכל האמור שהואיל ומצאנו חברים רבים גדולים ועצומים מרבותינו הראשונים דס"ל כשיטת הרמב"ם ז"ל שכופין את הבעל לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי. וכן תיקנו רבנן סבוראי בבי דינא דמתיבתא, ונהגו בתקנה זו עד סוף זמן הגאונים קרוב לשש מאות שנה, ועשו מעשה רב לכוף את הבעל להוציא בטענת מאיס עלי. אף על פי שרבים מהפוסקים אינם סוברים כן, וגם מרן בש"ע /בא"ה/ (סי' עז) סובר שאין כופין, מ"מ כשיש עוד צירופים להקל, שפיר סמכינן ע"ז הלכה למעשה. (וע' להגאון אגודת איזוב (חאה"ע ס"ס יט) בד"ה עוד יש). ובייחוד לבני תימן שאינם זזים מהוראות הרמב"ם בכל אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, וכבר נהגו בארצותם לכוף את הבעל לגרש בטענת מ"ע, כדעת הרמב"ם, לכן גם כאן בא"י שפיר דמי לפסוק להם כמנהגם. ובנ"ד הוכח בעדים שהנישואין נעשו נגד רצון האשה, ולמרות סירובה להנשא אל בעלה זה, כפו עליה קרוביה הר כגיגית בדרך תרמית ותחבולה להשיאה אליו. ונודע שדעת הרשב"ש להלכה דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציא, ורבו האחרונים שכ' לסמוך על הרשב"ש בזה להלכה ולמעשה. ובפרט שיש לצרף בזה כמה ספיקות וס"ס. (וכמש"כ בסי' יח אות ד). וכבר נודע בשערים המצויינים בהלכה מ"ש הרשב"ץ ח"ב (סי' ח) וז"ל, ואף על פי שיש בתשו' גדולי האחרונים שאין כופין בזה [בדין מאיס עלי] כלל, מ"מ אנן לא קטלי קני באגמא אנן, ומילתא דתליא בסברא, אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו ראות. ע"ש. וכן הוא בשו"ת יכין ובועז ח"ב (סי' מד). וע"ע בשו"ת מהר"א אבן טוואה בחוט המשולש (סי' לה). ובשו"ת מעשה איש (חאה"ע ס"ס א). ע"ש. הא קמן שאף הרשב"ץ דקאי בשיטת הפוסקים שחולקים על הרמב"ם, כשיש עוד סניפין פסק להקל כד' הרמב"ם. ודון מינה ואוקי באתרין. (ובתשובה אחרת הארכתי בס"ד להוכיח שדעת כמה פוסקים רוא"ח, שבית דין שפסקו לכוף את הבעל לגרש, ע"פ איזה פוסקים, אפי' טעו בדין, והוי גט מעושה שלא כדין, אין הגט פסול אלא מדרבנן. ומכ"ש בכפייה שבזמן הזה שאינה כפייה בשוטים, אלא בישיבה בבית הסוהר, ואין כל דמיון בין בית הסוהר של זמנינו לבית הסוהר שבזמנים הקודמים. והו"ל כספק ספקא בדרבנן. ולדעת הרבה פוסקים עבדינן ספקא בידים בדרבנן להקל, וכ"ש בס"ס, ומכ"ש בשעה"ד ומקום עיגון כזאת. וק"ו בן בנו של ק"ו בדין מאיס עלי שרבו הפוסקים המקילים הן מצד הדין הן מצד התקנה, ואפי' הרא"ש שחולק על הרמב"ם כתב, דבדיעבד שכפו את הבעל להוציא מה שעשו עשוי. וכ"כ הרשב"ץ, דאם נתגרשה בגט כזה תנשא לכתחלה. ועל אחת כמה וכמה בנ"ד שהנישואין היו בעל כרחה של האשה, דעבדינן עובדא לכתחלה.) ונוסף לזה יש מקום בנ"ד לפקפק על עצם הקידושין שנעשו ע"י איומים והפחדות, ועכ"פ הבעל בודאי עשה שלא כהוגן במעשה הקידושין, ואם כי לא נפקיע קידושיו מ"מ יש לכופו לתת גט. ומה גם שהאשה צעירה לימים ויושבת גלמודה גמולה דא מבעלה, ויש חשש לפי ראות עיני ביה"ד פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, אם תהיה תקותה לקבלת גט למפח נפש. בהיות שזה שנים רבות יושבת בדד כבולה בחבלי העיגון. וכבר הבאנו (בסי' יח אות יג) דברי הגאון מהר"ח פלאג'י דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציאה בגט. וע"ע בשו"ת חקקי לב (חאה"ע סי' נז דק"ה ע"א), שהביא מ"ש בשו"ת מהרשד"ם (סי' נז), ומשאת בנימין (סי' מד), שיש להקל הרבה בעיגונא דאיתתא כדי שלא יצאו בנות ישראל לתרבות רעה, ולא יבואו ח"ו להמיר דתם, ובפרט כשהאשה ילדה ורכה בשנים. ושכ"כ הרא"ם בתשו' (סי' לו), שאין לך שעה"ד גדול מזה להשאיר האשה עגונה כל ימיה, ובודאי דנפיק מינה חורבא, וכ"ש בזמנים הללו שבעוה"ר רבו הפרצות ונתמעטו הצנועות. ע"ש. וכיו"ב כתב הגרח"מ לבטון בשו"ת נכח השלחן (חאה"ע ס"ס יד). ע"ש. ובנ"ד הרי כמה פעמים התחננו אליו ממש חברי בית הדין (בהרכבים שונים משך שנים רבות), ובקשוהו בד

