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?
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?
One thing I don't understand about this whole issue is that if a ruling is based on a psak by Harav Ovadia Yosef, and there seems to be some question as to what he means, why doesn't someone go and ask this Godol what he meant and the parameters of maus alai?
ReplyDeleteAvrohom
DeleteRav Ovadia didn't simply write a single Teshuva on the matter. And to be honest Rav Broyde could have chosen much better from amongst Rav Ovadia's numerous teshuvot.
From all of his Teshuvot together it would appear abundantly clear that pressuring the husband by requiring him to support the wife, and even through harchakat Rabbeinu Tam is permissible to the B"D.
What isn't clear is if he will permit public humiliation. I would go ask him, though I really don't want to have to explain to him that it is because I am reading blogs, especially one where he has been treated with such disrespect.
You don't have to tell him about the blogs. You could just explain what ORA does -- whether it deserves the label "humiliation" is for him to decide -- and explain that one American rabbi is arguing that this necessarily creates a forced get, while other rabbis including a gadol and rosh yeshivah disagree, though no gadol has written a teshuvah on the matter. Just a thought!
DeleteRight so I would only have to explain to him why I'm involving myself in someone else's fight, and trying to drag him into it. That doesn't sound too appealing either to be honest.
DeleteI learn at a Yeshiva that has a very high regard for Rav Ovadia(hence he and Rav Shlomo Amar come to all of our events). I really have no desire to queer that relationship.
Sorry for an imprecise quotation, but in a place where there is no man, be a man. Sounds like you might be in a position to do so.
DeleteYirmiahu
DeleteHere's the thing. A Get Meuseh(from a B"D) is, according to the B"Y, only ossur/posul M'D'Rabbanan. So long as the B"D had the seikhel to follow the basic procedures and have the man make a Bitul Modaah until the Get reaches the woman's hand, then at most this a Get that is sofek m'd'rabbanan.
Now unless someone can give me a really good reason why we do not rule sofek d'rabbanan l'kula in this case, I see no point in taking this to Rav Ovadia. I know how he feels about Chumrot, and I know that he refuses to give Semikha to those who like to build chumrot. Since I am in no rush to cross that line with him, and since the blog owner lives a lot closer to him that I do, I am going to decline.
These are all very relevant questions, and I look forward to seeing some learned Teshuvot.
ReplyDeleteI would add some more underlying questions:
What authority does a Posek, Beth Din, and Halachic authroity of a territory have to implement a decision?
Can a Posek use his own logic to arrive at a decision, even if it is not the commonly accepted sevara?
Does Torah allow for some creativity?
Does Torah allow for a Rav to look at the specific case of his day and location, and tailor a solution which might not be applicable in another location?
"Can a Posek use his own logic to arrive at a decision, even if it is not the commonly accepted sevara?
DeleteDoes Torah allow for some creativity?
Does Torah allow for a Rav to look at the specific case of his day and location, and tailor a solution which might not be applicable in another location?"
These same questions are and can be asked requiring many modern-day shailos.
Also-
ReplyDeleteIf the husband declares he wishes the marriage to continue and wishes to live with his wife, is he always believed? Does this declaration automatically prohibit any pressure on him to divorce? Can beis din force the wife to move back into his home?
Must child custody arrangements be determined by beis din in accordance with the relevant halachas of who is entitled to custody? (And then the parties enter beis din's custody determination as their agreed arrangement to the secular court - or simply follow it voluntarily.) If one party insists on utilizing secular court to determine custody, what penalties are brought against him/her?
Generally, halacha states ALL marital assets (home, bank accounts, even cash in the wife's pocket) belong to the husband. Should the wife take secular court action to take 50% of marital assets, effectively stealing from her husband, how should this be prevented?
If a wife claims maos alei is she always believed? Does beis din have to investigate if it is a legitimate claim or if she has ulterior motives (i.e. wishes to marry a neighbor)?
DeleteWhat determines if a claim of maos alei is legitimate or illegitimate?
If it is a legitimate claim, putting aside the question of force, is the husband obligated to give a divorce? Is that obligation absolute? Is it a halachicly legal obligation (even if he can't be forced to comply) or a moral obligation?
If the claim of maos alei is not legitimate, does the husband have even a moral obligation to divorce her? What if she moved out of his house, does that give him a moral obligation to divorce? Can beis din order her to move back in with him? If she doesn't, does that make her a moredes? What are her consequences for being such a moredes?
I have a few more questions to ask concerning the "forced get".
ReplyDelete1) If a get is invalid because of undue pressure, is it also invalid for the husband?
2) If the husband remarries after having given a get considered invalid for the wife, is he considered a polygamist?
3) or can it be assumed, if the ex-husband remarries after having given a get considered invalid, that the get is valid, because if he remarries it can be considered that he considers that his previous marriage is over?
Bat-
Delete1) yes
2) pokygamy is halachicly acceptable by non-Ashkenazim, and even by Ashkenazim with a heter meah.
How about this consideration:
ReplyDeleteGiving a get is a Mitzvah of the Torah. What are the parameters of shev va'al taaseh and are they in force for a get like lulav and shofar? I would bet that after reviewing the sources, everyone would notice that all of the poskim until the last century all had functional Batei Din, while we do not in the US, and the ones in Israel don't have a clear mesorah on what to do when a husband will not give a get.
could you please explain what you mean by a mitzva?
DeleteI think it's one of the rambam's 613
Deleteare you trying to say that it is a mitzva in the sense that when you give a get the Torah commands that it be done in a certain way or are you claiming that giving a get is a mitzva for which you get reward in the same sense as keeping Shabbos?
DeleteIt is definitely a Mitzwah to give a get when the wife asks for it (of course, it not a Mitzwah to give one when she does NOT want it). Just think of "Lifney Iver", and not to make suffer your fellow human, let alone your wife...
DeleteIt is not a mitzvaph to give a get because one morning the wife decided to ask for it. It is only a mitzvah when it is required halachicly.22
DeleteOf course it is: Lifney Iver al tassim michschol...
DeleteI would agree that she has to think it over in some kind of waiting period, 6 month or 1 year, but ultimately, it is a mitzwa to give her the get if she definitely wants out of the marriage...
By the way: refusing her a get also keeps you from moving on with your life...
And using a get for extortion or, as Mr. Eidensohn phrased it as a "bargaining chip" is definitely immoral and an abuse of torah.
Not according to the majority of rabbinic sources. It seems that most of the leniency is the result of fear that she will go off the derech and half children with another man without first receiving a get. If you look at Rav Ovadia Yosef's teshuva I translated he says this explicitly
DeleteThe man does have more option. Even if he remarries with her accepting the get - his children are not mamzerim.
I share your concern about this being immoral - but that doesn't get mentioned in most of the halachic discussion.
Rav Sternbuch's teshuvah, which appeared on this blog, seems to indicate that it is a mitzvah to give the get, at least according to major gedolim he cites. Rav Sternbuch also says "it is correct for him to be concerned for her claim that she finds him revolting (ma'os alei) and it is prohibited for him to leave her as an aguna - even if she is not correct," and "leaving her as an aguna is a transgression of a severe sin of onas devarim - not to torment his wife." This indicates he thinks it is a mitzvah to give the get.
DeleteRegardless of whether it is technically a mitzvah, it is cruel, and cruelty (causing pain unnecessarily) is clearly immoral whether or not the person is technically acting within the bounds of halacha. There are countless statements in the Torah to the effect that we should emulate G-d's kindness and mercy, love all creatures and bring them closer to Torah, treat others as you would like to be treated, love your fellow as yourself, etc. Withholding a get just because you can (or just because you are unhappy with divorce-related negotiations -- who isn't?) directly contradicts the Torah's most basic teachings.
Normative halacha is when a question arises and the posek finds a solution in an accepted source, Shulchan Aruch, a Rishon, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, etc. Failing that, he finds a Gadol HaDor and asks him. In issues such as divorce that produce mamzerim, such as permitting a real Agunah to remarry based on the pesak of a Gadol HaDor, the custom was for the Gadol who paskened the question to insist that several other Gedolei HaDor agree or his pesak was not to be used. This is the halacha approach I learned by being meshamesh many gedolim of the past and present generation. I never heard of someone inventing a reason why the earlier sources are not acceptable today or that someone could permit an Agunah or serious question of invalid divorce with a logical deftness especially by a lone rabbi, not matter who he is. My argument with Ora rabbis is not about the interpretation of the Rambam, the normative arguments of rabbis. It is about their right to invent new ideas to permit things that are not based on sources and even conflict with traditional sources. To conclude: to answer the above questions I ask you: show me a source in Rishonin, etc. or show me a Gadol HaDor and preferably several of them or say your own severo all day long but do not rely on it limaaseh until your colleagues have approved. Alternative strategies to answer the above questions will simply produce many children who are rejected by many Orthodox families. That factor is why Gedolei HaDor did not pasken Agunah issues on their own in many cases.
ReplyDeleteI thought you learned under Rav Moshe Feinstein? See Me'aneh Le-Iggeros, nos. 168-170.
