Can we get a word for word translation at least of Rav Eliashev's answer, if not the question?
HaGadol Rav Shlomo Miller of Toronto along with world famouis Rosh Yeshivas asked Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev shlit"o to proclaim about the sin of people making forced Gittin who are not qualified and they make invalid Gittin. Rav Elyashev replied that no GET may be forced unless this is approved by a Beth Din of Gedolim who are well known and accepted.OF course, ORA will keep going, and Rabbi Schachter will continue to teach that every person has the duty to beat up any husband who does not give a GET. For every mamzer he makes he will burn in Gehenum, and those who support him will watch.
Of course, ORA believes that their Beth Din (which did NOT contain Rabbi Schachter) contained some of the biggest Gedolim in America.Again, Rabbi Schachter does not advocate beating anyone up and all of ORA's actions are permissible under US laws. I saw the "panel" video you posted but wasnt able to see where Rabbi Schachter advocate violence. Please find an exact time in that panel discussion where he does so.
This is the third time R' Dovid E. has claimed that R' Schachter calls for physical violence against get refusers. Where's the evidence? Others are saying R' Schachter very specifically says that violence is forbidden.
Regarding the tape the Plight of the Agnunos which is a shiur he gave in Baltimore. In the beginning starting about 11 minutes he talks about using violence to stop sin or keeping mitzvos. And he describes not giving a get as a terrible or the worst sin from about 11 minutes ON. 13 minutes cites R Akiva Eiger (note #3] that beating a person to do a mitzva or stop doing an aveira - such a lulav or eat matzah is permitted on Shabbos - even killing him is permitted] 13:44 -18 he says not giving a get when appropriate is the terrible sin of onas devarim [However at 47:48 He mentions that Satmar threatens the life of someone who doesn't give a get. he says that is a problem because you can only force in the cases the gemora prescribes which is not the case for the typical case where the husband refuses to give a get when the wife says she can't stand her husband. at 52 minutes he talks about Rabbeinu Tam but says can't apply pressure that makes it like nidoi. 53:30 he says demonstrations are legitimate form of pressure which don't make it a forced get. Bottom line: When he is talking about forced gittin at the end concerning ma'us alei he very clearly says that physical force can't be used. However in the beginning he seems to imply that violence is appropriate for get refusers because he states that physical force can be used to stop sin or force doing mitzvos and he describes not giving a get as one of the worst sins. BUT HE DOESN'T EXPLICITLY SAY THAT PHYSICAL FORCE SHOULD BE OR CAN BE USED TO FORCE A PERSON TO GIVE A GET IN THE CASE OF MA'US ALEI.
I am only describing one of the three tapes in my comment aboveSee this post for a description of all threehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/does-rav-schachter-permit-beatings-3.html
Go to the YUTorah site and you will find two files from Rabbi Schachter. One is a video about Agunoth and the other is an audio file. He is very clear about violence, very clear. He even refers to the use of a baseball bat. The fact is, the gemora he quotes are talking about extreme violence. He is crazy. He is stupid. How can you put such a thing out in public? The main one I refer to here is the audio file Nove 22 2009 Options for Helping Agunoth. The video I believe is called Plight of Agunah Sun Dec 9 2007. I know the gemoras he refers to and even though he left out some words he is still crazy. He is also completely wrong. I am working on a complete refutation of his inventions and criminal ideas.
James,Whatever you think of Haredi rabbis, one thing is obvious. The greatest Haredi rabbis think that the Gittin being made by force are mostly invalid, and the children born of them will not be welcome in the Haredi community, at least, for the most part. I am fighting for those children, and people like Rabbi Schachter are the enemy. I want you to meet a child who is a possible mamzer. Did you ever see one? I spent a long time working at the feet of gedolei hador of the past generation, Reb Moshe, Reb Shlomo Zalman, about this problem. That is why I am so fanatic about ORA. The problem with mamzeruth I worked with was specifically about one young man, and I never saw such a tsadik. Even when I finally got him a HETER, he refused to take it, mentioning some frumkeit. I got a Rov to speak to him to convince him to take the HETER. I never saw such a tsadik. But the people who make them doubtful mamzerim, woe to them.