    ReplyDelete
  49. שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג - אבן העזר סימן כ

    ובקשוהו בדברי פיוס וריצוי שיואיל לפטרה בגט פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, והוא כמו פתן חרש יאטם אזנו, וגם לאחר החלטות ביה"ד לחייב את הבעל לגרש את אשתו (בחשבם אולי יקיים מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים (ב"ב מח), ובהסתמך גם על הפו' שכ' שאפי' להחולקים על הרמב"ם וס"ל שאין כופין במאיס עלי, מ"מ חייב לגרשה.) הבעל ממשיך בסירובו ונותן כתף סוררת לכל עצות והחלטות בית הדין. וכל דבריהם נשארו כקול קורא במדבר. וגם כשהאשה פקעה סבלנותה ואיימה בפני ביה"ד ובפניו שאם לא יגרשנה תצא לתרבות רעה, (ודברי התנצלותה לאחר זמן בפני ביה"ד ע"ז, נאמרו אך ורק ע"פ עצת עורך - הדין שלה), וגם בעיני ביה"ד נראה ברור שאין זה בבחינת גזים איניש ולא עביד, אלא קיים חשש מבוסס שאמנם אם ימשך מצב ביש זה לבלי סוף תצא האשה לתרבות רעה. ואין כל סיכויים שהאשה תסכים אי פעם לשוב ולחיות עם הבעל הזה, ולמרות מאמצים גדולים בדברי פיוס ברצי כסף ותחנות ובקשות חוזרות ונשנות פעמים אין מספר לאמר: הבעל עננו! ואין קול ואין עונה ואין קשב. ובדברים לא יוסר עבד. ובצירוף כל הסברות הנ"ל פסקנו בכח ב"ד יפה להלכה ולמעשה לכוף את הבעל לגרש עד שיאמר רוצה אני, ולזה הסכים גם ראש בית דיננו הגאון הגדול מהר"ר ראובן כץ שליט"א (הרב הראשי ואב"ד פה פתח תקוה), ובהיות שהבעל הקשה את ערפו ואמץ את לבבו ולא אבה לגרש גם לאחר פסק הדין דקמן, נלקח אל בית הסוהר ע"י השלטונות בכדי להכריחו לציית לביה"ד, ולאחר שבתו בביה"ס ימים אחדים, הסכים לגרש את אשתו, והגט סודר על ידינו בס"ד במותב תלתא כחדא ביום א' מנחם אב תשי"ט פה פתח תקוה ת"ו, לאחר ביטול מודעות וכו' וכנהוג. והותרה האשה להנשא לכל גבר די תצבי חוץ מכהן. והשי"ת יצילנו משגיאות ומתורתו יראנו נפלאות ויאיר עינינו בתורתו הקדושה אמן. עובדיה יוסף ס"ט

    ReplyDelete
  50. The above psak of Rav Obvadia Yosef is not so simple. It involved a young bride - she was 14 years old who was forced into marriage with an older man. She ran away from him. So you have a combination of factors - 1) She is from Yemen where they poskened like the Rambam that beis din can force a divorce if the wife find husband disgusting 2) She was forced to marry and many are lenient in such a case 3) there is the concern that she will go off the derech if she doesn't get a divorce. 4) other factors which are enumerated in the teshuva

    Anyway it is a very long teshuva and doesn't simply say that a beis din can force a man to divorce his wife if she doesn't like him or if they already have a civil divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  51. שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ג סימן מד

    בעובדא שהבעל השיב שנותן הגט מחמת הסעטעלמענט והסעטעלמענט נעשה בערכאות איך דינו ער"ח אדר הראשון תשכ"ה. מע"כ ידידי הרב הגאון המפורסם מוהר"ר אשר אבראמסאן שליט"א הגאב"ד סידני אוסטרליא.