DeleteI wish to further say that my rejection of the sources of Rabbi Broyde and Rabbi Schechter is because they have a) no open poskim that permit clearly the active and public humiliation of husbands, and two, Rabbi Broyde invented with lies the fact that the Gro and Reb Moshe are proofs to his opinion. He left out part of the Gro that permits Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam only with a sterile husband when the Talmud commands a GET and not with MOUS OLEI, and he said that Reb Moshe permits forcing a GET when the marriage is over when Reb Moshe clearly said not to rely on that. Rabbi Schachter openly advertises for violence, which can produce criminal activity, and he acknowledges my sources but blows them away with a severo that nobody ever heard of, and he doesn't even have the decency to get some backing from his colleagues. He alone blows away the Rashbo, Radvaz, Rabbi Yosef Karo, Shach and Chazon Ish who forbid humiliating a husband, surely in public, by saying that they only talk about a wife in the house with the husband, and not a wife who ran away from her husband. Did the women who were repelled and revolted by their husbands and claimed MOUS OLEI always stay home living with the husband, or did they run back to their parents? Of course, many of them left and according to Rabbi Schechter, they can force the GET with a beating, but nobody says that except Rabbi Schechter. This is not normative halacha, it is inventing halacha, and it produces violence, criminal activity, and mamzerim.
ReplyDeletePlease buy a set of Yabia Omer. If you can't afford it, perhaps we can take up a collection for you. It isn't only Rabbi Shachter who says many of these things.
DeleteThe problem with your reaction is the all or nothing attitude. Instead of saying that you disagree with ORA and they have to produce sources for what they are doing, you say that any pressure is Tamei is creating mamzerim.
Let's be clear:
If the pressure comes from a B"D at the worst according to the B"Y it is problematic M'D'Rabbanan(since you know where he quotes the Rashba so well, go there and then back up a few lines).
I am fairly certain that there is no such thing as a sofek Mamzer M'd'Rabbanan... Of the four cases that he brings there only one of them would result in sofek mamzerim, and that is when a non-Jewish court of its own volition forces a man to give a Get.
Now you have promised to show how the Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Shternbuch, Rav Ovadia Yosef and a slew of others were mistaken(l'havdil) in their understanding of the sources and how their teshuvot cannot be relied upon. Yet so far you have not delivered.
Again it is a case where you reach too far. You cannot possibly hope to make a statement like that, and then have your views taken seriously. While you may have meant that they could not be extrapolated out to do the sort of public humiliation that ORA does(I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt), that wasn't what you said. What you said was that you were going to show the world that these Gedolim did not understand the sources, and possibly even offer up a point by point rebuttal of their Teshuvot. Do you not see how such obviously extreme and outrageous statements undermine everything that you want to say?
"Rabbi Schachter openly advertises for violence..."
DeleteWhat?!
Rav Dovid Eidensohn shlit"a's position on divorce is in full accordance with, and is in fact the positions of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Moshe Shternbuch, Posek Hador Rav Elyashev, and the Shulchan Aruch and the commentaries.
DeleteYehuda I disagree on Rav Feinstein and Rav Shternbuch, as he said in his halakhic summary he does not.
DeleteAs far as Posek Hador Rav Elyashev, that may or may not be. All we have seen so far is what what was written in Kovetz Teshuvot, which is a redacted version of what was written in Piskei Din, and in those cases Posek Hador Rav Elyashev was not always the majority opinion.
Furthermore Maran Posek Hador HaMekubal HaElokit HaTzadik Yesodei HaOlam HaGaon Atteret Rosheinu HaRav Ovadia Yosef Shlit"a(see I can play the title game too) must be taken into account.
Futhermore his opinions do not accord with the Sh"A or its commentaries. Take the Beit Yosef that he likes to keep quoting on Eh"E 154(where the B"Y brings the Rashba) who he then disagrees with. The Shach may be against Harchakot, but the Beit Shmuel is not(another major commentator). Perphaps open the Sh"A and read the Teshuvot that the blog owner has posted before you make indefensible statements.
L'chvod R' Doniel, the manager of this blog, shalom u'vracha.
ReplyDeleteI've been following your blog for over a year now, with increasing interest. Though I share most all of the issues that drive you, the one of recent, what I'd call *The Halachic Foundations of Healthy Family Relations*, is extremely important to me due to the fact that I am presently going through it (my wife is suddenly seeking divorce after 25 years via a Feminist-rights organization and refusing to talk to me personally about it, employing plenty of outright antihalchic tactics which is causing major tension within the overall family and community, etc, etc).
Thus while I'd like to suggest that you reply to my questions privately (how can we be in contact?), I want to first share them with your readers. For they are far from theoretical!
1) Why is there no concern in all you and your commentors have been writing about the EMOTIONAL & SPIRITUAL DAMAGE caused by such controversies amongst batei neeman b'yisroel, regardless of the psak that determines who wins?? I.e.all this hatred and lashon ha'ra and outright lying in Beis Din -- this is spiritual POISON!! Doesn't it all fall under the rubric of "sinas chinam" which has kept us in Galus for so long? Thus instead of ranting so much about this halachic diyuk or another re. when and how much to pressure the husband, why not delve more into how to get at the SHORESH of all this ugly, clearly anti-Torah energy? Even if there will be a divorce in the end, shouldn't we strive that it could be done amicably with the husband clearly GIVING her the Get with an effective bracha for them both to move on in their life and serve H' better than the unfortunate matzav they had fallen into?
2)Is there any halachic basis for a husband who is trying to get his wife into couple counseling before considering gerushin to pressure her via friends/Rabbonim to do so?
Sincerely,
yy
you can contact me at yadmoshe@gmail.com
DeleteWould you be interested in writing a guest post on this issue?
Might it be that she does not want to talk to you directly because she might have experienced you not listening to her during your 25 years of marriage?
DeleteWhy don't you give her the get and convince her of your good will, and than start courting her to get her back?
I see that Yeshaya is shocked that I said that Rabbi Schachter promoted violence. His 54 minute audio is on the Internet and suggests that a husband who does not give a GET must be coerced and he is very clear about the level of coercion. He even talks about "beating him until his soul flees." Now, when you talk about coercion of a physical nature, what if a person has a heart condition or some illness. You may kill them. And what about ORA terrorizing old parents, old mothers, when such people usually have medical conditions and the stress could kill them. Rabbi Schachter is a potential rotsayach, and if anyone gets hurt, or is beaten, or has a heart attack, Rabbi Schachter should be treated as a criminal with actionable culpability, because he encourages demonizing the husbands and torturing people who may die because of the pressure.
ReplyDeleteNow you may understand better why I fight these people and the language I use against them. We are talking about potential murder.
Rav Dovid Eidensohn: Please provide the link to this talk in which Rav Shachter allegedly says this, and tell us when during the talk the statement occurs. I am highly skeptical that he actually calls upon people to implement physical force upon get refusers.
DeleteLet us look at the real problems here, and they are not just the halacha situation. In halacha, especially a field such as coerced Gittin where few people are experts, it is hard to reach the public with any clear ideas. They haven't the background to appreciate the nuances. But when we talk about two things, everyone can understand. One, is that when a husband is truly forced against his will to divorce his wife, everyone agrees that the GET is worthless. Thus, when he says "I agree" because of coercion, we accept the GET only because we assume he has accepted the will of his rabbis, whom he respects and does their will. But in the Friedman case I told him it is a sin to give the GET and therefore it won't be viable and the children will be mamzerim according to everyone. Secondly, once a child is born under aspersions, because somebody considers him a problem, this is a great burden for the child, and whoever causes it is guilty of child molestation. Furthermore, a child who does marry will pass on the aspersion, or the doubt about his yhichuse, to his children and all generations. This is the main issue, not just the halacha issues. That is why I am fighting tooth and nail, especially as ORA does things and Rabbi Schachter says things that will eventually result in violence and even death, because the old people such as parents who are being demonstrated against cannot take it.
ReplyDeleteHe can give the get out of his own free will at any moment. So why would it be a sin for him to give a get?
DeleteIt might be a sin to give it for the wrong reasons, in your view, but he can always give the get for the right reasons...
RDE,
ReplyDeleteYou are in touch with Friedman? You should have disclosed that information earlier.
James,
DeleteHe did. Really early on he did. He said that he reached out to Friedman and advised him not to give a Get. I'm not sure why he did that, as it was a halakhicly problematic thing to do, but he did.
So if you thought he was simply impartial in the Friedman-Epstein affair and simply worried about the halakha, you were definitely mistaken. He took a side. Which is probably why neither Rav Kamenetsky or Rav Shachter have been contacted to offer their own rebuttals.
RDE mentioned earlier in the comments on this blog that he communicated with Friedman and told him not to give the get.
DeleteBatmelechApr 26, 2012 08:09 AM
ReplyDelete..."Why don't you give her the get and convince her of your good will, and than start courting her to get her back?"
Please say that you're only an internet troll deliberately offering obscene advice for fun. Otherwise I'm forced to conclude that you're completely deranged.
I am completely serious.
DeleteIf he really wants her back, he has to gain her LOVE back.
And love cannot be COERCED back, it can only be gained back on a voluntary basis.
By withholding the get, he can make her life miserable, extort all kinds of things, but he will not regain her love.
>Please say that you're only an internet troll deliberately offering obscene advice for fun. Otherwise I'm forced to conclude that you're completely deranged.<
Delete??????
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/774176/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Fighting_The_Agunah_Crisis:_A_Panel
ReplyDeleteKT
Joel Rich
Dear Rav Dovid Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteOn few occasions you have argued that few people are expert in Gittin, and in instance you claimed that Rav Kaminetsky is not a Gadol when it comes to Gittin.
Who is able to decide who is in fact a Gadol in this field, and what if others disagree with your "election" of experts?
This in principle applies to other areas as well, but I wish to know the calculus you use to determine who is and who isn't sufficiently qualified in that field to posken?
