Um... Where? That is a fairly baseless claim. For so many reasons I won't even mention Rav Eliashiv has never actually challenged Rav Ovadia on his stance on Agunot, mostly because it was Rav Shach who came out in support of him and his views after Rav Ovadia took such an initial beating in the 70's.
Rav Eliashiv may have disagreed with him when they both sat on the Beit Din HaGadol... but that doesn't really prove much, as a perusal of Piskei Din will show that when that was the case, Rav Eliashiv was in the minority opinion. If you can't convince another Haredi Dayyan of your argument, then your rebuttal isn't very adequate.
Aside from that, considering the near universal acceptance of Rav Ovadia's authority amongst Sephardim, any supposed rebuttal even from a major Ashkenazi posek, is essentially pointless. Rav Ovadia's views are the accepted halakha by Sephardim. Nevermind that previous generations of Sephardi poskim held like him.
Unless you have an actual source you should really refrain from making baseless claims.
Please source your claim that Rav Shach agreed with Rav Yosef or that Rav Elyashev ever sat on the same case with Rav Yosef on the Beis Din Hagodol and disagreed with him, in the minority.
For Rav Shach see Mi Yosef ad Yosef Ein K'mo Yosef. It think it is floating around online here somewhere.
For Rav Yosef sitting on a case with Rav Eliashiv, that's simple, pick your Teshuva from Kovetz Teshuvot(Vol I, they left off the sources in Vol II and III for this reason and thus takes some more work looking them up) look up the reference in Piskei Din, and you will see the arguments made by Rav Eliashiv(in their entirety not truncated form) as well as Rav Ovadia, and the other Rav who sat the court with them, which was depending upon the year, either Rav Kappach or the Tzitz Eliezer.
Reb DE: This should be of interest to y ou: Brain scans show why some can't resist temptation: http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11292844-brain-scans-show-why-some-cant-resist-temptation?lite
Rav Ovadia Yosef 8:25, the Tzitz Eliezer 17:51 and Rav Sternbuch 5:354 all agree that in a case of mius olei, we can apply the harchakas of R'tam under certain conditions..(not necessarily talking about what is being done in America right now which seems worse to me) . Although the Rama brings the harchakas in kuf nun deled: they apply it to meos Alai..so I don't understand how we can take the above piece serious if all all of the three Gedolim totally disagree with Class B and C...
Didn't you see? He clearly said that they were mistaken in their understanding of the sources and shouldn't be relied upon. He has promised to show those of us who were unfortunate enough to think that we could rely upon them where they were mistaken. He has even mentioned a point by point expose on their many errors. We are truly fortunate to have such an ilui with us. How else would we ever avoid being misled by the leaders of the generation?
The real issue are those changes in our society that create new halacha realities, such as private Beth Dins forcing Gittin instead of community Beth Dins. Thus, the husband is coerced by someone he may not respect or know, and this is not the equivalent of Talmudic forcing one by a rabbi he accepts as his authority or the authority of his community. Thus, while we quibble about forcing for this or that, we forget that today the entire private Beth Din may be invalid to coerce even someone who should be coerced. This is surely the case when some Beth Din appears with a goon and forces a GET and the husband thinks the Beth Din is the biggest goon.
Honestly this is a red herring non-issue. The Shulhan Arukh dealt with this and so did Rav Moshe Feinstein. There isn't a B"D in the US(to my current knowledge) that has the ability to judge a man against his will. But as you obvisiously missed it the first time I will say it again:
שו"ת אגרות משה חושן משפט חלק ב סימן ג
בענין בעל דין שרוצה דווקא בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= ולא בב"ד קבוע.
כ"ה אדר א' תשל"ו. לרב אחד.