    בדבר הבעל שהיה מכה באכזריות כמה פעמים את אשתו ועשו סעטעלמענט שהוא הסכם בערכאות וכתבו שם גם שצריך לפוטרה ולהתירה לעלמא גם בדיני דת ישראל, וכאשר הב"ד חששו שישתמט מליתן גט פטורין קראו אותו אל הב"ד והסבירו לו איך שהגט הוא טובה גדולה גם לפניו להתירו מהעיגון שע"י חרם דרגמ"ה וגם שהוא לטובת הילדים ונתרצה ליתן הגט ובא בעצמו להזמן שקבעו לו הב"ד לכתוב הגט, וכאשר שאלו כתר"ה בהתחלת סדור הגט אתה פב"פ רוצה ליתן גט לאשתך פב"פ מרצונך הטוב בלי שום אונס ותנאי, ושאל לו כתר"ה זה בלשון אנגלית המדובר שאמר לו בתרגום מרצונך הטוב אם הוא נותן פרי וויל, והשיב שהוא נותן מצד הסעטעלמענט בלא שום אונס ובלא תנאי אבל זה לא נקרא באי איי אאון פרי וויל. ושאל אותו כתר"ה וכי לא היית מגרשה בעצמך בלא הסעטעלמענט אחרי הפרוד בערכאות, והשיב שהיה מגרשה גם בעצמו אבל יכול להיות שהיה דורש איזה סידורים בקשר לחינוך הילדים ואחר זה סידר כתר"ה את הגט בבטול מודעות בדעתו להתיישב בדבר כשרותו, והספק של כתר"ה אם זה נחשב אונס משום דאם לא יתן גט כפי הסעטעלמענט יכריחוהו הערכאות וירא מזה, או מכיון שלא אמר שמוכרח ליתן הגט בשביל יראת הערכאות אלא מצד הקאנסענט שפירושו הסכם נוטה פירוש דבריו שאף הסכם בעלמא שלא היה ירא לעבור נמי היה מקיים רק שאינו מצד רצון עצמו ממש, שזה קורא פרי וויל, אלא מפני שהשפיעו עליו שיסכים הוא רוצה לקיים הסכמתו וליתן הגט שזה נחשב רצון לכשרות הגט דמה לנו אם רוצה מעצמו מחמת שנאתו לה או מחמת השפעת אחרים. וגם צריך להוסיף שפשוט בנותן הגט מחמת שאינו רוצה לעבור על דבריו שאמר שיתן נמי שפיר דמי גם לכתחלה, דרק בשבועה ונדר נוהגין להחמיר לכתחלה משום שדומה לאונס, ובדיעבד או שהוא נדר שאין יכולין להתירו כגון נזירות שמשון הא איתא בסימן קנ"ד סעיף כ"ד שמותר לגרש, ורק שטוב לגרשה בשני גיטין, אבל בהבטחה בעלמא שרשאי לחזור מדבריו אף אם טבעו שלא לחזור ואף אם עושה מצד שחושב זה למדה טובה שלא לחזור אין זה אונס ומגרש לכתחלה. ונמצא שמה שאמר שעושה מצד הקאנסענט לא היה זה אונס, ורק מה שהקאנסענט נעשה בערכאות אם עשו איזה עונש שבאם לא יגרש יאסרוהו במאסר או יקנסוהו בממון רב שהוא אונס, שיש לחוש שמא בשביל מוראו מהמאסר והקנס נותן הגט.

    ReplyDelete
  52. שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ג סימן מד

    הנכון לע"ד דכיון דחזינן שלא היה ירא לומר האמת שבלבו כדי לרמות הב"ד ויכתבו הגט אף שהוא אנוס מצד יראתו מהערכאות, דאם היה ירא ורוצה לרמות היה אומר בתשובתו על השאלה אם רוצה ליתן הגט, שהוא רוצה בלב שלם ולמסור מודעא אם יודע הדין, ואם טועה לומר שגם באונס מגורשת ולכן לא חשש לומר שנותן הגט שלא ברצון שאין צורך לו לרמות כיון שיהיה כשר לדעתו, נמי היה לו לומר שנותן הגט מפני יראת העונש דערכאות, ואם יודע שבאונס אינה מגורשת ואינו יודע מעצה דמסירת מודעא ולכן אמר להב"ד שמאונס מגרשה הרי ודאי היה לו לומר שיש לו אונס מערכאות, ולמה הזכיר רק מחמת הסעטעלמענט שזה עצמו אינו אונס. אלא משמע שכן הוא האמת שלא מחמת היראה נותן, אלא משום שכן היה ההסכם מחמת שהיא רוצה דוקא בגירושין, שלכן אף שהוא לא היה רוצה בעצם לגרשה נתרצה מחמת שיודע שהיא לא תסכים לסעטעלמענט אחר ולשוב אליו, שזה נחשב רצון גמור לגירושין. וזה משמע בכוונת דבריו יותר. ואף אם אולי יש קצת להסתפק שמא הוא מחמת יראתו מהערכאות, דאף שלא הזכיר זה אולי חשב שיבינו מזה שאמר שבשביל הקאנסענט נותן הגט שהוא מיראת הערכאות מאחר שיודעין שנעשה בערכאות, יש לסמוך על ההוכחה ממה שבא לב"ד ליתן הגט בזמן שקבעו אף שהיה יכול להשתמט עדיין זמן רב עד שיביאוהו לערכאות לכופו כדכתב כתר"ה, דניכר מזה שהבין מה שהסבירו לו הב"ד שהגט נחוץ לו גם בשביל עצמו שלא יהיה עליו חדר"ג ויוכל לישא אשה אחרת כיון שאשתו זו הלכה מאתו ולא תשוב אליו אף שלא יגרשנה וקבל דבריהם שטוב לו ונתרצה ברצון גמור ליתן הגט, שעל ספק קטן כזה יש להכריע בהוכחה זו שלא היתה כוונתו לומר שהוא אנוס.

