R' Taubers evaluation of Kedushas Levi Beis Din

Old Siruv against Rav Herschel Schachter

Rav Yosef: Forced Get for Ma'us alei - sometimes

translation - click here

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 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

Does Rav Schachter permit beatings?! 3 tapes

Guest Post Yitzy HillelApr 29, 2012 10:27 PM

 

For all those who haven't listened to Rabbi Schachters 3 shiurim on Agunot on yutorah.com, I will briefly summarize them.

1) In his shiur called "Options for Agunahs" listen from 10-14 minutes. He does state what Rav Dovid Eidonsohn Shlitta has claimed and says that in 99% of the cases today where marriages are broken and two are no longer living together of course we can be kofin oso bshotin (use force with sticks!!!) Listen for yourself minute 13 to be exact: He brings down 3 categories and says almost all cases today are in the category of kofin oso bshottim. (He doesn't tell people to go do it but he says the cases fall into the category where physical force is permitted)

2), In the "Plight of Agunah" shiur, Rabbi Schachter clearly explains that force CAN NOT BE USED (minute 50-101 to be exact). He states clearly in minute 52 (WE DON"T EVEN DO THE HARCHAKAS OF R'TAM today like the Gevoras Anishim of Schach quoted by Pischa Teshuva 154:21) then he says in the end we just humiliate which is a much lesser pressure then cutting the guy off financially. He states we are machmir for (the gevoras anashim the shach). In minute 58 he says if we can't solve this issue we may have to go back to the takanas of the geonim (and the shitta of the Rambam) where forcing with actual violence is permitted in cases of meus alai if we have no choice...

In his most recent 2012 shiur ("Fighting the Agunah Crises" minute 23 to exact)), Rabbi Schachter claims that today we are actually following the harchakas of R'tam and bases the actions of the ORA on Chacham Ovadias teshuvot. He mentions that R' Tam held that one can't use force but could humiliate the husband, and He says that is what he relies upon today)

In Summary: (Please listen to the shiurim yourselves and you will find that Rabbi Schachter says 3 different approaches in all 3 shiurim.

1) todays cases are almost always where physical force can be used because the couple is no longer living together. (He doesn't say to do it but he says the cases fall into the category in Shulchan Aruch where physical force can be used.

2) Today we DONT do the harchakas of R'tam and are machmir for the pitcha teshuva (shach) which says (according to Rabbi Schachter)to cut off the guy financially. He says we only humiliate which is much less from of pressure that doesn't invalidate a GET. He states if things get much worse we may have to use actual force like the Rambam's oppinion (but he never mentions to use actual violence)

3) He says we DO follow the harchakas of R'tam based upon Chacham Ovadia. In this shiur he calls humiliation as part of the harchakas of R'tam unlike shiur 2, and he doesn't state or imply any allowances of actual physical force.

Can someone please listen to his 3 shiurim (to save you time just listen to the minutes that I quoted above) and try to explain his shitta in a coherent manner. I personally feel the above 3 shiurim totally contradict themselves and am wondering if anyone can explain how the shiurim don't contradict each other.

Mamzerim from Forced Get in Ma'us Alei

Yachin uVoaz(1:124):[15th Century Algeria] You should know that there are two different types of moredes and they have different laws. There is a moredes who despises her husband and she asserts that he is disgusting to her. On the other hand there is a moredes who says she wants her husband but she wants to torment him In the case of ma'us alei the view of the Rambam is that the husband is forced to divorce her immediately and he learns this from a deduction from the gemora as the Rosh writes. The Rambam states in Hilchos Ishus  (14:8) that if a wife refuses sexual relations that the husband is forced to give a a get since she is not like a prisoner who can be forced to have relations with someone she hates. However there has long been an outcry against the ruling of the Rambam by all the commentators and poskim such as Rabbein Tam, Ramban, Rosh, Rashba and many others. They agree concerning forcing the husband to divorce. Whoever forces the husband to divorce in accordance to the ruling of the Rambam increases mamzerim in the world. And they reject the view of the Rambam with clear proofs from the Talmud as the Rosh does. And many proofs are brought to refute and reject the words of the Rambam. And even the Magid Mishna who normally devotes  himself in all places to justify the words of the Rambam and to firmly establish their validity with clear proofs - in this case he refutes the Rambam and goes into detail with proofs to contradict the Rambam's reasoning and to reject it. It is unnecessary to repeat them here. The halachic view that has become univeral is that one does not force the husband to give a get when she claim ma'us alei and we do not rely on the ruling of the Rambam nor others who agree with him in this matter. And furthermore that even if the halacha was in accord with the Rambam it would be correct to make a protective fence in this matter to prevent immorality amongst the woman because of the degradation of the contemporary generation. Because woman have become haughty and arrogant in their immorality. We are therefore concerned that a wife might have become interested in another man and she wants to disgard her husband by declaring he is disgusting to me (ma'us alei). If it became known that that would be sufficient to have her husband forced to give her a get then it would surely cause problems. But in fact the Rambam is not the halacha because of the proofs that the opponents of the Rambam bring [And even in Algeria where they always follow the Rambam there are three exceptions and this is one of them and not those who agree with the Rambam...]. However I saw in the Rosh who writes that if in fact the psak of the Rambam was followed and the woman was divorced by force and she remarried - we don't force her leave the second marriage. However many others disagree with the Rosh and they say that if she remarries after a forced get - she must leave the second marriage.

Jewish criminals shouldn't be jailed - Mishpacha Magazine

Mishpacha Magazine (April 4, 2012 p62): ... but does that give Rabbi Stein license to help Jews who have broken laws themselves? 'About 30 years ago, the Tosher Rebbe called me in the middle of the night," Rabbi Stein remembers. "He wanted me to get in touch at once with two top attorneys, Nat Lewin in Washington and AIan Dershowitz in Boston. 'But Rebbe,' I said, 'it's 2 a.m.!' He said, 'I want to teach you one thing, and keep this in mind always: a Yid vus zitz in tfisah ein sho iz ein sho tzi lang [A Jew who sits in jail one hour sits one hour too long] Prison is not a place for a Jew, and it doesn't matter, guilty or innocent.'

"There are many other ways to penalize someone who's deserving of punishment," continues Rabbi Stein, who is passionate about this controversial point. "For example, there are alternative sentencing programs, which are much more cost-effective, where the person is guided by counseling and is actually helped. Prison accomplishes one thing. It makes criminals out of everyone."

He says much of his efforts - for which he's never taken payment - involve finding the right attorney for someone who's in trouble The Beirach Moshe of Satmar once sent him to help a man who was awaiting sentencing for child abuse and other family-related crimes "The fellow wasn't too bright, and he had no idea how to protect himself. He had taken a divorce lawyer instead of a criminal lawyer," say. Rabbi Stein. "Lawyers are like doctors. You don't go to a podiatrist when you need open-heart surgery."