הנה ברור ופשוט שכל בע"ד יכול לומר שרוצה דוקא בזבל"א, וכמפורש בתוס' ורא"ש סנהדרין דף ה' ע"א דהא דמומחה לרבים תניא שדן אפילו יחידי שפירושו אפילו בעל כרחו וכמו כן למדו משם דסתם דיינים שדנין בשלשה הוא נמי שיכולין לדון אפילו בעל כרחם דהוא דוקא כשאינו רוצה לבא לב"ד כלל, אבל כשרוצה לבא לב"ד אבל רוצה בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= אין יכולין לכופו שילך לב"ד בלא זבל"א אף שהוא מומחה, ומסתבר דהוא אף לפני שלשה מומחין אין יכולין לכופו לדונו בעל כרחו דהא לרש"י מומחה לרבים שדן יחידי הוא למ"ד דא"צ שלשה מקרא דבצדק תשפוט וגם עליו כתבו התוס' שאינו יכול לדון בע"כ אלא כשלא רצה כלל לילך לב"ד אף שלדידיה הוי מומחה אחד כמו שלשה מומחין, ודוחק לומר שבתוס' שמשמע שאף במומחה אינו יכול לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לבא כלל לפני ב"ד הוא רק לשיטתייהו שיחיד מומחה שתניא שדן הוא רק מתקנתא דרבנן דלכן לא תיקנו אלא בכה"ג שאין רוצה כלל לילך לב"ד דהי"ל לפרושי זה. וגם הרא"ש הא מפרש הברייתא לתרוייהו למאן דלית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדאורייתא ולמאן דאית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדרבנן ולא הזכיר שיהיה חלוק בינייהו לענין בע"כ אף כשרוצה לילך לב"ד דזבל"א אלמא דליכא חלוק ביניהם לדינא דלתרוייהו הוא מה שמסיק דכשרוצה בזבל"א אין יכולין לכופו וא"כ גם תלתא מומחין אין יכולין לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לילך לב"ד כלל. אבל לדינא אינו נוגע זה דבזמננו ליכא דין מומחה שלכן לא שייך לדון כלל בזה כי כן איפסק גם בש"ע /חו"מ/ סימן ג' סעי' א'. ומשמע שליכא בזה חולק. ורק במומחה פליג הטור /חו"מ/ בסימן י"ג שהוא נגד אביו הרא"ש וכמעט כל הראשונים ועיי"ש בב"ח וצ"ע אבל בזמננו שליכא מומחה לכו"ע יכול לומר שרוצה לפני ב"ד דזבל"א.
והא דכתב הרמ"א דאם דיינים קבועים בעיר לא יכול לומר לא אדון לפניהם אלא בזה בורר היה זה רק בעיירות שבמדינותינו שהיו מתמנים מהעיר שאף הרב האב"ד לבדו נמי היה יכול לכופו מאחר שקבלוהו אבל בנוא יארק ליכא דיינים קבועים שנתמנו מהעיר ובפרט שאיכא עוד אגודות וחבורות של רבנים שליכא אף מינוי מכל הרבנים שבעיר ולכן כשרוצה אחד מהן בזבל"א מוכרחין לילך בזבל"א דוקא.
ידידו, משה פיינשטיין. If you also need the source in the Shulhan Arukh I would be happy to look it up and post that as well.
Another very serious crisis today is that a GET may not be forced, and this includes someone giving a GET in the presence of the potential of force, so that a husband may be inclined by this possible pressure to give a GET against his will. Increasingly, secular judges are showing their displeasure with husbands who won't give a GET. There have been cases of threats of jail for no GET. The community, however, is asleep, and are not fighting this. They are busy running to the politicians to get more money. ORA is a constant terror and may invalidate GETin especially where the wife is in touch with them.
Ok this is actually a valid complaint as the Beit Yosef in Eh"E 154 actually says that such a Get would either be: 1) Posul M'D'Rabbanan if the the B"D had ordered him to give it. 2) Posul M'D'Oraitta if this was done without the instruction of a B"D in which case the wife's future children would be mamazerim.
Another great problem with Gittin today is that every "rabbi" becomes an expert on the laws of Gittin. And yet, because so few rabbis are really experts in this field, we have prominent rabbis coming to weddings and writing invalid KESUBOSE because the only way to write a KESUBO is to learn carefully the complicated laws of Gittin, which very few rabbis do. Some even decide to make Beth Dins.
This is actually a patently false claim. The primary opinion as found in the Beis Shmuel siman 49 Seif Katan 4 brings the opinion of the Taz who learns out from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch that only teaching is forbidden, but performing Kiddushin is permitted, even if he is not that expert in these matters. However, to arrange a Get (Jewish Divorce) is prohibited, because in a divorce there are many details in which the Rav must be knowledgeable.