    וגם הא השיב בעצמו שזהו כוונתו דהרי השיב על השאלה אם מסכים ליתן גט לאשתו בלי שום אונס ותנאי, כן איי קאנסענט טו גיוו אגט טו מאי ווייף פב"פ וואיטאאוט עני קאמפאלשאן אר קאנדישאנס, שפירושו כפי שתרגמו לי שנותן הגט מצד הסכם הסעטעלמענט בלא שום אונס ובלא תנאי, הרי הסביר בעצמו שאין לו שום אונס אך גם לא מרצונו הטוב אלא מצד ההסכם נותן הגט, שרצון כזה סגי לכשרות הגט, ואין לנו לחוש להערמה שמשקר להב"ד מצד היראה דהיה לו לומר שנותן מרצונו הטוב כדכתבתי לעיל. ולכן יש להכשיר הגט.

    ReplyDelete
  53. שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ג סימן מד

    והנה יש עוד טעם גדול להתיר בעובדא זו אף אם היה באונס, דהא על מה ששאל אותו כתר"ה וכי לא היית מגרשה בעצמך בלא הסעטעלמענט אחרי הפרוד בערכאות, השיב שהיה מגרשה גם בעצמו אבל יכול להיות שהיה דורש איזה סדורים בקשר לחינוך הילדים, הרי נמצא שבעצם הגירושין הוא רוצה ממש בעצמו רק שהיה רוצה להשיג בעד הגירושין איזה דבר בענין חינוך הילדים ובשביל הסעטעלמענט אינו מבקש זה ונותן הגט בלא זה, שבאופן זה אף אם הסעטעלמענט נימא שהוא אנוס ואף בכפיה ממש, נמצא שאין הכפיה על רצון הגירושין, אלא שהגירושין לא יהיו למשכון להשיג איזה דבר ממנה, שיש טעם גדול שאין לזה דין אונס לפסול הגט, דהא כתבו התוס' ב"ב דף מ"ח ד"ה קדיש בטעם שגט לא חשיב זביני מה שהבעל נפטר משאר כסות ועונה משום שהיה נותנם ברצון ולא היה מגרשה, ומטעם זה פסול גט המעושה שלא כדין וע"י עכו"ם אף בכדין, ורק אם הוא מחוייב לגרש הוי זה עצמו כמו מכר כדאיתא שם בתוס' ד"ה אילימא וד"ה ד"ת עיין שם, וא"כ הוא שייך ברוצה שתהיה אשתו שהשאר כסות ועונה ועוד יותר מזה היה נותן שתהיה אשתו, וגם הא יצטרך ליקח אשה אחרת שג"כ יתחייב לה בשאר כסות ועונה וכל הענינים. וזהו כוונת השט"מ בשם הרשב"א דשאר כסות ועונה לא חשבינן להו בהא לכלום ולכן פסול בגט מעושה שלא כדין, דזהו גופיה הטעם שלא נחשב לאדם דבר זה לריוח במה שע"י הגירושין יפטר מזה דהא אדרבה רוצה כל אדם שתהיה לו אשה ולהתחייב לה זה. אבל באינו רוצה בה לאשה או שיודע שלא תהיה אצלו כאשה, שבשביל זה רוצה בעצם לגרשה רק שמחמת שהיא צריכה הגט רוצה להשיג ממנה איזה דבר, הוא רק כבית ושדה שאינו רוצה למכור בסך שנותן לו הלוקח משום שהשדה עדיף לו מהמעות שנותן לו או מפני שרוצה ליתן לו יותר משויה, שכל הענין הוא רק ענין ממון שע"ז הא אר"ה דתליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני כיון שעכ"פ משלם לו השיוי גמר ומקני אגב אונסיה. וא"כ גם בגט כה"ג שנעשה רק ענין משכון לממון נמי יש לומר אגב אונסיה גמר ומקני דמה שנפטר משאר וכסות וגם עוד דברים כהא דכל זמן שאגוד בזו לא יוכל לישא אחרת לבד האיסור דחרם רגמ"ה, ועוד כמה דברים יש שלא טוב לאדם שתהיה אשה אגודה ביה כשאין לו הנאת אישות ממנה שלכן יש מקום להכשיר אף אונס דשלא כדין ושל עכו"ם. אבל אף שהיא סברא גדולה אין לסמוך ע"ז לבד, אבל לצרף זה לעוד טעם ודאי היא סברא גדולה לצרף. ועיקר מה שיש להתיר הוא מטעם דלעיל דחזינן כוונתו שניתן ברצון אף שהוא בשביל קיום הסעטעלמענט. והנני ידידו מוקירו, משה פיינשטיין

    ReplyDelete
  54. A man who grants a civil divorce has declared an intent to violate his chiyuv onah, and thus kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani.