Many Thanks and best wishes.
Here are the facts. The majority of rishonim and acharonim hold that mo'us olai is not a reason for a get - see rav gestetner's kuntrus as well as r dovid eidensohn's wiping the floor with the "world class talmid" and it is ossur to pressurize the man in this case. i will not reinvent the wheel - see rav gestetner's kuntrus.
ReplyDeleteany person who is lo tzias dina without even going to secular court loses his/her rights to ever litigate again on any matter even unrelated in any bais din - see shulchan oruch and rema choshen mishpot siman 26 seif 1. ask chaim berlin about this for confirmation in practice.
according to the divrei chaim a woman who does not show up in bais din is a moredes which will be discussed later even if she does not go to secular court.
a woman who goes to secular court without a vaild heter is not only a moredes but is also psik reisha a moser as it is impossible to fight a divorce without running your husband down.
a moser is yored le'gehionom le'dorei doros ve'aino oleh shin peh gimmel if my memory serves me correctly. there is no other aveiroh in the torah where such a punishment is promised.
a woman who went to secular court is mechaleles sheim shomayim, meyaker elilim and meirim yad be'toras moshe rabeinu.
in the light of this if she has no rights to summons her husband to bais din if she is in arko'oys, how can a bais din let her in let alone issue a siruv or order a get? such a bais din is a kangaroo court.
it is ossur to marry such a woman according to the gedolim of the previous generation in the us (previously posted by rav eidensohn on this blog) even if somehow she obtains a valid get.
many poskim hold that the cheirem of rabbinu gershom does not apply if she went to secular court because the cheirem was not instituted to punish the man if the woman misbehaves. hence he does not need a heter meah rabbonim according to many poskim. rav sternbuch does require him to deposit a get in this situation but mentions nothing about a hetter meah rabbonim.
the chassam sofer is scared that people may conclude that the cheirem is inapplicable and requires the man to wait I believe close to 4 years in such a case.
rav elyashiv holds that virtually all gittin in ny state will end up being forced because of the ny get law despite what gedaliah swartz holds.
in order for a woman to do t'shuvah and be able to get into bais din when she went to arko'oys, she needs to not only get out of arko'oys but repay any awards from arko'oys and all her husband's legal costs. rav dov tzvi abraham is of the opinion that even in this case she needs to be kept waiting a long time for a get because there is a risk she will go back to arko'oys.
according to the vast majority of poskim including the orginal psak of rav ovadyiah a moredes is kept waiting forever. most poskim do not require any payments to a moredes after 12 months and if the sefardim have a different minhag, they can keep this to themselves and not try to invent racism on this blog.
more to follow. now i know eddie, shaul shapira et al all find these halochos a big joke because they think that the MO corrupt amoliekites have thrown out the shulchan oruch. that is their problem, not mine. you can shoot the messenger but not the message.
Not only do they find the torah a joke but the terrible ordeals that women put men through destroying them they also find a joke. exactly like shaul hamelech - they are kind to these fake agunahs who deserve to be dealt with harshly with all their mesirah but are cruel to the husbands who are following the halochos and going to botei din.
The majority of rishonim and acharonim hold that mo'us olai is not a reason for a get - see rav gestetner's kuntrus as well as r dovid eidensohn's wiping the floor with the "world class talmid" and it is ossur to pressurize the man in this case.
DeleteWell as has been demonstrated on this blog by the blog owner, you don't have Rov Rishonim. Nor do you have Rov Acharonim. That is a false claim. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's tactic of telling a lie until it becomes truth will not work here.
Yes most poskim probably would agree that is ossur to "pressurize" a husband. Besides the fact that it would be impractical, how many Batei Din own a Hyperbaric Chamber? Not to mention the various legalities of torture and false imprisonment that would be involved.
However as the Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Ovadia Yosef both rule that is perfectly acceptable to pressure the husband to give a get, as does Rav Shternbuch and Rav Moshe Feinstein, your claim of a Rov is false.
any person who is lo tzias dina without even going to secular court loses his/her rights to ever litigate again on any matter even unrelated in any bais din - see shulchan oruch and rema choshen mishpot siman 26 seif 1. ask chaim berlin about this for confirmation in practice.
Your sentence composition needs some work here, as it is this statement is pure nonsense. What I believe you are saying is that someone who goes to a secular court loses their rights to be heard in a B"D and you are claiming the Rema for this. Again a false claim:
Rama C"M 26:1
Rama: the Beis Din may put into nidui or cherem one who brings a case before a non-Jewish court until he withdraws the case (Maharik, shoresh 187). And any one who supported a Jew bringing a case to a non-Jewish court was also put into cherem (Rivash (Siman 102). And even if he does not bring the case to be tried before the non-Jewish court but rather to use the non-Jewish court to force his Baal din to come to him for the case in Beis Din by means of their issuing a court order for this, it is appropriate to stretch him out on the pole (i.e., give him lashes) (Mordechai, Bava Kama, perek hagozel kama). And see Siman 388. One who already brought
his case before a non-Jewish court and was obligated by them and afterwards brings his claim before Dayanei Yisrael, there are those that say that we don’t relate to the matter, meaning the Dayanei Yisrael to not hear the case (Maharik, shoresh 187), and there are those that say that the case is heard (Mordechai, Bava Kama, Siman 195), unless he caused a loss to his opposing litigant before the non-Jewish judges, in which case it is no longer heard by dayanei Yisrael (the
ruling of the Maharam Mirsbork). And the first line of reasoning seems to me the main one.
a woman who goes to secular court without a vaild heter is not only a moredes but is also psik reisha a moser as it is impossible to fight a divorce without running your husband down.
DeleteA woman or a man, as the Rama says, and all who support them are supposed to be treated as if they are Nidui.
As it is clear that Friedman went to secular court first without a valid heter from a B"D, this applies to him. Also Rav Dovid Eidensohn, as he has freely admitted that he is supporting him, should also be treated with contempt.
many poskim hold that the cheirem of rabbinu gershom does not apply if she went to secular court because the cheirem was not instituted to punish the man if the woman misbehaves. hence he does not need a heter meah rabbonim according to many poskim. rav sternbuch does require him to deposit a get in this situation but mentions nothing about a hetter meah rabbonim.
Get your eyes checked because he does mention Cherem D'Rabbeinu Gershom.
in order for a woman to do t'shuvah and be able to get into bais din when she went to arko'oys, she needs to not only get out of arko'oys but repay any awards from arko'oys and all her husband's legal costs. Another false claim. See C"M 388 that the Rema above cites.
according to the vast majority of poskim including the orginal psak of rav ovadyiah a moredes is kept waiting forever. Not true. Rav Ovadia was quoting Rav Mesas, if you had read his full opinion you would see that this was not necessarily universally accepted.
most poskim do not require any payments to a moredes after 12 months and if the sefardim have a different minhag, they can keep this to themselves and not try to invent racism on this blog. I posted 4 Teshuvot on this from the Yaskil Avdei. I allowed you to demonstrate your ignorance of this. However, if you had checked the four sources that I had cited, you would have seen that the last of the four was written when the Yaskil Avdei was the Av Beit Din of Beit Din HaGadol and it was cosigned by... wait for it... Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, and Rav Yaakov Ades. The need to wait 12 mos is a Chiddush. The Ben Ish Hai and Rav Ovadia Yosef did not impose that stringency.
Now if someone wants to follow the Chumrot of whatever Chassidc Admor... who am I to argue. Feel free. However, when you want to start declaring children to be mamzerim or even sofek mamzerim based on a Get that the B"Y says is only sofek possul m'd'rabbanan(again assuming the B"D followed the standard procedure of Bitul Modaah)I am going to take offense.
DeleteNo one has yet been able to show that in this case we rule sofek d'rabbanan l'humra. That somehow this case is special and does not follow the normal rules. You can argue whether what ORA does is forbidden as humiliation ect(I believe it is) and I really don't care. However, when you want to start applying a false label to children as scare tactics and for shock value, claiming that they will be forever ostracized, that is simply absurd. It is a subhuman tactic to take in a debate.
well said Stan.. I too commented earlier in another blog that EVEN IF THESE YU TORAH TWISTERS WERE RIGHT, THE HALOCHO of coerced GET DOES NOT APPLY TO A MOREDET AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF ORAH CASES THAT THE WOMAN IS A MOREDET, YET THEY HUNT DOWN THE MAN AND BLAME HIM!!!
ReplyDeleteSEE http://lonnakin.blogspot.com/ ; AND http://mamzeralert.blogspot.com/ ETC.. YET WE NEVER FIND THAT ORAH OR THE OTHER CORRUPT RABBIS WILL BLAME THE WOMAN???????????????????
"now i know eddie, ----- et al all find these halochos a big joke because they think that the MO corrupt amoliekites have thrown out the shulchan oruch. that is their problem, not mine. you can shoot the messenger but not the message."
ReplyDeleteMy remarks regarding the jokes were directly aimed at Stan's mockery of every single one of his opponents, by making a play on their names. In my limited knowledge of Halacha, I have never seen this as a legitimate Halachic argument. If you are a Raavad, then you can make strong comments on the Rambam. Unfortunately, we do not have giants of the stature of Raavad and Rambam, and certainly none of the posters on here fall in that category, with due respect to learned rabbonim.
once again michael tzedokki is lying. rav gestetner clearly illustrates that rov rishonim and acharonim do not hold that a get is to be given in the case of mo'us olai. they don't have middle eastern passports but they still count tzedokki. did you even bother to read his kuntrus? it is you who is doing a lenin on anyone. rav gestetner quotes 100's of sources so read what he says first.