According to Rabbi Stein, the wife and her mother wanted to put the husband away and so they fabricated evidence and coached the daughter to give incriminating testimony. He discovered this after speaking to the involved parties, including teachers who denied ever filing the reports that had been submitted as evidence. “we found so many discrepancies that the DA agreed to reopen the case post-sentencing. But by the time we reopened the case, the child, her mother, and grandmother had fled the country and moved to Eretz Yisrael. We brought the teachers to testify that the documents were forgeries, and the judge said, 'Okay, now where are the plaintiffs?  The defense attorney said they couldn’t take the trauma so they left the country. The judge announced that if they didn’t come back in two weeks, he’d dismiss the case. Of course they didn’t come back, because the case was a fabrication - so the man was released. But he went to jail in the first place because he had the wrong lawyer.”

See the following regarding Rabbi Efraim Stein's efforts turned up by simple Google search
He is featured prominently on a number of anti-Semitic internet sites
Los Angeles Times 1997
Dror - Organization for Jewish Prisoners
Guilty plea to divert federal money
Jail for Rabbi Stein
Jail for Rabbi Stein

============================================
From my Child and Domestic Abuse Vol II
============================================

Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:12): “All those who disturb the community and cause it distress it is permitted to give them over to the secular government to be punished whether by beating, imprisonment or fines…”

Shevet HaLevi(4:124.3): Concerning a well known thief who has stolen from many people and has harmed the public and now he is begging to be released from jail. Is it properly to do that? … From all these sources we see that there is no concern at all to have him remain in jail in order that he not harm others since his life is not in danger there. The Chovas Yair (139) says there is only a concern when jail is actually life threatening… My opinion is that as long as there is no danger to his life by being in jail, there is no obligation to make any efforts to free such people…

Rav Moshe Halberstam(Yeschurun 15 page 651): An additional factor to what we have discussed is a question mentioned in Shevet HaLevi (4:124.3) whether it is appropriate to help free a well known thief who has begged that efforts be made to get him released from prison. Rav Wosner answers that since the thief’s life is not in danger by being in prison there is no obligation to make efforts to free people like this. In my opinion it is not only not an obligation to try and free a person in these circumstances but in fact one who tries to free a thief from prison is actually committing a sin. Who says that he won’t seek revenge for his imprisonment or at least return quickly to committing more crimes. Who can say that things will work out differently and that he will cease his crimes if he is freed?  Therefore it is prohibited to make efforts for him and to listen to his plea to be freed…

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Ve’aleyhi lo Yuval, volume 2:113-114 from R’ M Broyde’s Informing on other’s): R’ Yehuda Goldreicht said: “I asked Rav Auerbach about a particular Jew who stole a large sum of money and he was caught by the police in America. He was sentenced to a number of years in prison in America. Was it proper to assist in the collection of money for him [we were speaking about a large sum of $200,000] in order to fulfill the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim to have him released from prison? When Rav Auerbach heard this he stated “Pidyon shevuyim?! What is the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim here? The mitzvah of redeeming captives is only when the goyim are grabbing Jews, irrationally, for no proper reason, and placing them in prison. According to what I [Rav Auerbach] know, in America they do not irrationally grab Jews in order to squeeze money from them. The Torah says “do not steal” and he stole money—on the contrary, it is good that he serve a prison sentence, so that he learns not to steal!”

Supreme Court reaffirms psak of Rabbinic Court on Gerim

Haaretz

The High Court of Justice has affirmed the validity of thousands of conversions called into question by the Rabbinical Court of Appeals in 2008, but refused to discuss the rabbinical courts' authority to annul conversions in general. [...]

The women and various organizations that joined their petition thus asked the High Court to rule not only on their particular cases - which had already been resolved, since their Jewishness had since been affirmed by the Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court during a new hearing on their original cases - but on the rabbinical courts' authority to overturn conversions in general. This, however, the justices declined to do. Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, writing for the court, said the justices preferred not to intervene in this issue right now "out of hope that the buds of systemic change that have sprouted since the petition was filed [in 2008] will develop and bear fruit."  [...]

While Sherman's ruling was ostensibly based on Jewish law, it was also part of a broader power struggle between the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox ) community, represented by Sherman, and the religious Zionist community, represented by Druckman. The government originally set up the special courts headed by Druckman to circumvent the rabbinical courts' monopoly on conversions, because the Haredi-controlled rabbinical courts had adopted stringent requirements that were seen as deterring potential converts.

Rav Gestetner - Kuntrus on Get Meusa

Rav Gestetner - Kuntrus on Get Meusa

Procedural Summary of Epstein-Friedman matter

Procedural Summary2

Forcing a get - Unresolved issues & Rabbi Broyde

I want to express appreciation of Rabbi Michael Broyde for writing a defense of Rav Hershel Schacter's position as well as writing a clarification of that defense. I also want to thank Rabbi Gil Student for taking the initiative of asking Rabbi Broyde. Having spent many hours going through the volumes of Otzair Hapoksim dealing with this issue as well as researching the teshuvos directly - it has become clear that Rabbi Broyde is apparently the first one to try and answer the issues regarding contemporary society and the tactics of ORA - and publish the results.

 I have three choices,  1) Explain why Rabbi Broyde's explanation is inadequate or at least not convincing 2 ) Write my own teshuva concerning the use of force . 3) List the issues that have not been properly resolved and ask the poskim of our generation to establish the parameters in writing. The third option is more productive.

 =============================================

Concerning pressuring a husband to give a get when wife claims ma'us alei.

1)  What type of pressure is permitted? Harchokas Rabbeinu Tam? Simply labeling him an avaryan? Putting up wall posters? None?

2) Are ORA's demonstrations against the husband, his family or employer and stories in secular press - are they  permitted? Is this considered harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam?

3) Must a husband always be pressured after 12 months to give a get  -  if it is clear that the marriage is over - no matter what the reason is for the breakup - even if she went to secular court?

4) Can a beis din issue a seruv - when the husband refuses to show up - that states the husband must give a get and the public should pressure him to do so?

5) If the husband was pressured to give a get  - by ORA or Harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam  or beating - is the get valid and the wife remarry l'chatchila?

6) Can a husband withhold the get as a tactic to get money or custody in a case of ma'us alei.

7) Does it matter why the wife says ma'us alei concerning what pressure is permitted?

8) Should every woman have the right to a get simply because she thinks she can find someone better

9) Is there a moral obligation to give a get when the woman wants to end the marriage - or is it only because of concerns for mamzerim.

10) What can be done to control the use of the get for extortion - either for the husband or wife?

11) If the husband or wife refuses to go to beis din but go to secular court - should he/she be punished or penalized in some way?

12) In ma'us alei - does wife get kesuba? Does husband have to pay alimony or child support?

Rabbi Druckman's Conversions Upheld

Arutz 7

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Wednesday that conversions supervised by former national Conversion Court head Rabbi Haim Druckman are valid in the eyes of the State.

The ruling was in response to a 2009 decision to a panel of three judges on the Great Rabbinical Court which declared any conversion made by Rabbi Druckman was nullified.

Sexual pleasure & Tzadikim - Vayikra Rab (14:5)

Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor uKetziya O.C. 240) brings this medrash as the reason why a beracha is not said before sexual intercourse - since even tzadikim are focused on pleasure and not on doing a mitzva.