If so you are so worried about children who are possible mamzerim according to the greatest charedi rabbis, you should equally worry about their opinion regarding those who did not sincerely convert, where these rabbis these as goyim and their children are goyim and they mingle in klal yisroel. Yet, in this issue you seem to belittle the opinion of the greatest gedoyley yisroel, from Rav Elyashiv, Rav Moshe's writings, Rav Gestetner et all.
The haredim are not very wellcoming, in general, to marry people that are not like them or were not always like them. So nothing new there...
What I do not understand either is that you are so nitpicking about possible ramifications of administrative procedures for Mamzerut.However, when you have a true Mamzer in front of you (someone born of incest or an adulterous relation), you close your eyes and do not want to know. Ha Ikkar that the apparitions are kept.
The laws of mamzerim are interesting. It is important that we do whatever we can to prevent a person giving birth to a mamzer. However Rav Moshe Feinstein states that even though Elijahu will come and tell us which among the suspected cases of mamzerim and other yichus probelms is really not a mamzer - he is not going to tell us who is a mamzer.that is because as long as we don't know that someone is a mamzer ie. born of a prohibited relationship - there is no issur to marry him/her. Therefore if we suspect someone might be a mamzer - it is important not to investigate but to contact a major posek.there was a story with Rav Moshe that a girl whose parents were Conservative Jews on their second marriage - called up Rav Moshe to ask if she was a mamzer. He replied that she could assume that since the parents were married by a Conservative or Reform rabbi the first marriage was not valid and therefore she was not a mamzer. But being frum she investigated further and found out that the rabbi was in fact Shomer mitzvos and thus the first marriage was good. She called back Rav Moshe and he groaned and said, "Why did you investigate? There is nothing I can do now."the problem in these cases is whether there will be a concern for children born from Modern Orthodox marriages and divorces in the coming generations. Will they become stigmatized because of the chashash of mamzerus. That is a much greater problem than a bal teshuva with the question of ben/bas niddah.
"that is because as long as we don't know that someone is a mamzer ie. born of a prohibited relationship - there is no issur to marry him/her." In a previous thread (where I proposed to declare us all sofek mamzer) you stated that someone who is doubtful mamzer could marry neither a mamzer, nor a non-mamzer, nor anyone at all.So what is it?
Thanks for the explanation. I don't understand the Rav Moshe story, because it shouldn't just matter whether the rabbi who officiated is observant, it should also matter whether the two witnesses were observant. The chance is virtually nil that the witnesses at a non-Orthodox wedding would be observant. Even if they are observant by Conservative standards, that is not really observant, because they leave out or modify many mitzvot (for example, they don't believe in counting seven days before going to the mikvah). And it would seem the investigation into whether they are observant is not really complete unless you figure out whether and when the wife goes to the mikvah -- which is of course impossible without bugging the house and hiring a private eye.
"that is because as long as we don't know that someone is a mamzer ie. born of a prohibited relationship - there is no issur to marry him/her."In a previous thread (where I proposed to declare us all sofek mamzer) you stated that someone who is doubtful mamzer could marry neither a mamzer, nor a non-mamzer, nor anyone at all.So what is it?================If a person has been identified as a sofek mamzer - then he is stuck. If it is unknown and the issue has been raised then no issur is done in marrying. In contrast if you c.v. eat treif food - you do an aveira even though you didn't know. The foot itself is inherently forbidden. In contrast a mamzer is not forbidden unless there is awareness of the status.
So if an evil-meaning person goes and reveals (and proves) after the marriage that Mrs. xy is a mamzer, the husband is forced to give a get? (with beatings??)
But, in this case, isn't it an aveira to point out that children born from a marriage contracted after a forced get might be mamzerim?There are so many opinions who allow it, so why would we want to know? The same as the other did not want to know...By the way: if you use the R. Moshe Feinstein approach you described, I think it would be possible to find fault with any marriage: perhaps one of the edim was not kosher? Perhaps there was one non-kosher ed among the guests and was not excluded? Perhaps there was a problem with the ketubah? Perhaps it was a Mekach taut?So it seems very illogical to be so generous on the hand and so restrictive on the other...