Even if you are going to go with the machmir opinion of the Pitchei Teshuva S"K 2 one needs to know the basic guidlines Kiddushin in order to be involved in Keddushin, and that is primarily to ensure that Kohanim don't marry inappropriate spouses and the like.
Except for a case where the spouses would be forbidden to one another for some reason there is no such thing as an invalid Ketubah, that is meforash in the Shulhan Arukh. So long as it meets the most basic requirements of a Shtar(especially as it is entirely M'd'rabbanan) there is no invalidity. Even if the husband doesn't like the terms that were written into his Ketubah, and was ignorant of what it said when he agreed to it, it is still valid. Hosehn Mishpat 61:13.
The only thing that you can validly claim would be invalid without some level of expertise in the Dayyanim would be the Gittin. However, standard course of study for Dayyanim includes Gittin(granted it is typically the last thing they study, meaning that they have gone through Hoshen Mishpat, Kiddushin and then finally arive at Gittin as those are considered the necessary foundation for understanding Gittiin).
Which is why I am perplexed that someone who is an expert in Gittin doesn't already know these things.
Rav Ovadia’s Talmudic and Halachic knowledge are way beyond that of any any of his contemporaries and this is recognised accross all divides. He has been responsible for setting the halachic standards on most major issues for the last umpteen year. One really is talking about a figure of major historic importance. Therefore the discussions on this subject on this board whilst interesting are just that.
You forgot the categories:
ReplyDeleteThe wife committed adultery -> the husband is forced to give a get
The marriage is not halachically acceptable -> the husband is forced to give a get, even if the couple wants to stay together
Batmelech: If the wife committed adultery she is executed.
DeleteIf you are going to post a point by point rebuttal of Rav Ovadia Yosef's Teshuvot, why don't you send your concerns to him, and let him answer you?
ReplyDeleteI have little doubt that he could easily give five rebuttals to each of your own.
The Posek Hador Maran Hagoan HaRav Yosef Sholom Elyashev shlit"a has more than adequetely rebutted Rav Ovadia Yosef's points.
DeleteUm... Where? That is a fairly baseless claim. For so many reasons I won't even mention Rav Eliashiv has never actually challenged Rav Ovadia on his stance on Agunot, mostly because it was Rav Shach who came out in support of him and his views after Rav Ovadia took such an initial beating in the 70's.
DeleteRav Eliashiv may have disagreed with him when they both sat on the Beit Din HaGadol... but that doesn't really prove much, as a perusal of Piskei Din will show that when that was the case, Rav Eliashiv was in the minority opinion. If you can't convince another Haredi Dayyan of your argument, then your rebuttal isn't very adequate.
Aside from that, considering the near universal acceptance of Rav Ovadia's authority amongst Sephardim, any supposed rebuttal even from a major Ashkenazi posek, is essentially pointless. Rav Ovadia's views are the accepted halakha by Sephardim. Nevermind that previous generations of Sephardi poskim held like him.
Unless you have an actual source you should really refrain from making baseless claims.
Michael T.:
DeletePlease source your claim that Rav Shach agreed with Rav Yosef or that Rav Elyashev ever sat on the same case with Rav Yosef on the Beis Din Hagodol and disagreed with him, in the minority.
I believe both your claims to be incorrect.
For Rav Shach see Mi Yosef ad Yosef Ein K'mo Yosef. It think it is floating around online here somewhere.
DeleteFor Rav Yosef sitting on a case with Rav Eliashiv, that's simple, pick your Teshuva from Kovetz Teshuvot(Vol I, they left off the sources in Vol II and III for this reason and thus takes some more work looking them up) look up the reference in Piskei Din, and you will see the arguments made by Rav Eliashiv(in their entirety not truncated form) as well as Rav Ovadia, and the other Rav who sat the court with them, which was depending upon the year, either Rav Kappach or the Tzitz Eliezer.