    As long as the social pressure originates from a beis din, and not vigilantes acting on their own.

    micha please keep these posts for 20 days time, april fools. as i posted previously, you are not motivated by the torah but by american feminism.

    why else do you not focus on the issur arko'oys and mesirah which is a problem 100 fold over the alleged agunah problem which so consumes you.

    as for your disrespect of rabbi eidensohn, who is merely following halochoh, your behavior is to be condemned.

    here are some facts about the allegedly impressive list of thugs on friedman's fake siruv.



    http://www.israel613.com/DINTORAH2.htm

    http://www.israel613.com/books/DINTORA_BELSKY_YSH-E.pdf belsky


    http://www.israel613.com/books/DIN_TORAH_GET_KEDUSHAT_LEVI.pdf on wohlmark i think

    http://www.israel613.com/books/DIN_TORAH_KEDUSHAT_LEVI_KOLKORE.pdf

    http://www.israel613.com/books/DINTORAH_NEGED_BORERIM.pdf issur and corruption of ZABLA bizman hazeh

    http://www.israel613.com/books/DINTORAH_KOLKORE_SHUMUSHAMAIM.pdf on belsky being mattir an eishes ish

    http://www.israel613.com/books/DINTORAH_BEWARE_DANGER.CV.pdf ralbag


    etc, etc, etc

    DO T'SHUVA ALREADY PLEASE. THESE RE'SHOIM ARE GOING TO BURN.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Stan,

    If you want to limit the conversation to what's on topic, stop talking about who is a purported rasha, or whether or not going to arkaos is mutar.

    This couple went to arkaos. If it was not called for in their case (and it rarely is) then that was a halachic problem. It's a little to late to worry about that though.

    What currently exists is a man who refuses his chiyuv onah and won't give a gett. Yes, she said ma'us alai first, but that doesn't make it any more permissable not to give a get, not remove beis din's obligation to compell such a man to give a gett. If a woman becomes an outright moredes, the man can't refuse to give her a gett in this situation. (Although she would forfeit her kesuvah.)

    That's the topic. Apparently, Stan, you have a prepared speech about assimilation and its expression in over-use of secular courts and adoption of feminism. Aside from the issurim of wrongly accusing numerous people, never mind rashei yeshiva and noted posqim (and you're worried about my accusing R' Dovid Eidensohn of doing the same?), aside from name calling being a violation of the laws of tokhachah, it's simply not the question before us. I'm sorry if you are frustrated by my ignoring your prepared topic in my attempt to stick to that question.

    I also question whether it's mutar to visit the comment section of this blog, or if it violates the first pasuq of Tehillim.

    Yes, our host could clamp down on the sophomoric name calling in moderation. But sweeping the leitzanus under the rug doesn't change the number of leitzim in this "moshav".

    Frankly I think it does more damage to your own credibility than harm me any. Any third party reading the exchange will see one side trying to stick on topic, and another calling him and numerous other people names and making unsupported accusations. It removes any aura of rationality from your side of the debate. As our host noted, it is counterproductive to your own goals.

    IIRC, it was R' Chaim Brisker who spoke of the difference of the housewife's and the cat's desire to get rid of a mouse found in their home. The cat also wants to get rid of the mouse, but unlike her owner, she eagerly awaits the next one.

    I mention this to open the question of whether the current topic set of this blog is actually serving the purpose for which our host was asked to choose it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. One of the many falsehoods being spread by Ora about the case and that
    has been repeated by at least one poster on this blog is that Aharon
    filed for divorce in civil court. Aharon never filed for divorce in
    any forum. It was Tamar who filed for divorce in civil court

    for all the details in this case with documents to back them up go to:
    http://aharonfriedmantamarepstein.blogspot.com/ and
    http://stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  57. I missed who said who filed for divorce. But I fail to see relevancy. The question isn't the civil divorce, but the impossibility of qiddushin after the damage was done.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mrs. Friedman is clearly a MOREDES who abandoned her husband and absconded with the couple's child to another state. Therefore by making the bogus claim that the Friedman case involves "a man who refuses his chiyuv onah", Micha demonstrates the ignorance of HALACHA, intellectual dishonesty, and moral bankruptcy of the YU / ORA feminist reformadox militants he represents.

    In ORA's feminist "religion", the concept of a MOREDES simply does not exist, and women are never held accountable for their actions. According to YU / ORA's perverse reformadox "HALACHA", any time a Jewish wife is a MOREDES and separates from her husband (for example abandoning her husband or sueing her husband in court), the husband is immediately obligated to give a Get. This is an utter perversion of HALACHA.

    Do not be deceived by Micha's deceptive photo suggesting he's a CHAREIDI. Micha is part and parcel of the YU / ORA feminist movement which aims to uproot halachic Judaism and replace it with a perverse feminist "religion" contrary to Torah. ORA feminist activists continually misquote, falsify, and obfuscate HALACHA to an unsuspecting Jewish public, in an effort to justify supporting Jewish women to obtain anything they demand in divorce settlements, regardless of HALACHA, while forcing PASUL GITTIN from the women's harassed, terrorized, and slandered husbands.