James let's get real - self appointed gedolim. The death bin of america will have der schlachter sit on its death bin if you so request.Do you really think that those who destroy parts of shulchan oruch are gedolim. they are the kal she'bekalim. please try convince yourself that broyde is a godol in knowledge anyway. i doubt he is good enough to get into brisk competing with 20 year olds.
Stan, Stan, Stan,R' Broyde has achieved more in his years than the vast majority of your 20 year olds competing to get into Brisk. His work is there for all to see, and if you have an intelligent comment to make about it, you have a forum here, that's even willing to allow your ניבול פה.
The BDA has noting to do with this case. The psak din was issued by a Beth Din that included Rav Shmuel Kemenestky.
gedolim. the following have encyclopediac knowledge: rav shmuel auerbach., rav nissim karelitz, reb dovid povarsky, rav wosner, rav gershon edelstein, reb boruch ber;s einekel rav chaim shlomo, reb dovid and reb meir soloveitchik, reb refael shmuelevitz, rav eaviezer piltz, rav chaim kanievsky, rav yitzchok soleveitchik and many, many other big gedolim in eretz yisroel.the bda's thugs don't even compare with much younger rosh yeshivahs like rav dovid cohen of chevron, rav avrohom yehoshua soleveitchik and rav asher arieli. who do these biryonim think they are?
Stan, Stan, Stan,Your collection of Gedolim cards needs to be expanded.
whilst I am not gettign involved with the get Meusa issue, the oRA website has a letter regarding prenuptial agreements - i enclose the link here:http://www.getora.com/resources/2012%20Rosh%20Yeshiva%20Letter.pdfI'd be interested to ask Rav Dovid and Rav Daniel E, how the PNA is viewed in Haredi world
Regarding the tape the Plight of the Agnunos which is a shiur he gave in Baltimore. In the beginning starting about 11 minutes he talks about using violence to stop sin or keeping mitzvos. And he describes not giving a get as a terrible or the worst sin from about 11 minutes ON. 13 minutes cites R Akiva Eiger (note #3] that beating a person to do a mitzva or stop doing an aveira - such a lulav or eat matzah is permitted on Shabbos - even killing him is permitted] 13:44 -18 he says not giving a get when appropriate is the terrible sin of onas devarim [However at 47:48 He mentions that Satmar threatens the life of someone who doesn't give a get. he says that is a problem because you can only force in the cases the gemora prescribes which is not the case for the typical case where the husband refuses to give a get when the wife says she can't stand her husband. at 52 minutes he talks about Rabbeinu Tam but says can't apply pressure that makes it like nidoi. 53:30 he says demonstrations are legitimate form of pressure which don't make it a forced get.Bottom line: When he is talking about forced gittin at the end concerning ma'us alei he very clearly says that physical force can't be used. However in the beginning he seems to imply that violence is appropriate for get refusers because he states that physical force can be used to stop sin or force doing mitzvos and he describes not giving a get as one of the worst sins. BUT HE DOESN'T EXPLICITLY SAY THAT PHYSICAL FORCE SHOULD BE OR CAN BE USED TO FORCE A PERSON TO GIVE A GET IN THE CASE OF MA'US ALEI.
The purpose of the talk was to help Agunoth, not to discuss anything else. And in that context, all talk about violence is obviously about helping Agunoth. The name of the talk was "the Plight of the Agunoth." And the sin of not giving a GET is considered the same as not making a Succah, which requires a beating even death. He brings the gemora in Bovo Kamo 28 whereby beatings may be done by private people to prevent sin even if no Beth Din is involved. The lesson is clear. So if he lets out the hate and the threats for the beginning of the talk, and towards the end throws in some weasel words about Beth Din, the hate has it. That is the point. People kill when told killing is a necessary way to stop sin. This is a stupid and even criminal discussion. You can't be a major Rov and talk that way without creating much danger. There are probably many people who didn't listen to the entire tape, and even if they did, it is obvious what he wants. He doesn't have to be more explicit to get someone maimed or killed. And what is ORA doing with its demonstrations but endangering the lives of people with heart conditions. What does Rabbi Schachter think about that? I never heard any concern from him. He is a crazy fanatic and should be fired. But now it is just my big mouth. Just wait. Blood is right down the block with that fanatic. ORA is an organization dedicated and programmed for hate, and hate will do its job, with or without Beth Din.