Vayikra(14:5): Another understanding of Vayikra (12:2), If a woman conceives and bears a male child...Dovid alluded to this understanding in Tehilim (51:7), Behold I was formed in sin and in sin my mother conceived me. Rav Acha explained, Even if a person is the most pious of the pious – it is impossible that he doesn’t have an aspect of sin in him. Dovid said to G‑d, “Master of the Universe, did my father Yishai have the intention to bring me into the world – when he had intercourse with my mother. The fact is that he was only thinking about his own sexual enjoyment.The proof for my assertion is that after they both had satisfied their desires he turned his face in one direction and she turned her face in the opposite direction. And it was only You who caused every single drop of semen to enter.” This assertion is alluded to by Dovid in (Tehilim 27:10), For though my father and my mother deserted me, G‑d did gather me in.

R' Broyde's Coerced Get & Protesting - a critique

Some Thoughts on Rabbi Michael J Broyde's Article on a Coerced GET and Protesting When a Man Withholds a Jewish Divorce

by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Rabbi Broyde's article about protesting to help Agunahs is filled with errors, which I display here. It is part and parcel of the new Torah emanating from the modern YU rabbis. Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz, head of BDA Beth Din, sent away a couple seeking a GET with no GET by annuling their marriage on the grounds of a ridiculous claim of MEKACH TAOSE when after I spoke to him I am convinced he had no grounds for that. Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva at YU and major posek for the OU, invented a new Torah to permit physical and unbearable emotional coercion in the case of MOOS OLEI with his vivid imagination, as he airly blows away the Rashbo, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish with a logic that was invented in Gehenum. He quotes nobody who agrees with him, and doesn't display any rabbonim of today who agree with him, but he has helped Agunoth! Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit”o told me that any Beth Din that invents new ways to help Agunoth outside of accepted halacha that he takes away from them the Chezkas Beth Din, the authority of being a Beth Din. Thus, we have a situation where modern Orthodox divorces may not be recognized by others, and the children of these invented “help” for Agunoth may be mamzerim.

Let us begin.

The article begins by assuring us that “the use of social pressure – picketing, boycotting, withholding aliyot, and the like – in such a situation...there is no problem of a coerced get in such a case.”

This is completely wrong, as we will show, because it is obvious from the great Poskim I will quote with nobody disagreeing that it is a coerced GET and invalid GET to picket and humiliate a husband in MOUS OLEI especially when this is done in public. In fact, even to shame him not in public is a problem of a coerced and therefore invalid GET. This is stated clearly by the Chazon Ish.

The article then begins with the PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam, whereby Rabbeinu Tam permitted a passive ostracizing of a husband who refused to give a GET. The article quotes a rabbinical council of great rabbinical judges who permitted ostracizing the husband. Therefore, says Rabbi Broyde, we see that one may ostracize a husband who does not give a GET. But this is false advertising, as we will explain. The case of the rabbinical council involved a couple where the man was unable to have children and the wife demanded a GET so she would not be left in her old age with nobody to care for her. In this case, the Talmud clearly teaches that there must be a GET. On the other hand, Rabbi Broyde is talking about the common problem of wives demanding a GET often after they had children from the husband, called MOUS OLEI (my husband is repulsive to me). This is different, as we will explain.

The Shulchan Aruch EH 77 talks about a woman who demands a GET because her husband repels her. Nowhere is any coercion allowed or mentioned there. Even Rabbeinu Tam is not mentioned there, even though he permits only passive ostracizing. In EH 154 we find the laws of husbands who are commanded by the Torah to divorce their wives. There are two categories of these. One is where the Talmud commands that we force the GET, such as when a person marries a woman forbidden to him. Another category is when the Talmud does not talk about coercion, but merely says the husband must give a GET. The latter case of a sterile husband is what the rabbinical council ruled, when the wife demands a GET. In such a case the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not command coercion. The Ramo suggests that we use the passive coercion of Rabbeinu Tam. But the Ramo does not allow passive ostracizing in chapter 77 for a woman who is repulsed by her husband. Thus, the implication is clear: passive ostracizing is forbidden unless the Talmud clearly demands a GET, such as when the husband is sterile. But with MOUS OLEI, there may not be any coercion, even passive coercion.

The greatest authorities, the Shach and the Chazon Ish, forbid even passive ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam, even in the case of the sterile husband, claiming that in latter generations such an ostracizing was too strong a coercion and constituted an invalid GET. Maharabil states that nobody ever heard of rabbis permitting this. Therefore, for MOUS OLEI, when even the Shulchan Aruch does not permit even passive coercion, surely it is forbididen to do the passive PIRUD or ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam. But in the case of the sterile husband, the Ramo permits it, and the Gro and others agree, therefore, the rabbinical council mentioned above permitted it for the case of a sterile husband. This has nothing to do with Rabbi Broyde's article which is about the common “agunah” who left her husband often after having children and demands as GET. Such a husband may not be given the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam, at least, by the proof that I cited from the Shulchan Aruch and supported by Shach and Chazon Ish and Maharabil.

We now come to Rabbi Broyde's brazen misquoting of the Gro. He leaves out the key phrase, and thus makes it sound as if the Gro supports ostracizing all husbands, such as in MOUS OLEI. But the GRO as we mention before, is commenting on the Ramo in EH 154 that does not deal with MOUS OLEI but only with husbands who are commanded by the Talmud to divorce. The Gro explains why PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam is permitted with someone commanded clearly in the Talmud to divorce: “(154:67) because he can be saved from this by going to another city. And whenever we don't do something to him physically it is not called ISUI or coercion. And all of this we do to him because he transgressed on the words of the sages.” Thus, the final phase says that this PIRUD is only permitted when the Talmud clearly commands a divorce. But in MOUS OLEI we don't assume that the husband is wrong and he must divorce his wife and lose his children. Therefore, it is forbidden to ostracize him.

But let us ask Rabbi Broyde, even according to your abridged version of the GRO, the ostracizing is only permitted because the husband can find another city where nobody will ostracize him. But today what city is free from the protestors sent by Rabbi Schachter and ORA to torment a husband? Therefore, what ORA is doing is forbidden by the GRO, and as we explained, it was never permitted by the Ramo in the case of MOUS OLEI to begin with.

But let us return to the ruling of the sages of the above rabbinical council ruling. What kind of ostracizing did they decree on the sterile husband? ONLY PASSIVE THINGS such as not honoring him and ignoring him. But who permitted ORA to publicly demonstrate and humiliate a husband? And especially in a case of MOUS OLEI? This is the brazen invention of Rabbi Broyde.

Now we come to another brazen invention, this time a bald lie about HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l. In Igres Moshe EH III:44 Reb Moshe discusses a broken marriage where the wife will not return to the husband, but the husband won't give a GET. May Beth Din coerce the husband to give a GET? Rabbi Broyde quotes Reb Moshe that this is permitted, because “Compulsion in a case where divorce is truly desired does not create an invalid GET.” But Reb Moshe there says just the opposite. Although he does mention the idea and says it has some merit, he refuses to use it saying, “we must not rely on this.” 

So Rabbi Broyde slithers along while we are gasp in admiration for his proof, and then, some lines later, he slips in “While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors...” Hurry, he is wriggling out of his lie. 