    Herschel Schachter is the political boss of the wicked, corrupt, reform Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, which is leading the lynch mob against Mr. Friedman and many other decent Jewish men. Mr. Friedman did not appear before a Bais Din convened by feminist ORA Boss Herschel Schachter, and Mr. Friedman has no obligation to obey Schachter's dictates.

    Herschel Schachter was put in cherem by a Monsey Bais Din - see http://rabbischachter.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  59. micha there is nothing purported about who you are. you are what you
    are. I wouldn't put you in the rosho category at all, because you
    clearly know squat about halochoh so there is a general term called am
    ho'oretz but i will not call you that out of deference to the request
    of the host of the sight. you are the one with the so-called garbage
    agunah lie and elevator pitch about oyno which is so totally
    irrelevant, it is pathetic since it is clearly a buzz word that you
    have picked up upon. just as quick background:

    1) tamar moved out and so any oynoo problem is her own fault. it is
    not aharon who is the problem here but tamar. a moyredes does not get
    a reward despite your ignorance which is clearly telling here.
    2)the court being concluded has less than zero basis in halochoh so
    using this as grounds for a get is nonsence.
    3) this woman is a classic moyredes, oyveres al das and moyseres and
    is entitled to the following al pi halochoh, paying her husband's
    legal fees, begging for t'shuva and before that even if aharon gives
    her a get, it is ossur for any yid to marry her al pi halochoh as per
    the kol koreh of rav menashe klein, the beirach moshe, the skulener,
    rav shmuel birnbaum and many others zichronom livrocho.

    you know zero about halochoh, cf your previous calls for "contemporary
    poskim" as if the torah changed and why the rashbo etc is not good
    enough only you and those you associate with can know. furthermore
    your requests for where exactly in the 5 poskim listed by rav
    eidensohn, the relevant p'sakim are found again illustrates nay
    highlights your ignorance.

    For the record I never initiated calling Belsky, Wohlmark, Ralbag and
    Schachter reshoim. The first 3 rav elyashiv paskened because of their
    blatant and repeated corruption their gittin are posul. i am merely
    relaying what was said. and you should look at the links where the
    opinions of the gedolim on these ra bonim are given with halachik
    reasons. only an anti-thinker, shoots the messanger not the message.

    most gedolim have never even heard of herschel schlachter. he is a kal
    she'bekalim, and his conversion of ivanka, presumably for $$$, because
    there is no other reason for this conversion, when she openly still
    celebrates xmas, and is mechalel shabbos and eats treif be'farhesyah
    says it all. unfortunately in
    america, an odom godol, rav gestetner, has had to waste his precious
    time writing a letter of cheirem against schlachter when he has far
    better things to do.

    that sammy kamenetsky puts his name torgether with these ra bonim, he
    will have to answer in shomayim for. his father who stood for emes
    must be turning in his kever.

    if you really want contemporary poskim, look at what rav menashe klein
    says about these women. that they are so wicked, the cheirem of
    rabbeinu gershom was never instituted to hurt innocent men from them.

    that you have no concern for the fact that tamar ran off with the
    child to a different state, against halochoh exposes what you stand
    for. feminism against the torah.

    micha i really feel bad for you. what is your interest in tamar? are
    you in a relationship with her? do the $$$ impress you?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Lemaaseh, recent shu"t do conclude "kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani" after a civil divorce, regardless of the grounds of divorce.

    Rav Moshe, whose opinion SHOULD NEVER be marginalized when speaking of pesaq in the US, is not a daas yachid anyway.

    You aren't arguing with me personally. You are bringing up tangential issues (anything BUT the scope of when kofin oso) in order to somehow "prove" that the vast majority of poseqim are corrupt and intentionally violating halakhah. It's not a tenable position.

    ReplyDelete
  61. BTW, why are you so sure a man may refuse to divorce his wife the moredes in all situations? Even if assuming those were, indeed, the facts of the case. (I have no idea where reality sits between the "he says" and "she says".)

    As I said, it's tangential.

    ReplyDelete
  62. micha, you need to absorb what I have been forced to boringly repeat for your benefit several times. A fake siruv issued by biryonim whom the gedolim in eretz yisroel have told to stay away from gittin because they are corrupt is far from tangential. perhaps it is to you but to those who follow shulchan oruch, it is not only not tangential but a very integral part of the halochoh.

    you don't find them corrupt because you are a feminist with the halachik ramifications of someone with hashkofos of kefirah applying to you. again, this is not name calling merely stating a fact.

    once again you have totally misundersttod reb moshe's position. reb moshe wrote in the case quoted about a man who agreed to a settlement le'achar ha'maaseh as to whether the get is kasher or not. he never wrote that in a case where a woman is an oyveres al das, a moyredes and a moyeseres that ONE IS CHAYAV LE'GARSHO. He would not do so because this would chas ve'sholom kae him a sonei the rinoyno shel oylom. so please, your interpretation abilities of halochoh are non existent.

    again read the t'shuvas of contemprary poskim like hago'on hatzaddik kevoyd kedushas admor mi'ungvar rav menashe klein a holocast and camp survivor, so unless you are accusing him of being callous or heartless, you need to face reality.

    read the p'sakim of rav elyashiv, rav nosson of le'horos nosson, rav wosner etc.

    if the facts according to you are tangential, you do not belong in a forum arguing halochoh. but in a vieba online coffee bar arguing about feelings. chas ve'sholom that you should demand a man losing his job, being me'vayesh him be'rabim etc and ignoring the facts.