ReplyDeleteagain the vast majority of poskim who don't come from fez or bagdad do not hold that any support is given to a moredes regardless of how long has past nor that a get should be given - see rav gestetner.
as for misquoting rav ovadiah if my memory serves me correctly he said that it was the right thing to do about keeping a moredes waiting until she gets grey - except because of times changing ba'avonosoneinu ho'rabim so please you tzedooki you are distorting yet again.
again tzedokki misquotes me. i never used the word mamzer. suddenly rav shmuel birenbaum who heads the list becomes a chaddishe admor.
tzedooki i have a challenge for you. you called me lenin yemach shemo. you compile your list of sources and i will rely on rav gestetner's list and we will see who is lying. you have until monday morning 7:00 am to find more rishonim and acharonim than rav gestetner.
that rav elyashiv said that a get through arko'oys which is not a sofek d'rabonon but a rov de'oraisah since it forced by goyim shows just how out of your depths you are. try arguing in the alepo marketplace. maybe they will believe you there.
if i forgot a part of rav sternbuch's t'shuva, i apologize but my assertion stands - cheirem r' gershom was not instituted to destroy the man but to protect the woman if she is compliant with halochoh.
it's subhuman to legitimately according to halochoh to withold a get but not subhuman to litigate against a man in arko'oys against halochoh by banmkrupting him preventing him from seeing his children, bankrupting him and causing him to lose his job. good job tzeddoki. you really are a good bedfellow of ora no matter how much you protest otherwise.
Stan,
DeleteYour reply is so filled with hatred for Sephardim it is astounding.
you have until monday morning 7:00 am to find more rishonim and acharonim than rav gestetner. Or what? You're Klucker buddies from your local Klan Kleagle are going to come after me? To quote you, I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Otzar Poskim has already done it. A much more extensive list, in fact. Nevermind the leaders of the generation... but you really don't care about that.
that rav elyashiv said that a get through arko'oys which is not a sofek d'rabonon but a rov de'oraisah since it forced by goyim Actually the B"Y said that, so long as it was not the B"D who went to them... but that is not the case we are dealing with by any stretch of the imagination, so bringing it here is just a red herring. That you thought that this was Rav Eliashiv's chiddush, shows that you are out of your depth, that you didn't see that I specifically adressed that above, shows that you don't actually read.
As far a Rav Gestetner(beyond that Otzar Poskim has also given a quite lengthy set of sources) he is one opinion. The Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadia ect... they form the majority, and likewise have their sources. Are you actually going to suggest that these great Rabbanim have not considered the sources that Rav Gestetner brings? That is absurd. They have simply found them unconvincing.
You keep saying Arko'oys but in case you haven't noticed, that isn't the topic under discussion. We are discussing a case where the husband refuses to give a Get, and the B"D and/or wife resort to series of fall backs to pressure the husband.
So, just to settle you down a bit, regarding a woman who seeks to use secular courts to force her husband to give her a Get(without a heter from a B"D) then as the B"Y states אין גט או ריח גט. So can we please move beyond you screaming arkoy'os, because it is pointless, and it is not what we are discussing. Specifically we are discussing the various pressures that have been a bit of machloket amongst the Achronim.
Oh if you can drop the racism too that would be nice.
again the vast majority of poskim who don't come from fez or bagdad do not hold that any support is given to a moredes regardless of how long has past nor that a get should be given - see rav gestetner.
DeleteSo now we shouldn't rely on Rav Eliashiv either? So we only rely on a posek when it suits your fancy? That's an interesting halakhic model.
as for misquoting rav ovadiah if my memory serves me correctly he said that it was the right thing to do about keeping a moredes waiting until she gets grey - except because of times changing ba'avonosoneinu ho'rabim so please you tzedooki you are distorting yet again. Unfortunately your memory doesn't suit you. That was a Rav Mesas that he was quoting, that was not his actual opinion.
Eddie your comments about name calling all my enemies are wrong. shaul shapira is an example of someone whom i didn't change his name and he certainly is no friend of mine...
ReplyDeleteder schlachter has been called a rosho and even a potential rotzeach by r dovid e. der schlachter is the 'rabbinic' head of an organization that terrorizes people, i.e. a terrorist organization and he has also been guilty of very egregious abuses of halochoh e.g. ask meir kin.
as for tzaddok, he advocates violence against me. need i say more...
Perhaps S.T.A.N. can be so kind so as to adress what R Sternbuch wrote in the post brought earlier on this blog.
ReplyDeleteYou should be aware that we are obligated to fight against her going to secular courts and we prevent her from remarrying if she does ... Nevertheless in a case where she claims she can't stand him (ma'us alei) and there is no reason to believe they can be reconciled and the man is simply being cruel to her and is being spiteful by not to giving her a divorce - then even though it is prohibited for us to exert any force- G-d forbid! - nevertheless it is correct to notify the husband that the view of many of the gedolim ... is that he is sinning and they would encourage him to give her a get... Regarding the issue of tormenting her and leaving her an aguna - it is correct for him to be concerned for her claim that she finds him revolting (ma'os alei) and it is prohibited for him to leave her as an aguna - even if she is not correct. But we are not to coerce him G-d forbid with any type of coercion that would possibly bring about a get me'usa. Rather ... he needs to come the the realization himself that he must conduct himself like a descendant of Avraham and the verse says that the ways of Torah are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace and that he will find happiness with someone else.
Should Mr Friedman (whom I've never met) be giving a Get to Mrs Epstein (ditto)?
Yes, or No?
Swallow the verbal diahrreah and try to talk straight despite the Tourette's syndrome and provide a straight answer.
"as for tzaddok, he advocates violence against me. need i say more..."
Yes- you need to show where "he advocates violence" against you.
tzaddok you are an utter joke. what is the heading and the article of this posting? it has absolutely nothing to do with the Friedman case (even if so motivated) but has to do with the 10 or 11 issues that in general daas torah wants resolution on and that is what my posting relates to.
ReplyDeleteagain you are the one suggesting violence not me so you need help buddy.
nice to know that rav gestetner is a shittas yochid when in fact he quotes literally tens and tens of non fez rishonim and acharonim, none of whom you have bothered to read. most hold no get and no support indefinitely and some are even sefardi. since you have made a claim, again i challenge you to list all your sources and i will list rav gestetner's and we will see who have more. you don't even need till monday since you were so unequivocal about falsely claiming the majority. you can't thats why your posting is so full of anger and hatred.
as for your previous claims that someone who is in arko'oys is not liable for their opponents legal and other fees, you are downright wrong. see CM chapter 26. even awards in excess of halochoh are genaivoh. see rabbi akivah eiger that a kiddushin used with such monies has no chaloys.
Now that I have posted all of CM 26, let's look at Stans claims one by one.
Delete1)any person who is lo tzias dina without even going to secular court loses his/her rights to ever litigate again on any matter even unrelated in any bais din - see shulchan oruch and rema choshen mishpot siman 26 seif 1 FALSE That is clearly not what the Rema said. The Rema said specifically only the case that the plaintiff brought before the court.(Note the Rema says to see Siman 388, this will be important).
2)a woman who goes to secular court without a vaild heter is not only a moredes but is also psik reisha a moser FALSE This is where that Rema comes back into play. He says to see Siman 388, which specifically deals with when a person is or is not a moser. In 388:5 the Rema rules that a person who believes they have a legitimate claim and takes it to secular court is not a moser though he does bring a Yesh Omrim to the other effect. The Shach S"K 26 rules that we do not follow the Yesh Omrim, that the person is not a moser, and this is a form a Tefisa. Following him in that ruling is the Sma S"K 17 GR"A S"K 34 the Bier Hetiv S"K 22, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Essentially all the Notein Kelim. That should suffice for the moment.
as for your previous claims that someone who is in arko'oys is not liable for their opponents legal and other fees, you are downright wrong. see CM chapter 26. even awards in excess of halochoh are genaivoh FALSE Granted this one is a bit more complicated. This halakha(as brought in 26:4)is a very short version of the Responsa of the Rosh Klal 18 siman 4 and 5. From there it devolves into two cases each of which I will deal with here:
1) The defendant does not show up to court(does not hire a lawyer or in any way try to defend himself). Here it is a machloket. According to the Bach and Kuntras Ve’eileh Hamishpatim rule that in such a case, the claimant is still exempt from paying the legal fees and court costs, and is only required to pay back what he himself recieved in excess of what he would have received from a B"D on account of the other damages being a gerama. The GR"A and Orach Mishpat rule that these other damages are not a gerama, and that since the defendant was completely passive in keeping with the ruling of the Gemarra B"K 27 Where it states that if a person placed a coal on his fellowman’s clothes he must pay for the damage, and cannot claim “why didn’t you take it off,” because the other can reply “why should I take it off, in the end you will have to pay me.” This is still a machloket poskim.
2) In which the defendant actively tries to defend himself, and thus hires a lawer ect. In this case according to the Bach, the GR"A the Kuntras and Orach Mishpat the defendant is liable for whatever fees that he thus incurs, and the plaintiff is only liable for whatever he received in excess of what he would have received from a B"D.
tzaddok you are an utter joke. what is the heading and the article of this posting? it has absolutely nothing to do with the Friedman case (even if so motivated) but has to do with the 10 or 11 issues that in general daas torah wants resolution on and that is what my posting relates to.