Here is his full statement there: ““While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors, it is clear that in cases where no real coercion is used – but only harchakot d'Rabbeinu Tam – Rabbi Feinstein's reasoning is fully applicable.” First, note the weasel words. He doesn't say that “Rabbi Feinstein would permit it.” Even he is afraid to invent such a statement in the name of Reb Moshe. But what he does is to apply his own logic that surely that which Reb Moshe rejected would not be rejected for the mild coercion of Rabbeinu Tam's ostracizing.

But wait. He wriggled in the wrong direction. Because Rabbi Broyde was obviously not aware of another teshuva of Reb Moshe whereby he consigns Rabbeinu Tam's pirud to the status of a very serious coercion, more so than coercing with money which most poskim consider very strong coercion even invalidating the GET. (EH I:137) If so, Reb Moshe surely would not agree with Rabbi Broyde to permit the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam because it is a minor coercion.

Incredibly, Rabbi Broyde concludes “the use of social pressure to encourage the giving of a get in a situation in which the couple has already separated, a secular divorce has been granted and the marriage is over for both of them – and even more so where a bet din has issued a seruv against the husband – never creates a situation of Get Meuso.” He permits active public humiliation of the husband, even though public humiliation is considered murder in the Talmud.

Note that he never mentions that Rabbeinu Tam permits only passive ostracizing, and that the Chazon Ish EH 108 forbids even passive ostracizing and considers active humiliation such as that practiced by ORA to make an invalid GET. Nor does he even mention the Rashbo VII:414 that it is forbidden to coerce a husband with MOUS OLEI at all, and that even the sterile husband may not be humiliated, certainly not the husband of MOUS OLEI. Also Rabbi Yosef Caro in Bais Yosef, 154, Radvaz שו"ת רדב"ז חלק ד סימן קיח quote the Rashbo. The Shach at the end of GEVURAS ANOSHIM forbids even passively ostracizing the husband to obtain a GET at all. 

Just brazeneness matched only by his ignorance. But without the ignorance, even the brazeness would have a hard time.

Rabbi Benjamin Yudin: Birds & Bees

Kol Isha: IDF forbids earplugs

JPost

Several religious soldiers requested last week to wear earplugs or listen to MP3 players during a Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony in which women were singing, as well as for upcoming ceremonies for Remembrance Day and Independence Day.

The army refused the request but said that the soldiers could take a book of Psalms into the ceremony to read from if they wished.

Get Me'usa Crises: Halachic Summary

Guest Post

The גט מעושה crises and-1

Friedman-Epstein: What halachic justification?!

Despite all the fanfare and international publicity about the "aguna" Tamar Friedman, the halacha basis  for the conduct of her rabbinic supporters as well as the aguna defense organization Ora's tactics against Aharon Friedman is  embarrassingly anemic and simply unsupported by any elementary reading of the sources. Briefly the case involved Tamar's decision that she didn't want to remain married to Aharon. She has never made any claims of abuse or misbehavior just she thought she might find someone better. She left their home taking their daughter without his consent. There was the Baltimore beis din which they both agreed to abide by its decision. Its work was not brought to a psak. Secular court was involved and a secular divorce. There was some involvement of the Washington beis din - but that was incomplete and it never heard both sides. Finally there was a hazmana from the beis din of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis which Aaron did not respond to. That beis din issued a seruv signed by Rav Kaminetsky, Rav Belsky, Rabbi Ralbag and also Rav Schachter. The seruv states that whatever can be done to bring about a get should be done. ORA - with Rav Schachter's support and encouragement has gotten involved and has had public demonstrations and repeated distribution of posters demanding a get which targeted Aharon and his family. They also had a strong publicity blitz in all the major secular newspapers as well as a conference at Stern College and a major campaign directed at Aharon's boss Congressman Camp - all with the stated goal of forcing Aharon to give Tamar a get. So far there has not been a beis din that heard both sides and issued a psak that Aharon must give a get.

My concern has been to try and find a halachic basis for use of public humilation in a very weak case of ma'os alei - where Tamar has apparently never said anything stronger against her husband than that she realized that she didn't want to spend the rest of her life married to him. When I spoke with the head of ORA I asked him about this and he said that Tamar had a right to privacy and didn't have to explain why she wanted to leave. Aharon has apparently never said he wanted to end the marriage. Thus the case consists of Tamar's assertion of ma'os alei because she doesn't want to remain married. She is also a moredes who left their home. She turned to the secular courts - a huge problem - and as a result a custody arrangement was set up and a civil divorce was obtained.

A basic summary of the halacha is found here:

Be'er HaGolah (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 77:6): In the case where the wife claims ma’os alei and therefore refused to have sexual relations with her husband] The view of the Shulchan Aruch [which modified the language of the Rambam that "the husband can be forced to give a get" to "if the husband wants to divorce her"] is that of the Ramban and Rashba that one cannot force the husband to give a get [in the case of ma’us alei]. The husband can only be forced to give a get in those cases where Chazal said force can be used. [Which is either from a prohibited relations such as a cohen to a divorcee or a major defect such as severe disease or disgusting skin condition]This is stated in the Magid Mishna (Hilchos Ishus 14:8]. The Tur says the same thing in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and his father the Rosh. The source of this view is Kesubos (63b), What is the case of moredes (a rebellious wife) ? Amemar said it is a woman who says she wants to stay married and she want to torment her husband. However a woman who says ma’us alei (he disgusts me) we don’t force her to be with her husband. Mar Zutra said she should be forced and there was an incident in which Mar Zutra forced the wife to be with the husband and they had a child R’ Chinina Mesura. But that is not the normal consequence – they had special assistance from Heaven and we can’t learn from that case.

A review of the recent teshuva literature, inclduing the rulings of  Rav Eliashiv, Minchos Yitzchok, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Tzitz Eliezar, Ben Ish Chai and Rav Sternbuch as well as the various public shiurim that Rav Schachter has given on the topic of aguna, - have indicated that there is not a single source that allows the type of public humiliation ORA is using in order to force a husband to give a get. There are sources which allowed indirect pressure such as preventing the obtaining a civil divorce unless a get is given. But not a single use of direct pressure because of the universal concern in the Achronim for a get me'usa (an invalid forced get). Sources such as Rabbeinu Yona, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Rav Chaim Pelaggi were also studied - but they also do not provide a ready and acceptable basis for what is going on with ORA.

[update reply to James in Comments section]

James you obviously have inside information - the beis din issued a seruv for not appearing in which they poskened that a get had to be given. They did not explain their reasons nor did Friedman participate - so they only heard one side. Is that correct? Simple question is how can a beis din posken without hearing both sides? And if it isn't a psak but only a seruv for not showing up so how can they issue a ruling that it is a mitzva to give a get? Besides that level of confusion Rav Shachter has written clearly that he is totally relying on Rav Kaminetsky for his understanding of the case. So apparently it is irrelevant to him whether there is a psak or just a seruv. The only issue is the daas Torah of Rav Kaminestky. He then authorized ORA to attack Aharon and his family. Correct? The Beis din did not say anything about ORA nor do they appear on ORA's list of rabbis. Thus you are insisting that everyone involved agrees that ORA is doing the right thing. I am simply asking for some evidence that ORA actions are approved by Rabbis Belsky and Kaminetsky and what the basis of the psak of the beis din was. It is not clear that saying that it is a mitzva to give or obtain a get justifies what ORA is doing.