    As I said previously you are not worthy of my contempt. micha, you are out of your league here. you are dealing with talmidei chachomim, deep thinkers with PhD's, Ivy League graduates, graduates of Mir and other Ivy League yeshivas. You are getting slaughtered. Have rachmonos on yourself and keep quiet already.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Some more facts. How much shaichos with Rav Moshe's family do you Rav Eidensohn still have? They have a chiyuv to stop keeping quiet and expose the truth.

    The truth is that Rav Ruevein feinstein's grandson, Rav Osher Yosef Weiss' (brother of Rav NMoshe Meir Weiss) son, Avrohom has gone to the Bais Din of Rav Gestetner because he is involved with a wicked woman like Tamar.

    Now micha are you accusing Rav Moshe's son of allowing a man to make his grandson break halocho and make a woman an agunah? Why did Rav Dovid feinstein a member of the moetzes keep quiet if his great nephew is breaking halochoh? Because he is not. Despite all the propoganda out there, the feinstein's know that other botei din are corrupt and have gone for the real stuff. the wife is in arko'oys and a mar'sha'as and is entitled to nothing al pi halochoh.

    Rav Gestetner who has had his name smeared in the most despicable fashion has refused to publicize the fact that now the feinstein's are using him out of deference to the feinstein's.

    I however refuse to keep quiet. i found out about this case and rav gestetner's involvement from a very different source and not from rav gestetner. I will keep on publicizing the fact. I judge by action not words. The feinstein's are in the camp of halochoh no matter how you feminsits try to distort rav moshe's opinion.

    I urge all those who have influence with the Feinstein's to influence them to stop keeping quiet but to publicize the fact that they are upholding halochoh and preventing a woman in arko'oys from gettting her wicked way. maybe in this case, we can start getting the pendulum to swing just a bit away from the feminists.

    Please micha now go organize a protest outside the corrupt agudah and tell them they are not listening to your idiotic feminist nonsence. they claim not to recognize the bais din of rav gestetner because it is anti feminist. then the logical conclusion is that rav ruevein feinstein's grandson is wrong and pressure must be placed on the family or the agudah must take action against the family.

    Get some help micha - you are pathetic.

    is this little secret also tangential?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Lastly and regarding your ta'ayneh of koyfin oyso ad she'omer rotze ani, we have never paskened like the rambam regarding this.

    however, once again, you show utter ignorance and an inability to think. this ruling was based on the se'voroh that really the man wants to do the right thing and do a mitzvah but his yetzer horo prevents him from doing it soi we encourage him to ignore his yetzer horo and do what he really want to do which is follow the halochoh.

    so cealrly, even according to the rambam, this ruling ONLY applies when there is a mitzvah to be me'garesh her.

    In a case where there is no chiyuv to be me'garesh her, the rambam agrees that kefiah does not work.

    Please explain to me why there is a chiyuv to be me'garesh her. The tangential fact that no bais din has ruled that he is chayav le'garsha.

    yes i know you claim beslky, wohlmark, schlachter, ralbag. this in all probability proves he is not only not chayav le'garsha but it is ossur for him to be me'garesh her.

    I claim Rav Elyashiv, Rav Nosson Gestetner, Rav Menashe Klein.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Stan,

    You directly insult tens of rabbanim, and then turn around and tell some maaseh that you twist into accusing me of insulting someone? Is that rational?

    Second, I know nothing about the story. I don't know the parties and which options they refuse to consider. I don't know details of the fight that led to the divorce. All I have is the say-so of someone who is both an outsider and shows no respect for posqim. Pardon me if I don't care whether your story plus what I reported as accepted peshat mean you don't understand why R' Reuvein is doing what he is -- even assuming the nephew cares what his uncle holds. But that's not insulting anyone.

    (BTW, do you not eat OU food or any food from a hechsher that allows OU ingredients? You were motzi laaz on both of the OU's posqim, so how do you accord them neemanus?)

    How about actually discussing the sources, the pesaqim involved? What's pathetic about me is that I respond to your uninformed mud slinging.

    - R' Micha Berger
    (anonymity is for people who want to say things they wouldn't stand behind)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Also, IM 4:110.

    Which is quoted in Teshuvos veHanhagos 1:781.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Reply to Micha's question - "why are you so sure a man may refuse to divorce his wife the moredes in all situations?"

    Micha, your YU handlers have evidently not explained to you basic concepts in Jewish divorce law. Evidently the concepts of MOREDES and MOSERES are quite foreign to the YU / ORA mentality.

    If a Jewish wife flees with the couple's child and then obtains court orders in ARCHAOS, her husband has the right AL PI HALACHA to demand that the wife nullify the court orders, return the child to the father's town, and compensate the father for his damages. Only then may the Bais Din rule on whether or not the wife is entitled to a GET.