ReplyDeleteWow and I thought it was responding to the issues in Rabbi Broydes letter.
Of the 12 questions, secular court is only one of them, and that is, as we said easily dealt with, it is not the only one.
again you are the one suggesting violence not me so you need help buddy.
Are you high? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I have not EVER advocated violence against a fellow Jew, including you Stan. So move on.
nice to know that rav gestetner is a shittas yochid when in fact he quotes literally tens and tens of non fez rishonim and acharonim, none of whom you have bothered to read. most hold no get and no support indefinitely and some are even sefardi. since you have made a claim, again i challenge you to list all your sources and i will list rav gestetner's and we will see who have more. you don't even need till monday since you were so unequivocal about falsely claiming the majority. you can't thats why your posting is so full of anger and hatred.
No anger. No hatred. Just disappointment that you can't seem to see Sephardim equally as Jews, and can't seem to write a single post without demeaning them. Like I said, Rav Gestetner is one Gadol, he wrote a book with a lot of sources. The Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadia, and the Otzar Poskim, also wrote including tens and tens of sources, however none them were overly concerned with whether those writing the opinions were Sephardim or not.
Am i to understand that you are saying that Rav Gestetner considers Sephardim and the opinions of their Gedolim to be beneath him? Now while I did read through the Kuntres of Rav Gestetner, or at least some relevant portions of it, I was highly disappointed to see that he did not deal with the opinions(especially amongst the Notei Kelim of the Shulhan Arukh) who differ with him. Like I said, if you want a list of sources, See the Tzitz Eliezer, See Yabia Omer, see Otzar HaPoskim ect... I'm not about to go through them and list out their sources.
as for your previous claims that someone who is in arko'oys is not liable for their opponents legal and other fees, you are downright wrong. see CM chapter 26. even awards in excess of halochoh are genaivoh. see rabbi akivah eiger that a kiddushin used with such monies has no chaloys. See above. I brought the language of CM 26 that you quoted. It does not say what you seem to think that it does. If you can show me where in the words of the Rema, that it says the things you claim, but to demonstrate the point, I will input all of Siman 26.
1 It is forbidden to bring a case before non Jewish dayanim and their courts(meaning, a permanent seat for their ministers to hear cases) even if they rule by dinei Yisrael, even if they agreed to bring the case before them, this is forbidden. All who come to judge before them, are considered to be Reshaim it’s as if they blaspheme against Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him. Rama: the Beis Din may put into nidui or cherem one who brings a case before a non-Jewish court until he withdraws the case (Maharik, shoresh 187). And any one who supported a Jew bringing a case to a non-Jewish court was also put into cherem (Rivash (Siman 102). And even if he does not bring the case to be tried before the non-Jewish court but rather to use the non-Jewish court to force his Baal din to come to him for the case in Beis Din by means of their issuing a court order for this, it is appropriate to stretch him out on the pole (i.e., give him lashes) (Mordechai, Bava Kama, perek hagozel kama). And see Siman 388. One who already brought
ReplyDeletehis case before a non-Jewish court and was obligated by them and afterwards brings his claim before Dayanei Yisrael, there are those that say that we don’t relate to the matter, meaning the Dayanei Yisrael to not hear the case (Maharik, shoresh 187), and there are those that say that the case is heard (Mordechai, Bava Kama, Siman 195), unless he caused a loss to his opposing litigant before the non-Jewish judges, in which case it is no longer heard by dayanei Yisrael (the ruling of the Maharam Mirsbork). And the first line of reasoning seems to me the main one.
2 If the non-Jews have power and the defendant is alim and he cannot rescue from him by Dayenei Yisrael, he brings the claim before Dayenei Yisrael first, if he [the defendant] does not want to come, he [the claimant] takes permission from the Beis Din and rescues from the non-Jewish judges what is owed to him from the defendant.Rama: The Beis Din is allowed to go before the non-Jewish court and testify that one owes another money (Baal Haterumos in the name of Rav Sherira Gaon). This applies only when the defendant does not want to obey the Beis Din’s ruling, but if this is not the case the Beis Din may not testify before the non-Jewish court (Maharik, Shoresh 1)Permission to bring a case before a non-Jewish court
3 One who accepts upon himself with a kinyan to hear his case with his fellowman before a non-Jewish court, this [kinyan] is worthless and it is forbidden to bring the case before them. If he accepted upon himself that if he would not go before them he would have to give a certain sum to the poor, it is forbidden for him to go with him before the non-Jews, but he is obligated to give the sum he accepted upon himself to the poor. And there is an opinion
ReplyDeletethat the Beis Din does not extract from him [the amount that he vowed], rather they inform him that this vow (neder) is binding.
4 A document that states that he can bring the case before a non-Jewish court, he is not allowed to bring the case before them. And if he [the claimant] gave the document over to a non-Jew to bring the case before their court, he must pay him [the defendant] all losses that exceed what he owes according to dinei Yisrael.
Rama: This ruling only applies only if the claimant could collect from the defendant through a Beis Din, but if the borrower is an alim, he is allowed to sell the document to a non-Jew (Beis
Yosef in the name of the Ritva), and see the end of Siman 469 (Rosh, Responsa Klal 18, Siman 1) for the ruling of a non-Jew who sells his promissory note to a Jew concerning another Jew, if
this can be brought before a non-Jewish court.
So, the halakha is ONLY the actual losses that exceed what he would have gotten according to dinei Yisrael. So again your claim is false. Lawyers, court costs, ect... those are not losses. Losses are what the claiment actually took from the defendant.
shaul shapira, if you are referring to this posting
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/03/rav-sternbuch-saving-agunos-by.html
then this is a suggestion which he proposes to other gedolim but unlike der schlachter does not unequivocally rule like this but has the humility to wait for others to approve.
as for the violence part this goes back a few weeks.
furthermore her sternbuch does not say there is a chiyuv to divorce. he said it is the right thing to do yes strongly but there is still no halachik chiyuv. where does he say public humiliation that der schlachter has advocated (according to r dovid e) is permitted?
however in a case where a woman has unilaterally absconded with a child and prevented the husband from proper access to the child this is very different.
why don't you explain to us shapira and the tzeddoki why this rashanta had to go to a different bais din and did not go back to baltimore?
because she went siruv shopping from corrupt thugs like belsky, that's why. even the triangular fake hechsher leader said there was no chiyuv to to give a get just to go to bais din. but you know better based on a recommendation. frankly i don't see rav sternbuch's approach being accepted by the oylom ha'torah in eretz yisroel.
the rabbanut don't fit in this category. they dance to the tune of their paymasters the tzionim as rav gestetner clearly has shown. what they do is a raih punkt va'kert.
Stan,
DeleteThank you. Really from the bottom of my heart thank you. Your hatred, racism and general nevul pe have done more to undermine your position than any rational argument ever could.
Stan, you are a living example of the reason R Akivas students died. Think about it. You are presumably keeping the harchokes from simcha during the Omer, but you have shown yourself to behave exactly as they should not have. Your aveilus is technical, but clearly is not something you have internalised. You will give a din vcheshbon for your putrid demeaning posts. Unfortunately, there will be NO rishon or acharon who will defend you.
ReplyDeleteI am thoroughly disgusted that the blog owner allowed your racist comment through to this blog. Rabbi Tzadok has handled himself with aplomb. I'd ask the blog owner to take your comments to R Shternbuch and find out if he approves of them. How DARE you call Rabbi Tzadok a Tzeduki? Does your gasus know no bounds?
Shavua Tov to Rav Tzadok,
ReplyDeleteKol haKavod for bringing light to this discussion!
Daas Torah, Apr 26, 2012 07:51 AM:
ReplyDeleteWould you be interested in writing a guest post on this issue?
-- Perhaps. Are you prepared for some real live pathos of a korban in the making? (I will be sending you a private email, btw, so keep a lookout)
Batmelech, Apr 26, 2012 08:09 AM:
Might it be that she does not want to talk to you directly because she might have experienced you not listening to her during your 25 years of marriage?
Why don't you give her the get and convince her of your good will, and than start courting her to get her back?
-- This kind of "suggestion" IS a sad joke. Unfortunately there are growing numbers of feminist thinkers who are really believing it. The reasoning goes like this: Because she is "experiencing" monsters and goblins in her sleep and finds it convenient to blame him for it and everything else she's suffering from, she's given carte blanche to character assasinate him and destroy a "Binyan adei ad"... with the caveat that if, by chance, you prove to her one day that you reeeealy want her, she may be nice and reconsider!
She has no responsibility for making an objective assessment of those "experiences."
With all due respect to the reality of subjective feelings of a woman and anyone for that matter, a marriage b'kedusha is a committment reaching far beyond those experiences. They should be r-e-l-a-t-e-d to, hence the need for good couple counseling. But they are not trump cards when debating the value of maintaining, repairing or destroying a marriage.
yes I would be interested in relevant guest posts
Delete"she is "experiencing" monsters and goblins in her sleep and finds it convenient to blame him for it and everything else she's suffering from,"
DeleteIf she is that bad: why do you want to stay married to her? Why do you not take your feet in your hands and run away (after giving her a get, of course, everything else would be irresponsible)
So once again instead of addressing the real issue of his false claims that rov rishoinim and acharonim hold that mo'us olai makes it permissible for bais din to force a get and tally up all the opinions on this tzaddok translates for us siman chaf vov. maybe he should send it to his friends in ora der schlachter et al. I still chalenge him to prove his assetions which rav gestetner disproved.