So we are still discussing this because of the apparent bizarreness of this case on the level of halacha. It doesn't require a gadol to understand the halachic issues or the halachic rulings going back to the gemora. I simply want to know what halachic understanding justifies the chain of events leading to ORA's demonstrations and pressure. It shouldn't take a talmid chachom more than 5 minutes to rattle off the necessary information. The fact that that ORA through Rav Shachter based on this beis din - has been producing a disturbing spectacle in the secular media - justifies me asking an explanation. If ORA wasn't involved then this would have remained a private issue. But it clearly isn't and I'd like to understand. this is Torah and I need to learn.

Charedi employment is on the rise

YNET

A recent study conducted by the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry predicted that Israel will see a 6% drop in its workforce within 20 years, especially due to the growing ultra-Orthodox and Arab population shares. But activists in the religious sector dismiss the forecast, noting the growing rates of employed haredim.

"I don't see the pessimistic predictions coming true," said attorney Yoav Laloum, chairman of the Noar KaHalacha, an organization that advocates against discrimination in the haredi sector.

Baltimore Patrol members on trial

Baltimore Sun

Having family who lives in the area and having recently spent a lot of time there - I fully understand the problems and dangers the Werdesheim's were facing in patrolling that area.

The incident occurred in November 2010, with charges brought against Eliyahu Werdesheim in December and, later, against his brother, Avi. There are some parallels - vigilantism, race, and self-defense - but also major differences - most notably the fatal outcome in the Florida case but also the handling by law enforcement.

With the trial scheduled to begin, here's a refresher on some of the facts in each case.

-The Werdesheim brothers were members of a group called Shomrim, Orthodox Jewish volunteers who patrol their Northwest Baltimore neighborhood. The group has meetings and bylaws, as well as radios and matching jackets, and for years was praised by city officials and police for their efforts. In Florida, shooter George Zimmerman, described as white-Hispanic had helped set up a neighborhood watch program with the assistance of the Sanford Police Department and had been appointed the "captain" of the program, according to reports. Both have been accused of being overzealous - Zimmerman had called 911 dozens of times before the shooting incident, while some black Baltimore residents and even police officers said Shomrim members sometimes took their role too far.

-Eliyahu Werdesheim worked for a security company and claimed to be an former Israeli special forces solider; Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer, having attended a four-month course at the local sheriff's department and enrolled in a local college and took law enforcement courses.

Rabbis requesting psychiatric drugs for students II

Haaretz

As a result of the Haaretz report two week ago   ("Rabbi's Little Helper," April 6 ) - about the conferral of psychiatric medication at the request of rabbis and Orthodox activists, for purposes described as "spiritual" rather than medical - a number of persons turned to Haaretz with their personal stories. 

The Gur Hasid trembled in pain as he spoke about a family gathering held at Purim. One daughter in the extended family, a married woman with children, attended the big holiday meal after a long period in which she had remained secluded in her home. "We were shocked," the man recalled. "At the beginning, we could barely identify her. This is a woman who has always been blessed with a lively, expressive personality, but now it looks like pills have finished her off. We met an apathetic woman who has a solemn, stony face; a woman who has had the life sucked out of her."

The ultra-Orthodox man says the woman's husband belongs to a well-connected family in the Gur community, and so the man's family attached "responsibility" for the situation in the house to the woman, and demanded she receive medication. "She was told that the Gur Rebbe wants her to take medication, and that the pills would restore order to her home. Nobody knows whether the rebbe really said that, but this is what persuaded her." 

The Hasid from Bnei Brak presented his story as part of a trend of Orthodox referrals to private psychiatric clinics as a result of internal communal issues - typically family cases. Such referrals often override the patients' own desires; usually, he patient does not really understand the nature of the treatment. Psychiatrists and psychologists also approached the newspaper, and reported cases of unethical uses of medication.[...]

Shach: Forced divorces not permitted

שו"ת גבורת אנשים סימן עב

ונראה לפי מה שהעליתי לעיל סי' מ"ב דאין לו גבורת אנשים אין כופים בשוטים להוציא, ה"ה דאין לנדותו עד שיתן גט. ואף על גב שהבאתי לעיל סי' ט"ו דברי הרא"ש פ' הבא על יבמתו דמשמע מדבריו דאפי' היכא דאין כופין בשוטים מנדינן ליה. מ"מ אין נראה כן הלכה למעשה, דהא אמרינן בעלמא [פסחים נב ע"א] דשמתא קשה מנגדא. וגם הרא"ש גופיה כתב בפ' החובל [ב"ק פ"ח סי' ב] שאין לך גוביינא גדול מזה, דמשמתינן ליה דלנקטיה בכובסיה עד דשבק לגלימיה [עי' שבועות מא ע"א]. וכן כתב המרדכי [סי' רד] והגה"ת אשר"י [סי' יט] פ' המדיר וכתבו שמעשה בא כן לפני ר"ת שנידו לאחד ליתן גט ונתן גט, ופסל ר"ת את הגט וצוה לעשות לו גט אחר. וכן הסכמת רוב הפוסקים דהיכא דאין כופין אין מנדין אותו ג"כ, וכ"כ ב"י סימן קנ"ד בשם תשובת רשב"א, וכ"כ הריב"ש סי' קכ"ז, וכן פסק מהר"ל ן' חביב בתשו' סי' ל"ג, וכן כתב הרב בהג"ה סי' קנ"ד (ס"ך) [סכ"א] ושאר אחרונים. (וכן פסק בתשו' מהר"י ן' לב ספר ג' ס"ס ק"א באין לו גבורת אנשים דאין כופין להוציא לא בשוטים ולא בנדוי ושמתא. וכן מסיק בתשו' מהר"ר שלמה כהן ספר שלישי ס"ס מ"ב דלענין מעשה אין כופין אותו בשום דבר רק שאומרים לו שמותר לקרותו עבריין ע"ש) וכן עיקר.
מיהו כתב הרב בהג"ה שם וז"ל ומ"מ יכולים לגזור על כל ישראל שלא לעשות לו שום טובה או לישא וליתן עמו או למול בניו או לקברו עד שיגרש ובכל חומר שירצו ב"ד יכולים להחמיר בכה"ג ובלבד שלא ינדו אותו עכ"ל. והוא מדברי ר"ת ומהרי"ק ובנימין זאב, אבל בתשו' מהר"י ן' לב שם כתב וז"ל וה"נ לא עבדינן ההרחקה שכתב ר"ת והסמ"ק ומהרי"ק, לפי שלא ראינו ולא שמענו בדורנו זאת ההרחקה. ואפשר דטעמא הוי משום דבדורות הללו חמירא להו ההרחקה מנידוי ושמתא, וכל היכא דלא כייפינן בשוטים או בנדויים וחרמות גם לא עבדינן ההרחקה. פעם אחת בהיותי בשלוניק"י עלה במחשבה בין קצת החכמים למיעבד ההרחקה בנידון דהיה קרוב הדבר לכוף, ולא אסתייעא מלתא ולא נעשה מעשה, וכיון דכן הוא מלתא דפשיטא היא דלא כייפינן ליה לא בשוטים ולא בחרמות, ולא זה בלבד אלא אפילו שום הרחקה לא עבדינן ליה אלא דאומרים לו דמותר לקוראו עבריינא ע"כ, וטוב להחמיר.
תם ונשלם כל דיני אומרת גרשתני ודיני אין לו גבורת אנשים ושאר דינים השייכים להם באריכות. והנני נותן שבח והודיה לאל יתברך שמו אשר עזרני עד כה ונתן לי כח וחיל לעמוד בפלפול הארוך הזה. כי כמה יגיעות יגעתי וכמה טרחות טרחתי עד שיגעתי ומצאתי טעמ"ן של דברים המחוורים כשמלה היתה בכלל, ובפרט שיש כאן מבוכות רבות בגדולי הפוסקים ראשונים ואחרונים.
ולמען אשר יוכל המעיין לידע בקצרה שרשי הדינים העולים מכל משא ומתן הגדול הזה, אמרתי להעלות רשום בכתב אמת כללי הדינים בקצרה כשלחן ערוך המוכן לאכול לפני האדם. ומי שירצה לעמוד על עיקרי הדברים יעיין בפנים אשר משם יוצאים ונובעים כל דבריו מוכרעים, כלם בראיות ברורות, ובהוכחות גמורות, זה אחר זה סדורות, באותיות ובתיבות ובשורות, סמוכות תכופות וצרורות, כרוכות וחרוקות והדורות, בעזר האל פועל גבורו"ת, אין בלתו צר צורות, יאיר עינינו בקלות וחמורות, ויתיר לנו אסורות, ע"י מבשר בשורות.
כויעתר שבתי בן לא"א הגאון מוהר"ר מאיר כ"ץ ז"ל. יום ה' כ"ד סיון תי"ו יו"ד לפ"ק