    Since apparently Tamar Epstein refuses to return the child to the father's city, and refuses to nullify the court orders, she therefore cannot have the status of an AGUNA. On the contrary, she is M'AGEN herself, and labeling her an "AGUNA" is fraudulent. The community has no right to persecute Mr. Friedman due to his wife's actions in violation of HALACHA.

    Normative HALACHA served us fine for thousands of years before the onslaught of feminism. The feminist halachic deviations of the YU / ORA activists is a primary cause for many of the prolonged Jewish divorce conflicts occurring. If ORA and their supporters would stay out of Jewish divorce cases and allow HALACHA compliant, non-feminist Chareidi rabbanim to manage these cases, a lot more Jewish women would obtain kosher GITTIN.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Emes LYaakov", which of my "YU Handlers" would that be -- R' Nisan Alpert or R' Dovid Lifshitz?

    After you wash your mouth out with soap, both rabbeim are conveniently buried on Har haZeisim, if you wish to ask mechilah.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Micha you obviously suffer from ADHD. I "insulted" tens of rabbonim. I told you that the gedolim do not hold of 4 rabbonim who are corrupt and provided you with a whole list of documents to verify thjat it is not me who doesn't hold of them but the gedolim. Which part is too hard to understand? Address the documentation and contact the gedolim who are still alive as to why they have made him into the ofor vo'eyfer he is? Address the issue, don't go tangential, quote unquote.

    Once again, address why many of the gedolim told belsky the thug to stay away from gittin, the kashu rov told him to stop distorting halocho and rav shlomo miller made him look like an am ho'oretz with his mafkiah kiddushin for a million quid.

    Ask the victims of Belsky's corruption for mechila. ask him how he can be involved in beating yidden up?You are mo'us olai ve'al gans klal yisroel.

    explain how schlachter converted ivsnka. stick to the facts not the tangential callings of you wishing to mekarev yourself to who knows how many women.

    (anonymity is for people who wish to avoid being harassed at work and shul by the scum of the earth ORA thugs when we simply point out that these biryonim are the gilgulim of the biryonim who destroyed the 2nd bais mikdash).

    ReplyDelete
  70. micha where did you learn? let's speak to your rabbaim to find out how much you know?

    what is your secular education because boy if you had been in my courses on logic even for freshman courrses i would have to admit you would be the eakest student i ever had over the years?

    micha i can guarantee you that the people who oppose your views are far smarter than you. you habve quoted a rambam which is completely shelo k'hilcheso, which does not apply here, and quoted rav ovadiah when you are not sefardi. do you keep one day when you go to eretz yisroel? you probably keep no days anyway with the hashkofos you have.

    ReplyDelete
  71. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/03/campaign-to-get-epstein-get-heats-up.html

    see above for an update

    ReplyDelete
  72. Baruch HaShem! Thank you. It is unbelievable that this paper really accepted our side, a miracle. Thank you. The world is not hefker.

    http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=16807

    Your loving brother,

    Dovid

    ReplyDelete
  73. Micha can you explain why the man is wrong in all situations? Do you see ORA taking on a mans defense against a woman??? Can you with 100% certainty claim that every man listed on Ora's website or the Jewish press "most wanted list" is truly guilty? I know for a fact that several men are innocent but political expedience has gotten in the way! That makes Herschel Schlechter, Belsky, Ralbag and many more guilty of Motzi Shem Ra or worse. So how can you trust them in any of these cases????? All you have to do is look for a case where the woman went to Civil Court without first taking her husband to Bais Din and that would make her a violator of Halocho, yet these rabbis support their actions and are silent!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  74. It isn't about right vs wrong.

    It is about whether someone can fulfill the definition of a husband after a civil divorce.

    But this discussion began with a siruv, because the guy isn't responding to a call by beis din. Nor even proposing an alternative beis din. Society can't continue if you allow people to simply ignore the courts. Even if many people are convinced you're in the right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does anyone know what the outstanding issues are at this point? Is it simply that the husband wants a better deal in child visitation rights or is that he feels that he has been so badly mistreated by his wife that he is getting revenge by not giving a get? Or is it that neither side feels that there is an honest broker that they trust?

      Delete
  75. yes in divorce problem main effect on the child because children see disputes and many problem in our parents then if you link how relieve this problem then link here גירושין

    ReplyDelete
  76. The Yaskil Avdei actually brings two cases similar to this, the first is a rather long one in Yaskil Avdei Even HaEzer 2:8 and the other is ad loc 6:17. In both cases he says that the B"D can "force" the get by requiring the husband to pay increasing amounts of support for his wife and child(ren). He states that as long as that support remains within the bounds of halakha(כפי הדין) you are not actually forcing him to give a Get because as long as he is married to her he is liable al pi halakha for her support and that of the child.

    All of this is assuming that was no abuse(of either the wife or the children) going on in the marriage. In the latter case he state ad loc 6:15 et alibi that we assur the wife to him and then can force him as in any case of a man married to a woman that assur to him.

    ReplyDelete

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