ReplyDeletei am not sure what planet tzadok lives on but obviously he does not have a clue about how divorce courts work. this is not about coming to court and claiming i have such and such a document which proves i invented this patent or i have a share in a piece of land. it is all about besmirching and proving that the husband should not see his children and why a divorce should be granted. why do you think divorce lawyers have such a terrible reputation because they invent stories all the time.
i reiterate that anyone will tell you it involves totally exaggerated claims and downright lies and let no one delude oneself otherwise unless he has not seen this whole process. it involves lies and those lies involve plenty of mesirah. in the us the standard practice is to concoct an order of protection almost inevitbly thrown out so let tzadok delude himself that there is no mesirah involved.
even in the epstein case which is not my main concern you have failed to answer 2 fundamentalism questions
1) why epstein went to a different bais din from Baltimore? answer obvious because she would not have gotten a siruv from Baltimore
2) why she went to a bais din comprising reshoim that rav elyashiv told to stay away from gittin.
let's get one thing straight. tzadok said dsepicable thin gs personally about rav shach. i never said anything personal against a sefardi godol yet.
tzadok tried to mislead everyone by claiming sefardi gedolim forced mezonos immediately when it suddenly became 12 months.
i advise him to send his translation to get ora and der slachter who violate choshen mishpot 26 all the time. ask meir kin about this and many others as well.
i am not sure what planet tzadok lives on but obviously he does not have a clue about how divorce courts work. this is not about coming to court and claiming i have such and such a document which proves i invented this patent or i have a share in a piece of land. it is all about besmirching and proving that the husband should not see his children and why a divorce should be granted. why do you think divorce lawyers have such a terrible reputation because they invent stories all the time.
Deletei reiterate that anyone will tell you it involves totally exaggerated claims and downright lies and let no one delude oneself otherwise unless he has not seen this whole process. it involves lies and those lies involve plenty of mesirah. in the us the standard practice is to concoct an order of protection almost inevitbly thrown out so let tzadok delude himself that there is no mesirah involved.
1) Does the husband(or wife) have the ability to plead no contest(meaning there is no law that requires him/her to hire a lawyer)?
2) Does the husband(or wife) have the ability to make counter claims if they so desire?
If you answered yes to both those questions then your entire argument is irrelevant. People lie in court(not just divorce court), they even lie in B"D. They say nasty things about each other(corporate law just has different nasty things to say).
IF the spouse instigating the charges honestly believes that they have a legitimate claim(whether to child custody, child support, marital assets, whatever) the Rema, and all of the poskim, rule that there is no din of a moser.
If the husband(or wife) decides to hire a lawyer and fight back in court, then they have relieved the plaintiff of all responsibility to pay for their legal costs and the plaintiff is now only chayyev for whatever exceeds what a B"D would have give.
tzadok tried to mislead everyone by claiming sefardi gedolim forced mezonos immediately when it suddenly became 12 months.
ReplyDeleteOnce again. The Ben Ish Hai and Rav Ovadia rule that such is the case.
The Yaskil Avdei(co-signed by Rav Eliashiv) ruled that it was only after 12 months. please read
tzadok said dsepicable thin gs personally about rav shach. i never said anything personal against a sefardi godol yet. If you mean that I said that Rav Shach said that Sephardim were mentally inferior, immature and unsuited for communal leadership... yup I said that, because it is a matter of public record. If you say that I said it was one of the greatest mistakes in his life, because Degel HaTorah has never recovered, again you are correct.
i reiterate that anyone will tell you it involves totally exaggerated claims and downright lies and let no one delude oneself otherwise unless he has not seen this whole process. it involves lies and those lies involve plenty of mesirah. in the us the standard practice is to concoct an order of protection almost inevitbly thrown out so let tzadok delude himself that there is no mesirah involved.
Irrelevant. The sources have spoken. Unless you can give something that says opposite of this... Why is it that you get so upset when people show you that the sources don't actually say what you say that they say.
You said you wanted to talk about Arkaot, most specifically what you said the results of Arkaot were. Well I talked about it. I brought sources, and now you say that wasn't what you wanted to discuss.
While you are free to wipe the egg off your face, you are not free to use my shirt tails to do it.
even in the epstein case which is not my main concern you have failed to answer 2 fundamentalism questions
1) why epstein went to a different bais din from Baltimore? answer obvious because she would not have gotten a siruv from Baltimore
2) why she went to a bais din comprising reshoim that rav elyashiv told to stay away from gittin.
Now as far as your fundamentalism questions.
1) Who ever said that the Baltimore B"D had a right to judge here. Especially as, Aharon's people have given ample evidence, the B"D started operating outside of halakha(that is if Aharon's people are to be believed).
2) Please provide a source for Rav Eliashiv saying that Rav Kemenetsky is(chas v'shalom) a Rasha. Otherwise rescind your claim.
once again tzaddok completely misleads and shows he does not know what he is talking about. how many divorce cases have you been involved in helping people maven?
ReplyDeleteIt involves lying to the court and that is mesirah. A plaintiff does not plead no contest regardless of how many times tzadok claims otherwise. he can claim as much as he likes that if someone believes something that is delusional it is not mesirah but divorce court involves delusional claims which is basically mesirah especially regarding the character of the other party.
you did not just quote what rav shach said so stop being dishonest. you denigrated him.
you made claims that it is false that if someone is lo tzias dina they lose their claims in bais din regarding any other matter with any other litigant. ask chaim berlin it is well known that even rav elyashiv said they could not sue veretsky. this is how botei din world wide have ruled but the tzedoki knows better.
rav elyashiv told belsky and those associated with being mafkia kiddushin le'mafreiah to stay away from gittin specifically and those who do not have experience with gittin in the us to stay away. how dare kamenetsky join up with a bais din of reshoim? it is mefuresh in shulchan oruch that this is ossur.
you are wrong about having to pay legal fees. i believe there are plenty of sources including the shach who hold this way. get real you still have not produced rov rishonim and acharonim about mo'us olai. your posts are full of bluster and hot air but that's all.
It involves lying to the court and that is mesirah. A plaintiff does not plead no contest regardless of how many times tzadok claims otherwise. he can claim as much as he likes that if someone believes something that is delusional it is not mesirah but divorce court involves delusional claims which is basically mesirah especially regarding the character of the other party.
ReplyDeleteStill no sources Stan? This is getting tiring. So you are saying that you know better that the Sh"A. Oh and of course the Plaintiff doesn't plead no contest, the defendant however can. However you don't really want to talk about the sources do you?
you did not just quote what rav shach said so stop being dishonest. you denigrated him.
Anybody can go back and see what I said. However, this is two things you and your sock puppet Binyamin have in common. One you don't actually read what I say, you simply assume. Second it is a red-herring, as it has nothing to do with what is under discussion.
you made claims that it is false that if someone is lo tzias dina they lose their claims in bais din regarding any other matter with any other litigant. ask chaim berlin it is well known that even rav elyashiv said they could not sue veretsky. this is how botei din world wide have ruled but the tzedoki knows better.
1) This is simply hear say. So it is pointless and irrelevant.
2) You claimed that the Rema in C"M 26:1 said something that he clearly did not, and none of the Notei Kelim say what you say. So unless you have an actual source you are wrong.
rav elyashiv told belsky and those associated with being mafkia kiddushin le'mafreiah to stay away from gittin specifically and those who do not have experience with gittin in the us to stay away. how dare kamenetsky join up with a bais din of reshoim? it is mefuresh in shulchan oruch that this is ossur.
Again hear say. If you can produce a letter singed by Rav Eliashiv then we will have a starting point. Until then, this is nothing more than hear say, and irrelevant. So again do you have a source?
you are wrong about having to pay legal fees.
Why because you say so?
i believe there are plenty of sources including the shach who hold this way.
You believe but you have yet to produce them. Whereas the Shach as I actually quoted above, C"M 388 S"K 26 says the opposite of what you say. So unless the Shach didn't read what he wrote, I'm fairly sure that he isn't your source. So when you actually get a source please produce it.
get real you still have not produced rov rishonim and acharonim about mo'us olai. your posts are full of bluster and hot air but that's all. No, you simply won't read them. Not only I, but the Blog Owner have repeatedly shown them to you and your sock puppet Binyamin. You can find it in Otzar HaPoskim on Eh"E 77:2 or look at the Kuntres that they put out called Kephia B'Get כפיה בגט.
I'll be interested in whatever dodge you decide to come up with next. It should be interesting.
yes this is getting tiring. you obviously don't have the foggiest how divorce court works. you only get the children by denigrating your spouse with lies, false orders of protection etc. what source do i need for this? go to the courts and see how they operate. you must be daft claiming that this does not involve mesirah.
ReplyDeleteit's pointless and irrelevant that every bais din in america disagreed with you and would not hear chaim berlin's claim. you are a revisionist trying to re-write history. then perhaps please explain why the building is in veretsky's hands and why no bais din was prepared to get involved?
there is a letter where rav elyashiv replied to rav shlomo miller where he said that only experts should be involved in gittin. he put out a letter against belsky in yerusholayim which belsky admitted referred to him. are you accusing daas torah of being a liar? those are his claims not mine. the bedatz also put out letters against belsky. just because you don't know the background doesn't allow you to re-write history.
you can carry on making any claims you like. you are a liar, a revisionist and someone who attacks those upholding the halochoh. i have not heard a single strident comment from you against schlachter for what he did e.g. in the meir kin case where the wife was in arko'oys from beginning until today, the husband deposited a get in bais din but schlachter put a siruv on kin even though the wife was in arko'oys. if i didn't know better, i would be convinced you were an apikores.
clearly it is pointless arguing with you. you know better, you rewrite history and halochoh as it suits you, you denigrate the previous godol hador, you wished violence on me despite repeatedly denying it and frankly get some help.
there is a letter where rav elyashiv replied to rav shlomo miller where he said that only experts should be involved in gittin. he put out a letter against belsky in yerusholayim which belsky admitted referred to him. are you accusing daas torah of being a liar? those are his claims not mine. the bedatz also put out letters against belsky. just because you don't know the background doesn't allow you to re-write history.