Jetman: The human airplane

 A break from serious topics

Rape cases are legal minefields for colleges

Boston Globe

A closed- door encounter between two college acquaintances. Both have been drinking. One says she was raped; the other insists it was consensual. There are no other witnesses.

It's a common scenario in college sexual assault cases, and a potential nightmare to resolve. But under the 40-year-old federal gender equity law Title IX -- and guidance handed down last year by the Obama administration on how to apply it -- colleges can't just turn such cases over to criminal prosecutors, who often won't touch them anyway. Instead, they must investigate, and in campus proceedings do their best to balance the accused's due process rights with the civil right of the victim to a safe education.

Colleges that do too little about sexual assault could lose federal funds. The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is currently investigating a dozen colleges and universities over their response to sexual violence (documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show schools that have recently agreed to take steps to resolve OCR complaints over Title IX policies include universities such as Notre Dame, Northwestern and George Washington). [...]

But when colleges do take action against accused students, those students are increasingly lawyering up themselves, suing for breach of contract and negligence. And in at least two recent cases, in Tennessee and Massachusetts, male students have tread novel legal ground by alleging violations of their own Title IX protections against gender discrimination, arguing a college's sexual assault policies or procedures were unfairly stacked against men.

Pele Yoetz - Abused wife advised to remain silent?!

I was asked to post this excerpt from the Pele Yoetz. I have already posted the Pele Yoetz's strong condemnation of wife abuse as well as child abuse. So the obviously question is why is he advising the battered wife to remain silent? The obvious answer is that we are dealing with a situation where the wife does not have a ready option of divorce. In such a society the alternative to marriage to an abusive husband is often worse. The Pele Yoetz is simply advising her how to minimize her suffering. In the same chapter he  also advised that the husband put up with an abusive wife. In other words, he is providing suggestions to both abused husband and wife as what to do when divorce is not a viable option. This is excerpted from Rabbi Mansour's translation here

In truth, according to the dictum of our Sages (Eruvin 41b), "Someone who has a bad wife will not see Gehinom", it would be proper to seek a bad wife if he could stand the test, considering the enormous severity of the punishment of Gehinom. If he passes the test, then he will not inherit two Gehinoms (one in this world and one in the World to Come)! Rather he should accept her with love and he will receive a fine reward for his labors.

Forcing divorce on a mentally ill wife

Shulchan Aruch(E.H. 119:6): A woman can be divorced against her will. Rema: And even if he doesn’t have money to pay for her kesubah and dowry – she cannot prevent the divorce because of failure to pay her money she is due. Rather they can be divorced and then she can go to beis din to make the financial claims against him (Rosh, Rivash). All of this is according to the Torah law. However Rabbeinu Gershom decreed that a woman cannot be forcibly divorced – as we explained before (Shulchan Aruch E.H.115).

And even if he is willing to give her the kesubah he is not permitted to forcibly divorce her today. Nonetheless if he transgresses the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom by forcibly divorcing her and then he remarries – he no longer can be called a sinner. ... If she develops a blemish see (Shulchan 117) whether he can forcibly divorce her. Some say that if a mitzva is involved he is able to forcibly divorce or he is permitted to marry two wives. Shulchan Aruch: Therefore a child can be forcibly divorced even though she isn’t considered have full intelligence and even if her father accepted her Kiddushin which is Torah. This is also true of a deaf woman who was married when she could hear and the later became deaf. However if she becomes insane – and doesn’t know how to protect it - she cannot be divorced until she recovers. This restriction is a rabbinic decree in order that she shouldn’t be abandoned to immoral people since she is not capable of protecting herself. Therefore while she remains his wife, he can leave her and he is permitted to marry someone else. Nevertheless her food is paid for from her money and he is not obligated to provide her with clothing or sexual relations. He is also not obligated to cure her physical ailments (Some say that he is obligated Beis Yosef citing Rashba.... and this view is the dominant one) or to redeem her if she is captured. However if he does give her a get despite the prohibition, the get is valid – as long as she knows how to protect it. Rema: (Some say that even bedieved it is not valid). In the case where she is sometimes insane and other times is lucid and she is divorced when she is lucid because she seems have stabilized - then the get remains valid even if she relapses. Shulchan Aruch: And he sends her from his house and he has no obligation to deal with her anymore.

Rabbeinu Yerucham: Forcing husband to give get

 Rabbi Adlerstein cited Rabbeinu Yerucham as permitting forcing a husband to divorce his wife in a case of ma'us alei. 

[YA Because once both parties have had their days in court/beis din, rulings have to be upheld. Once a marriage is terminated, a husband has no right in halacha to withhold a get. (When he truly wants to continue the marriage, and his wife is the one who walks out, he is not obligated to immediately grant a get, but can leverage it to try to repair the relationship. Once it is clear that both parties have given up on the marriage relationship - regardless of who requested the get, or who was at fault! - withholding the get is seen in halacha going back to Rabbenu Yerucham as extortion. The latter held that beis din could even use physical force to coerce a get at that point. Batei Din in Israel routinely accept this Rabbenu Yerucham. Certainly lesser forms of persuasion, as guided by responsible morei hora'ah, are permitted.] [YA - I can give you the cite. More than that would take a good deal of timing, looking into פסקי דין רבניים for the places that he is cited. Ateres Devorah, chap. 89, cites three such decisions. The Rabbenu Yerucham is in Meisharim, Nesiv 23 chelek 8]

 I showed this Rabbeinu Yerucham to my brother and he  wrote the following rebuttal.