Reb DE: This should be of interest to y ou: Brain scans show why some can't resist temptation: http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11292844-brain-scans-show-why-some-cant-resist-temptation?lite
ReplyDeleteRav Ovadia Yosef 8:25, the Tzitz Eliezer 17:51 and Rav Sternbuch 5:354 all agree that in a case of mius olei, we can apply the harchakas of R'tam under certain conditions..(not necessarily talking about what is being done in America right now which seems worse to me) . Although the Rama brings the harchakas in kuf nun deled: they apply it to meos Alai..so I don't understand how we can take the above piece serious if all all of the three Gedolim totally disagree with Class B and C...
ReplyDeleteYitzy,
DeleteDidn't you see? He clearly said that they were mistaken in their understanding of the sources and shouldn't be relied upon. He has promised to show those of us who were unfortunate enough to think that we could rely upon them where they were mistaken. He has even mentioned a point by point expose on their many errors.
We are truly fortunate to have such an ilui with us. How else would we ever avoid being misled by the leaders of the generation?
The real issue are those changes in our society that create new halacha realities, such as private Beth Dins forcing Gittin instead of community Beth Dins. Thus, the husband is coerced by someone he may not respect or know, and this is not the equivalent of Talmudic forcing one by a rabbi he accepts as his authority or the authority of his community. Thus, while we quibble about forcing for this or that, we forget that today the entire private Beth Din may be invalid to coerce even someone who should be coerced. This is surely the case when some Beth Din appears with a goon and forces a GET and the husband thinks the Beth Din is the biggest goon.
ReplyDeleteHonestly this is a red herring non-issue. The Shulhan Arukh dealt with this and so did Rav Moshe Feinstein. There isn't a B"D in the US(to my current knowledge) that has the ability to judge a man against his will. But as you obvisiously missed it the first time I will say it again:
Deleteשו"ת אגרות משה חושן משפט חלק ב סימן ג
בענין בעל דין שרוצה דווקא בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= ולא בב"ד קבוע.
כ"ה אדר א' תשל"ו. לרב אחד.
הנה ברור ופשוט שכל בע"ד יכול לומר שרוצה דוקא בזבל"א, וכמפורש בתוס' ורא"ש סנהדרין דף ה' ע"א דהא דמומחה לרבים תניא שדן אפילו יחידי שפירושו אפילו בעל כרחו וכמו כן למדו משם דסתם דיינים שדנין בשלשה הוא נמי שיכולין לדון אפילו בעל כרחם דהוא דוקא כשאינו רוצה לבא לב"ד כלל, אבל כשרוצה לבא לב"ד אבל רוצה בזבל"א =בזה בורר לו אחד= אין יכולין לכופו שילך לב"ד בלא זבל"א אף שהוא מומחה, ומסתבר דהוא אף לפני שלשה מומחין אין יכולין לכופו לדונו בעל כרחו דהא לרש"י מומחה לרבים שדן יחידי הוא למ"ד דא"צ שלשה מקרא דבצדק תשפוט וגם עליו כתבו התוס' שאינו יכול לדון בע"כ אלא כשלא רצה כלל לילך לב"ד אף שלדידיה הוי מומחה אחד כמו שלשה מומחין, ודוחק לומר שבתוס' שמשמע שאף במומחה אינו יכול לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לבא כלל לפני ב"ד הוא רק לשיטתייהו שיחיד מומחה שתניא שדן הוא רק מתקנתא דרבנן דלכן לא תיקנו אלא בכה"ג שאין רוצה כלל לילך לב"ד דהי"ל לפרושי זה. וגם הרא"ש הא מפרש הברייתא לתרוייהו למאן דלית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדאורייתא ולמאן דאית ליה עירוב פרשיות הוא מדרבנן ולא הזכיר שיהיה חלוק בינייהו לענין בע"כ אף כשרוצה לילך לב"ד דזבל"א אלמא דליכא חלוק ביניהם לדינא דלתרוייהו הוא מה שמסיק דכשרוצה בזבל"א אין יכולין לכופו וא"כ גם תלתא מומחין אין יכולין לכופו אלא כשאינו רוצה לילך לב"ד כלל. אבל לדינא אינו נוגע זה דבזמננו ליכא דין מומחה שלכן לא שייך לדון כלל בזה כי כן איפסק גם בש"ע /חו"מ/ סימן ג' סעי' א'. ומשמע שליכא בזה חולק. ורק במומחה פליג הטור /חו"מ/ בסימן י"ג שהוא נגד אביו הרא"ש וכמעט כל הראשונים ועיי"ש בב"ח וצ"ע אבל בזמננו שליכא מומחה לכו"ע יכול לומר שרוצה לפני ב"ד דזבל"א.