DeleteReferrencing Rav Belsky yes. However, my question wasn't about Rav Belsky, it was about Rav Kamenetsky. Please show where Rav Eliashiv called Rav Kamenetsky a Rasha or withdraw your claim.
clearly it is pointless arguing with you.
Without sources yes it is. Because all you and your sock puppet alter-ego have is opinions.
you know better,
Yes because I know the Shulhan Arukh and its commentaries.
you rewrite history
Haven't actually discussed history, so this is a pointelss ad hominem.
and halochoh as it suits you,
By that I think you mean I don't follow the book of S.T.A.N. and his sock puppet Binyamin. You would be right.
you denigrate the previous godol hador,
No, not true. Though I assume you are talking about Rav Shach, though using the term Gadol Hador for him is a bit loose. Now if you are saying that I denigrated Rav Shach, and by that you mean that I said he made a major mistake when he uttered racial epithets, then you are right and I am guilty as charged.
you wished violence on me despite repeatedly denying it and frankly get some help.
No I didn't. The most you can say is that I told you that the sort of racial epithets that you sling around without a care, will provoke violent responses. Which is true. I wouldn't advise someone to shout the N-Word at African Americans in the Bronx, and I wouldn't advise someone to say the kinds of things about Sephardim, the Ben Ish Hai and Rav Ovadia that you have on this blog, in the presense of Sephardim.
Though it is interesting that your claim has gone from advocating violence against you to wishing violence upon you. Both of which are untrue.
oh and if you want a source about mesirah in arko'oys why don't you ask the goishe judge who asked one of the most prominent brooklyn lawyer who is jewish with initials ES why all the religious jewish cases are by far the worst and why always the women make false claims of child abuse to the authorities in divorce cases and they are always lies?
ReplyDeletewith no disrespect, from the horses mouth tzedokki.
you know blow all despite thinking you are a know it all.
as for why rav elyashiv never explicitely mentioned belsky in the letter which i know you will raise because you are such a genius , its in order not to destroy belsky. he knew he had a wife children who needed shidduchim etc and did not want him to lose his wife etc unlike the rosho schlachter who supports women who destroy their husband totally.
oh and if you want a source about mesirah in arko'oys why don't you ask the goishe judge who asked one of the most prominent brooklyn lawyer who is jewish with initials ES why all the religious jewish cases are by far the worst and why always the women make false claims of child abuse to the authorities in divorce cases and they are always lies?
ReplyDeleteThat proves nothing. Try again.
as for why rav elyashiv never explicitely mentioned belsky in the letter which i know you will raise because you are such a genius , its in order not to destroy belsky. he knew he had a wife children who needed shidduchim etc and did not want him to lose his wife etc unlike the rosho schlachter who supports women who destroy their husband totally.
Once again, I didn't say Rav Belsky I said Rav Kamenetsky.
nothing proves anything mekulkal. it proves that you don't even understand how divorce courts work and are so pathetic that you don't even have the decency to back down when proved wrong.
ReplyDeletejudges complain about the terrible mesirah that frum jews are oiyver but according to you that proves nothing.
again i repeat stop re-writing history. there was not a single bais din that was prepared to allow chaim berlin to be a toveah against veretzky because chaim berlin was lo tzias dina. you can claim otherwise but the facts do not change.
mekulkal ie tzedokki go get the psycho help you need dude. we will start a collection for you if you need it.
nothing proves anything mekulkal. it proves that you don't even understand how divorce courts work and are so pathetic that you don't even have the decency to back down when proved wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou've actually proven nothing. So divorce court is a messy thing. Yup I agree with you. Does that mean that it is mesirah ect... no. The Shulhan Arukh says not. You are not going to prove anything by saying that in your opinion it ought to be considered mesirah. Either it is halakhically or it is not.
there was not a single bais din that was prepared to allow chaim berlin to be a toveah against veretzky because chaim berlin was lo tzias dina.
Actually no. There was not a B"D that was willing to hear the case because of what happened when Rav Aron Shechter refused to come to Rav Moshe Feinstein's B"D claiming that a Rosh Yeshiva was exempt from a hazmana. Veretzky claimed a kim li on Rav Aron Shechter, that they held like him that the Rabbanim of a Yeshiva didn't have to come to a B"D. In what was a fair turn about the various Batei Din agreed with them. Rav Eidensohn commenter RaP have been over every inch of that already on various previous posts. You are the one who is rewriting history, as the very detailed history on this blog will demonstrate.
Just as a follow up, you can see that a B"D actually did take on the case, the hazmana they sent to Veretzky and the Veretzky response here:
ReplyDeletehttp://theantitzemach.blogspot.com/2007/12/torah-never-forgets.html
Chaim Berlin didn't lose its ability to go to B"D, they just lost their ability to win in one for the reasons the Toein gives in Veretsky's response.
so once again you show total ignorance of the court system. false claims of child abuse are not made to the courts but to child services in all cases.
ReplyDeletemost orders of protection involve calling the police. what about the cases where men are arrested for 48 hours just because a woman says so when no harm was in fact done to the woman?
all the above standard practice by the frummes.
all the above is not mesirah right?
you are delusional.
thanks for the link revisionist. this is what is quoted in it.
ReplyDelete"Having said that Rabbi Fried answers his question of "Does my Client need to show up in B"D at the behest of these people" by launching into an attack of how people who are Lo Tzayseh LeDinah one need not respond to their calls to a D"T, especially since they haven't done Tshuvah, and still claim that they never needed to respond to Carlebach's Hazmonos."
thanks for continuing to lie tzedokki:
ReplyDeletethis is from the BDA the death bin of america from your buddies:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/RecoveringCosts.pdf
Improper Actions of a Plaintiff
Use of Secular Courts
A plaintiff who prosecutes a monetary claim before the secular courts most often violates the Torah’s prohibition against litigating before gentile courts.7 Jewish law thus views a plaintiff in secular court as engaging in a prohibited form of extrajudicial self-help.
The Rama quotes two opposing positions regarding whether a
defendant improperly brought to secular court may seek monetary compensation from the plaintiff where the plaintiff ’s prohibited action results in the defendant incurring expenses he would not have otherwise had to pay.8 These two views emanate
from opposing views among the Rishonim regarding whether a plaintiff intending only to reclaim what is rightfully his or hers (lihotzi et shelo), but not to otherwise harm his or her adversary, is liable in tort for such action. Maharam Lublin rules in accordance with those authorities who do not find the plaintiff liable in tort to the defendant.9 The Shach, however, cites and rules in accordance with a number of authorities who assign liability to the plaintiff.10 Even if such recovery is typically allowed, a defendant may sometimes be found to have acceded to secular court adjudication, and thus waived his or her rights
to such recovery, if he or she simply participates in the process without actively seeking to have the matter removed to a beit din.
R. Meir MiLublin (1558-1616), , no. 26. The Rishonim generally label one who
improperly seeks secular court relief as a moser (informant), and
388:2, rules that a moser is categorically liable in tort. Nevertheless, Maharam Lublin, citing the
Mordechai, limits this liability to one who intentionally causes financial loss to his or her adversary
.
Revisionist? YOu are the one claiming that no B"D would take the case. Instead we see that a B"D did. How the Veretzky Toein responded is a different matter. Instead he responded that they have comitted a number of aveirot, the most serious of which was that they ignored another B"D and had yet to follow through on a judgement by that B"D.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have demonstrated is that you do not read Hebrew. That is lovely, I'm trying to argue halakha with a person who has no access to the texts. Because if you had read the response of the Toein you would have see that his primary focus was on Chaim Berlin disobeying the B"D of Rav Moshe Feinstein...
However, all of that is another red-herring issue. You said that there was not a single bais din that was prepared to allow chaim berlin to be a toveah against veretzky because chaim berlin was lo tzias dina. Which is an ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD as a B"D issued a hazmana at their bequest.
As far as what you have quoted(in part apparently) from JLaw. First I take my halakha from the Sh"A not the internet. Second it says nothing different than what I have already said. A defendant that participates in the case loses many of their rights for recovery by a B"D.
While it deals with a moser and 388:2, it does not deal with 388:5, in which a person who believes that have a legitimate claim is not considered a moser.
Learn to read Hebrew and then come back and discuss halakha.
really i can't read hebrew. thanks tzodok. once the bais din was informed of the truth they would do nothing about it...