רבינו ירוחם מתיר לכוף במאוס עלי בספר מישרים נתיב כג' חלק ח' וז"ל וכתב מורי ה"ר אברהם בן אשמעאל כי נראה לו שאשה שאמרה לא בעינא ליה ליתן לי גט וכתובה והוא אומר אנא נמי לא בעינא לך אבל איני רוצה ליתן גט מסתברא דאין דנין אותה במורדת להפסידה כלום מעיקר כתובה ונדוינא אלא מיהו משהינן לה תריסר ירחי אגיטא דילמא הדרי בהו לאחר שנה כופין אותון לגרש והפסידה תוספת וכל מאי דיהיב לה מדיליה כו' עכ"ל

ובא אחד ומדייק מזה שהלכה למעשה אם הבעל לא רוצה ליתן לאשתו גט במאוס עלי שאחרי שנה כופין אותו. ומשמע כופין בשוטים לכאורה.

והנה הדבר פשוט שאפילו אם היה זה הפירוש פה שאחרי שנה כופין לגרש היות שלא נזכר דבר זה בש"ע ובגדולי הפוסקים וכדבר פשוט הוא בראשונים והפוסקים שלא כופין במאוס עלי אפילו אחרי כמה שנים שלכן אין לסמוך על זה לקולא. שזה שאמרו כמה ראשונים שבמאוס עלי לא כופין כלל ולא חילקו בין שנה לכמה שנים משמע שהם חולקים על שיטה זו.

וכל הכופה לבעל לגרש בשיטה יחידאה נגד רוב הפוסקים הוא מרבה מזמרים בישראל. ואפילו אם היה שקול אחד נגד אחד היה ספק אם מותר לכוף. והיה האשה בחזקת אשת איש שזה מכריע הספק לעשותו קרוב או ודאי לממזר ודאי.

שלכן מאחר שהרשב"א אמר בפירוש שאין כופין כלל במאוס עלי וכן משמע שבש"ע א"ה סימן עז' לא הובא שום צד לכוף במאוס עלי שאין לכוף במעשה עלי אפילו אחרי כמה שנים.

וז"ל הרשב"א שו"ת הרשב"א חלק ז' סימן תי"ד בענין מאוס עלי – ולעולם אין כופין את הבעל לגרש אלא רצה לגרש יגרש ואם לא רצה לא יגרש ואע"פ שלא כתב כן הרמב"ם ז"ל זהו דין האומרת מאיס עלי עכ"ל הרי בפירוש ברשב"א שהוא גדול הפוסקים שאין לכוף כלל לבעל במאוס עלי דלא כרבי אברם בן ישמעאל רבו של רבנו ירוחם. ואפילו היה הדבר ספק כאילו רבו של רבינו ירוחם גדול כמו הרשב"א היה הדבר ספק ואין כופין מספק בפרט שיש לה חזקת אשת איש והבנים או ספק ממזרים או ודאי ממזרים והאשה ודאי אסורה להנשא.

והנה המתיר על פי השיטה של רבו של רבינו ירוחם רוצה להתיר לבזותו שכן הוא המעשה שעליו אנו דנים. ואפשר שרוצה לכופו בשוטים שכן יש רע-בנים שסוברים שצריכים לעשות לו בשוטים. והלא הרשב"א שם כתב בפירוש שאפילו בזמן שהאשה אומרת שאין בעלה יכול להוליד ילד שכה"ג כתב הרשב"א שאומרים לו בפירוש שחייב לגרש. עדיין אין לבזותו. וכ"ש במאוס עלי.

וע' בבית אפרים אבן העזר סוף חלק ג' שבמאיס עלי אין כופין. ומביא הרשב"א חלק א' סימן קצב'. וז"ל ומצאתי און לי בש"מ הביא בשם ר"י דבמאיס עלי אומרים לו חכמים חייבוך להוציא כו' ור"ת אומר שאף זה אין אומרים לו אלא שאם בא לימלך בב"ד משיאים לו עצה שיגרשנה לאלתר ויפטור מכתובה עכ"ל הרי מחלוקת הראשונים אם מותר לומר להבעל במאיס עלי שחכמים אמרו שחייב לגרש שהוא כפיה בדבריםי בעלמא ועל זה בא ר"ת לאסור גם זה ולא הובא שום חילוק בין שנה אחד או כמה שנים דלא כרבינו ירוחם. הרי שרוב הראשונים לא הביא חידוש זה לכופו אחרי שנה ואם עושים כפיה הרי ספק גט ויש לאשה חזקת אשת איש.

ועוד שכה"ג הפשטות שודאי לכ"ע אינו גט כלל. שהיות שהבעל יודע שרוב הראשונים אוסיםר לכופו לא שייך לומר שהוא סומך על היחיד ליתן גט בלב שלם אלא ודאי שהוא נותן רק מחמת מכות או כפיה ולא סובר שמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים באופן שאינו גט כלל.

ובכלל איני יודע למה הביא החכם בעיניו שיטת היחיד בזה להתיר כפיה במאוס עלי הלא יש שיטת הרמב"ם ועוד כמה ראשונים שעומדים בשיטת הגאגונים ג' מאות שנים לכוף להבעל בשוטים לגרש במאוס עלי אלא שלא עושים כן מחמת שהרבנים שבאו אחרי כן פסלו דרך זה עוד שלא יעשה עוד. וא"כ מה תועלת להביא שיטה אחרת שאינו נזכר בפוסקים נגד מה שהוא כן נזכר בפוסקים.

ועוד יש לדייק בלשון הרבינו ירוחם שההיתר זו לכוף במאוס עלי רק באופן שבין האיש ובין האשה אמרו בפירוש שלא רוצים זה את זה. כה"ג יש צד שאחרי יב' חודש שרואים שלא ישנו דעתם שכופים. אבל אם הבעל רוצה האשה ואינו מואס בה אלא שהיא מואסת בו לא מיירי ואין כופין כה"ג.

Obligations of Husbands and Wives: Mitzvos HaBayis R' Epstein

 This was downloaded from Hebrew Books - see chapter 5 page 209 This link for chapter 5 only

Mitzvos Habayis R' Epstein Vol 2 Hebrewbooks_org_3412

Conservative's to ordain gay & lesbian rabbis

Haaretz

The question whether or not to ordain gay and lesbian rabbis has been rattling the Conservative Movement in Israel and the U.S. for the past decade. Unlike the Reform movement that took to the question with ease, deciding firmly on the acceptance of gay rabbis. The Conservative Movement, whose rabbis see themselves bound to Jewish law, has been caught up in heated debate over the subject.

Years of discussion led to two contradictory religious rulings in 2006, one requiring the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis and another banning any such act. The two rabbinical seminaries affiliated with the movement in the U.S. move the ruling allowing the ordination, while the seminaries in Jerusalem and Buenos Aires adopted the ban on ordination. The issue nearly caused a rift in the movement. 

Rabbi Mauricio Balter, President of the Israeli Conservative Movement Rabbinical Assembly expressed his support of the move. 

“I see it as a very important development in Jewish law,” Rabbi Balter told Haaretz, adding: “It is the right thing to do. We were all made in the image of god, and as such we are all made equal. For me this is a very important value. I always said we should admit gay and lesbians into our ranks.”