והא דכתב הרמ"א דאם דיינים קבועים בעיר לא יכול לומר לא אדון לפניהם אלא בזה בורר היה זה רק בעיירות שבמדינותינו שהיו מתמנים מהעיר שאף הרב האב"ד לבדו נמי היה יכול לכופו מאחר שקבלוהו אבל בנוא יארק ליכא דיינים קבועים שנתמנו מהעיר ובפרט שאיכא עוד אגודות וחבורות של רבנים שליכא אף מינוי מכל הרבנים שבעיר ולכן כשרוצה אחד מהן בזבל"א מוכרחין לילך בזבל"א דוקא.
ידידו, משה פיינשטיין.
If you also need the source in the Shulhan Arukh I would be happy to look it up and post that as well.
Another very serious crisis today is that a GET may not be forced, and this includes someone giving a GET in the presence of the potential of force, so that a husband may be inclined by this possible pressure to give a GET against his will. Increasingly, secular judges are showing their displeasure with husbands who won't give a GET. There have been cases of threats of jail for no GET. The community, however, is asleep, and are not fighting this. They are busy running to the politicians to get more money. ORA is a constant terror and may invalidate GETin especially where the wife is in touch with them.
ReplyDeleteOk this is actually a valid complaint as the Beit Yosef in Eh"E 154 actually says that such a Get would either be:
Delete1) Posul M'D'Rabbanan if the the B"D had ordered him to give it.
2) Posul M'D'Oraitta if this was done without the instruction of a B"D in which case the wife's future children would be mamazerim.
Another great problem with Gittin today is that every "rabbi" becomes an expert on the laws of Gittin. And yet, because so few rabbis are really experts in this field, we have prominent rabbis coming to weddings and writing invalid KESUBOSE because the only way to write a KESUBO is to learn carefully the complicated laws of Gittin, which very few rabbis do. Some even decide to make Beth Dins.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a patently false claim. The primary opinion as found in the Beis Shmuel siman 49 Seif Katan 4 brings the opinion of the Taz who learns out from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch that only teaching is forbidden, but performing Kiddushin is permitted, even if he is not that expert in these matters. However, to arrange a Get (Jewish Divorce) is prohibited, because in a divorce there are many details in which the Rav must be knowledgeable.
DeleteEven if you are going to go with the machmir opinion of the Pitchei Teshuva S"K 2 one needs to know the basic guidlines Kiddushin in order to be involved in Keddushin, and that is primarily to ensure that Kohanim don't marry inappropriate spouses and the like.
Except for a case where the spouses would be forbidden to one another for some reason there is no such thing as an invalid Ketubah, that is meforash in the Shulhan Arukh. So long as it meets the most basic requirements of a Shtar(especially as it is entirely M'd'rabbanan) there is no invalidity. Even if the husband doesn't like the terms that were written into his Ketubah, and was ignorant of what it said when he agreed to it, it is still valid. Hosehn Mishpat 61:13.
The only thing that you can validly claim would be invalid without some level of expertise in the Dayyanim would be the Gittin. However, standard course of study for Dayyanim includes Gittin(granted it is typically the last thing they study, meaning that they have gone through Hoshen Mishpat, Kiddushin and then finally arive at Gittin as those are considered the necessary foundation for understanding Gittiin).
Which is why I am perplexed that someone who is an expert in Gittin doesn't already know these things.
Rav Ovadia’s Talmudic and Halachic knowledge are way beyond that of any any of his contemporaries and this is recognised accross all divides.
ReplyDeleteHe has been responsible for setting the halachic standards on most major issues for the last umpteen year. One really is talking about a figure of major historic importance.
Therefore the discussions on this subject on this board whilst interesting are just that.