ReplyDeleteyou have invented facts - the halochoh is one whi is lo tzias dina loses his right in bais din. that you challenged and you lied.
do you really think i can't read hebrew. i even showed your bedfellas disagreed with you.
tzedokki
ReplyDeleteani rohe the'atah dafuk ba'rosh. ani garti ba'aretz kama shanim va'avadti sham bekamah misradim. ata amata she'ani lo yodeah eich likroh be'ivrit.
tekabel ezrah mirofeh psichiatri. ata medebaer shtuyot kol hazman.
af beit din asah shom davar la'azor lechaim berlin beglal shehim lo anu l'reb moshe feinstein biglal shemi shlo tzais dina im hu mazmin mishehu le'bait din, hanitvah yachol le'hakshiv shb matzav hazeh ain le'toveih hazchut lidrosh shehanvah yavoh le'beit din.
now aplogize for lying michael tzedokki.
once the bais din was informed of the truth they would do nothing about it...
ReplyDeleteNo once the B"D was informed that they were in seruv from another B"D namely that of the Gadol HaDor, they refused to do anything more. If you would actually read the letter form the toein you would see that this is his main argument. But like I said it is obvious that you can't read hebrew.
you have invented facts - the halochoh is one whi is lo tzias dina loses his right in bais din. that you challenged and you lied.
Really? What you claim is against the Rema and all of the Notei Kelim on C"M 26:1. So get over it. The halakha is against you.
i even showed your bedfellas disagreed with you.
No you showed that your reading comprehension is really really REALLY poor. That you can't even understand what is written in English.
carry on lying. you claimed i couldn't read hebrew. even the sources you quote say the opposite of you, tzeddoki.
ReplyDeletethe halochoh is against me when i quoted from where you told me to look and obviously you did not comprehend what was written because it said the exact opposite.
i also quoted from your friends at the death bin who said exactly the opposite of you. The Rishonim generally label one who
improperly seeks secular court relief as a moser (informant) -source bda.
9 The Shach, however, cites and rules in accordance with a number of authorities who assign liability to the plaintiff - source bda.
"Having said that Rabbi Fried answers his question of "Does my Client need to show up in B"D at the behest of these people" by launching into an attack of how people who are Lo Tzayseh LeDinah one need not respond to their calls to a D"T, especially since they haven't done Tshuvah, and still claim that they never needed to respond to Carlebach's Hazmonos." -your source not mine. see choshen hoefod siman 18 and shvillei hampishpot sha'ar 5 siman 12for other sources on this halocho.
get help dude. you owe to the blog readers.
daas torah you can see how this biryon lies. i urge you not to post his lies anymore.
carry on lying. you claimed i couldn't read hebrew. even the sources you quote say the opposite of you, tzeddoki.
DeleteThis is your greatest lie yet. The sources are clearly quoted and translated above. With the exclusion of 388:5. So I will input that now, just so everyone can see your lies:
בעלי דין שהיתה בניהם מריבה על הקרקע או על מטלטלין זה אומר שלי וזה אומר שלי עמד אחד מהם ומסרה ביד גוים מנגדים אותו עד שיחזור הדבר לכמות שהיה ויסלק יד אנס ויעשו דין בישראל הגה מכל מקום אין לו דין מסור אפ על פי שהפסיד חבירו ע"י זה הרבה דלא מקרי מסור אלא במתכוין להזיק אבל לא במתכוין להוץיא את שלו ויש חולקין
Litigants that had between them a dispute whether about property or about goods each claims that it is their own. One stands and hands it(the case) over to non-Jews we oppose him until he returns what was taken and ceases from force and does according to the law of IsraelRema: In any case he does not have the din of a moser even though he greatly damaged his friend this way he is only called a moser when his intention was to harm but not when his intention was to take what was his and there are those that dispute this...
Now lest you think that we follow the Yesh in the Rema, Shach S"K 26 אין לו דין מסור בתשובה מהר"ם מלובלין סי' כ"ו כתב אף על פי שיש חולקים בזה נראה שכך הלכה He does not have the din of a moser in the Teshuva of the Maharam of Lublim Siman 26 he wrote that even though there are those that dispute this, this is the halakha...
i also quoted from your friends at the death bin who said exactly the opposite of you. The Rishonim generally label one who improperly seeks secular court relief as a moser (informant) -source bda.9 The Shach, however, cites and rules in accordance with a number of authorities who assign liability to the plaintiff - source bda.
DeleteCorrect. I actually this WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS PASSIVE however should they hire a lawyer and became an active participant in the proceedings they lose those rights as you said,
Even if such recovery is typically allowed, a defendant may sometimes be found to have acceded to secular court adjudication, and thus waived his or her rights to such recovery, if he or she simply participates in the process without actively seeking to have the matter removed to a beit din.
Once again you stop reading once you think you have found something that you think proves your point.
by launching into an attack of how people who are Lo Tzayseh LeDinah one need not respond to their calls to a D"T
DeleteAre you honestly going to claim that a person who takes someone to court ONCE is in the category of רגיל לא ציית לדינא(one who is acccustomed to not obeying the law). Yes that is the Toein's claim against Chaim Berlin... but why? Not because they took someone to court, but rather because they refused seven hazamanot of the B"D of UOR, and the Ikkul issued by them ect... You are seriously out to lunch. Start with the Gemarra on Sanhedrin 29a and work your way down from there... The Rema in C"M 26:1 and 388:5 clearly does not apply this to a person who goes to Arkaot. Until you can show a definitive source otherwise, that isn't relying on someone being in disobediance to the summons and rulings of a B"D for 17 YEARS then you might have something.
thanks tzedokki:
ReplyDeleteבעלי דין שהיתה בניהם מריבה על הקרקע או על מטלטלין זה אומר שלי וזה אומר שלי עמד אחד מהם ומסרה ביד גוים מנגדים אותו עד שיחזור הדבר לכמות שהיה ויסלק יד אנס ויעשו דין בישראל הגה מכל מקום אין לו דין מסור אפ על פי שהפסיד חבירו ע"י זה הרבה דלא מקרי מסור אלא במתכוין להזיק אבל לא במתכוין להוץיא את שלו ויש חולקין
so a woman who gets an order of protection preventing the husband from seeing the children is not trying to harm him? meshugeneh , need i say any more. going to arko'oys and asking for equitable distribution and alimoney which you are not entitled to is not trying to harm him, meshugeneh.
Stan edit out personal attacks & insults from your comments
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the substance of your criticism - but please leave out inflammatory states such as that someone is an apikorus, liar etc.
so a woman who gets an order of protection preventing the husband from seeing the children is not trying to harm him
ReplyDeleteIf it is a valid claim ABSOLUTELY NOT. Rabbi Eidensohn has written an entire book on this.
Do not put words into my mouth. I'm not saying that a woman should run to a court(chas v'shalom) and make up lies about her husband. I am saying that if the husband tries to fight in the court, then the wife becomes exempt from his legal fees, provided that the husband is not trying to return it to a B"D.
Stan, please tell me that you recognize that there are cases in which husbands actually do abuse either their wives, their husbands or both, and in such cases, the wife should get a protection order. Rav Eliashiv said it, Rav Shternbuch said it, Rav Moshe Feinstein said it(I could go on). Rav Eidensohn has written and entire book on the subject.
If the woman is lying, of course that is an aveira. That is a completely different story.
going to arko'oys and asking for equitable distribution and alimoney which you are not entitled to is not trying to harm him
Again you are trying to twist my words to say things that I never said. So let me make it clear. If anyone(woman or man) goes to arkaot(in any case) they lift their hand against the Torah, they deny the Nevua of Moshe Rabbeinu and they deny the very existance of Hashem. It does not matter if they have a valid claim or not.
IF They believe that they have a valid claim al pi Torah then and only then they only have to pay back what exceeds that claim and the legal fees of the defendant if the defendant does not actively try to defend themselves. If the defendant does mount a defense then they are no longer responsible for his legal fees and only for what exceeds what the Torah entitles them to.
Let me also be clear lest you again try to twist my words. If the the person(again does not matter if they man or woman) makes a claim in court in which they could not possibly have any claim al pi Torah, then they are a moser. So regarding what you say about seeking things to which everyone knows that a woman has no right under Torah, yes that is a moser.
I think you have been too busy hating me because I am Sephardi to try to actually read and understand what I have been writing.
actually no tzadok I am explaining to you what goes on in court not some hypothetical situation you conjure up.
ReplyDeletei told you already that the judges themselves already notice how many claims there are that are fictitious but you choose to avoid the facts.
in the majority of situations the orders of protection are quickly dismissed.
why would you go straight to arko'oys if you could get the same out of a bais din? answer because you inevitably claim more and that even you claim is mesirah.
your "if's" are not "if"s they are whens so lets stop the games and hairsplitting. the t'shuvah of rav sternbuch verifies what i said - women go to arko'oys and get what they are not entitled to in virtually all cases than what is the metzias not your fictional world where they claim only what they are entitled to al pi halocho.
if you still don't get it i can't help you. in any case you are wrong - going to arko'oys is mesirah anyway and there is a yesh cholkin.
why would you go straight to arko'oys if you could get the same out of a bais din?
ReplyDeleteThere could be several reasons, the Rema lists Alim as being one in which a person is justified l'chatchila.
your "if's" are not "if"s they are whens so lets stop the games and hairsplitting.
No they are ifs. Just like when dealing with puting a milk spoon into a meat pot. There are a number of if's that determine what is the actual halakha. Same here.
women go to arko'oys and get what they are not entitled to in virtually all cases than what is the metzias not your fictional world where they claim only what they are entitled to al pi halocho.
It is not a matter what they get, it is a matter of what they claim. Hence they have to return anything in excess of what Torah would entitle them to.
in any case you are wrong - going to arko'oys is mesirah anyway and there is a yesh cholkin.
We do not hold by the Yesh cholkin, all of the Notei Kelim say that.