Pele Yoetz : Condemns wife abuse

Pele Yoetz (Hitting - published 1824): Our Sages said, One who hits his grown son is liable to nidoi (ostracizing). They explain that it is likely to result in rebellion, cursing and physical attack against the father and thus the father transgresses the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind. Thus it is clear that it is not just his grown son that he should not hit. Rather the warning is against hitting even a young child. This applies then to anyone he knows will not accept his authority for example in our times when chutzpah is common and a son rebels against his father. Thus he should not only avoiding hitting but even angrily chastising someone – results in an angry response and refusal to listen to criticism. In truth it says in Mishlei (17:10), A reproof enters more into a wise man than a hundred blows into a fool. Thus we see that chastisement is only accepted by the wise but one who isn’t wise will not accept rebuke.

There is a type of son who will not listen to his father or mother. In all such cases the father and mother need to understand that since they know their children well and recognize that they are difficult and lacking in fear of G‑d and will simply not listen to their parents – they should not command them to doing any service for them and they should try hard not to express their anger to them and not irritate them and only to speak gently with them. Now granted not all occasions are equal and there will be times that the father and mother will not be able to restrain themselves from ordering their children to do something or getting angry with them or even embarrassing them or cursing them. They will gnash their teeth in frustration and their hearts will be faint when they see their children misbehaving. Nevertheless that which the parents have the power to accomplish they should do and they should try and minimize evil. The father and mother want to give merit to their children in that the children should fulfill the will of their parents and they should give merit to their souls by doing that which is pleasing to G‑d.

 However what can they do since this is not a good generation and when the sons and daughters are with their parents they really have not much interest in this mitzva and they don’t consider it important. However when they go to Israel or to the cemetery then the children say if I only had a father or mother I would lick the dirt from the soles of their feet and I would faithfully serve them with all my strength. But if they want that G‑d should consider them at that time as if they had done it purely because they want to do it, then they should fulfill their obligation properly when they have the actual opportunity to so. It is only in such circumstances that when the deed cannot be done that G‑d considers the mere thought of doing good as actually doing it.

Since in these times when refined children who listen to their parents are in a distinct minority and in particular since they marry women who bicker with their mother-in-laws and thus it is difficult for the children to honor their parents as they are required – how wonderful it is for the father and mother if it is possible for them to separate from their children so that the children are not dependent upon their support. And similarly it is good for the children if it is the will of their parents that they separate from their tables. That is because the absence is better than a bad reality. It should only be that the hearts of the children should have the desire to honor their parents and they will receive a good reward in this world that they themselves will be honored from good children and the principle reward will be in the next world.

It is important to note that the prohibition of hitting is not only applicable to one’s children but it applies also all other people. In fact this is prohibited by is a negative Torah commandment of “don’t add” [concerning the punishment from the Sanhedrin which is understood that no man is to be hit even a single time without being explicitly sentenced to that blow by the beis din]. Our Sages (Sanhedrin 58b) said, “One who strikes the chin of another is as if he struck the Shechina. (Rashi explains that it means hitting any part of the body)... Rav Huna amputated the hand of one who assaulted others.”

It is fitting that all the leaders of cities punish assailants in particular those disgusting people who hit their wives viciously. Blasted are those that treat Jewish women as slaves. They attack them, hit them and rape them – and they feel no shame. It is a good idea for someone who has the possibility to punish them and if they can also to get their wives away from them if the wife wants to. That is because our Sages said that a woman cannot dwell together with a serpent and therefore it is a great mitzva to save them from these criminals.

And even to hit small child there is no permission except for a father for his children and a teacher for his students and a supervisor of children. And even concerning a teacher and his students it is appropriate to consult a beis din for what is appropriate in each case – but this is not the accepted practice. It mentions in Bava Basra (21a), “When you hit a child you should only hit him with a shoe lace”... if it is necessary to hit a child then only hit him gently on his foot without anger...

See also post Pele Yoetz - advice to abused wife

Halachic impact of psychological/social reality

In the recent discussion of divorce and whether it is permitted or even desirable to force a man to give a get when the Torah doesn't require it - the question is whether the social and psychological consequences should be considered. In particular if adhering to the Torah laws causes a woman to give up yiddishkeit or to engage in immoral behavior or it increases mamzerim - should we be concerned enough to force the husband to give up on his Torah rights in marriage?

Similarly my recent post about establishing who is the boss in marriage from the Chesed l'Avraham - elicited some strong responses - that this material was not only irrelevant but was highly embarrassing to us modern enlightened folk. In other words it is far from being politically and socially correct. One anonymous commenter even criticized me for publicizing this material since he said it was a chillul haShem [I didn't publish his comment solely because he didn't bother giving himself a name]. I was also asked rhetorically if I would publish the comments of the Pele Yoetz regarding wife beating? In fact I am finishing up the translation of that section and will  soon post it. It is a good example of social reality altering halachic practice. In reality the issue is whether we should be learning from the Torah what to do - and do it without concern for consequences or whether there are specific goals we want to accomplish and therefore we need to modify the halacha - even nullify Torah laws - in order to achieve the metagoals - is a very important issue. In other words does Torah have an agenda - or is simply to observe the mitzvos. A related question is whether there is in fact a Torah true marriage or Torah true chinuch or Torah true mental health or psychotherapy? Or are all these institutions determined by the time and age a person lives in?

[From Daas Torah 2nd edition page 49]

Rav Dov Katz(Pulmos HaMusar page 337): There are two views concerning the purpose of observing mitzvos. 1) It is an end in itself which is to fulfill the will of G‑d. 2) It is a means to educate and develop man to spiritual perfection - which he is obligated to achieve. Many of the opponents of Mussar hold the first view that man’s primary obligation in the world is simply to fulfill G‑d’s will and to keep His commandments. Their focus is to clarify the commandants so that they are done as precisely as possible. They are not concerned with investigating and clarifying the hidden aspects of man. They don’t value being involved in clarification of hashkofa issues. They are not curious about the psychological forces and the depths of the heart. They don’t examine their personality traits and their manifestations. They have no interest in seclusion and mediation. They serve G‑d purely and simply. On the other hand, they are fully aware that the Torah requires spiritual development and personality development. However, they view these as commandments that are no different than the other commandments of the Torah. While some of them accept that they require preparation and others see these commandments as an end in themselves - none of this group require a special program to achieve this personal perfection. Instead they assert that one should be totally devoted to an in depth study of Torah - which is superior to all else - and are very concerned with exacting observance of mitzvos. They are concerned with extra stringencies according to their clarification of the nature of the Halacha and view this approach as the way to achieve personal perfection and the perfection of the world. In contrast to this group, those who require Mussar belong to the second group that the prime focus of man is his obligation for spiritual perfection. This second group asserts that G‑d’s will is not fulfilled simply by keeping His commandments as expressions of G‑d’s authority. They require that the focus be on the commandments as the means to achieve spiritual and personal perfection. The consequence of this perspective is that commandments are seen, as means - not ends in themselves. Therefore, it is not sufficient to simply physically perform the mitzva. They seek means and strategies to involve the inner person, as well as his thoughts and his emotions. They view that the primary impact of the mitzva does not come from a mechanical performance - though they don’t denigrate that is produced by it - but only that which penetrates and influences the inner being.