In the tape Options for Helping Agunoth 13:50 he says clearly that the common case of today where the marriage is over is a time when we may beat the husband physically until he gives a GET. This is clearly a call for violence in the Friedman case. He says clearly there that the first level, beating with sticks, perhaps unto death, is done when the wife leaves the husband.This is criminal, but it is also stupid. If such a thing were true, every woman who wants a GET could just leave the house and have her husband beaten. And yet, the Shulchan Aruch in that spot about coercions says clearly that only when he is married in sin can we beat him, but not if he is unable to have children and the Talmud commands a GET. Why does the woman not just leave the house and have her husband beaten to death and then remarry when he can't have children?This idea has never been broached by anyone in thousands of years, and it is completely wrong. There is no direct source for such a wild idea, and its suggestion is a violation of normative halacha. In other words, HS is outside the pale of halacha, or a conserv rabbi. But even if he had an idea, why did he not ask anyone in the world for their opinion and get their backing? He is obvious so arrogant that although the Chasam Sofer in teshuvose says that he won't rely on his sevoroce limaaseh, and even when he does pasken on Agunoh or serious shaalose he insists on other Gedolim agreeing, but here, we have someone who is far from the greatest halacha authority in the world, not consulting with any of them to talk about killing people.
There is another tape entitled Options for Helping Agunoth, 54 minutes made Movember 22, 2009. In it at 13:50 he says that a marriage that is ended, such as most broken marriages today, we may beat the husband with sticks to force a divorce. And if you go back a bit you hear him say that forcing with sticks when allowed is allowed even if it kills the person.
>For every mamzer he makes he will burn in Gehenum, and those who support him will watch.<That is so over the top (and, yes, I realize that mamzeirus is quite a serious topic!). One would think that after the initial accusations were made and one had a chance to reflect on everything, that a more pleasant way of making one's point could be found?
Rav Elyashiv's ;etter is being misconstrued as supporting RDE's positions per se.This is NOT the case. He merely accedes to what is the clear halacha that only a Beis Din Chashuv should be Kofeh a get. He makes no mention of specifics. In fact you could infer here that he would be comfortable with a bit of kefiya if there were chashuvim involved....He may agree that Rav Shmeul kamenetsky and Rav schachter both whom he knew well and who have encyclopedic" knowledge are chashuv....this is misleading
Moshe Goldstein is correct, of course. This letter has absolutely no bearing on the Get ORA issue and its introduction here is a cynical tactic, a red herring.
For all those who haven't listened to Rabbi Schachters 3 shiurim on Agunot on yutorah.com, I will briefly summarize them.1)In his shiur called options for Agunahs listen from 10-14 minutes. He does state what Rav Dovid Eidonsohn Shlitta has claimed and says that in 99% of the cases today where marriages are broken and two are no longer living together of course we can be kofin oso bshotin (use force with sticks!!!) Listen for yourself minute 13 to be exact: He brings down 3 categories and says almost all cases today are in the category of kofin oso bshottim. (He doesn't tell people to go do it but he says the cases fall into the category where physical force is permitted)2), In the Plight of Agunah shiur, Rabbi Schachter clearly explains that force CAN NOT BE USED (minute 50-101 to be exact). He states clearly in minute 52 (WE DON"T EVEN DO THE HARCHAKAS OF R'TAM today like the Gevoras Anishim of Schach quoted by pischa yeshuva 154:21) then he says in the end we just humiliate which is a much lesser pressure then cutting the guy off financially. He states we are machmir for (the gevoras anashim the shach). In minute 58 he says if we can't solve this issue we may have to go back to the takanas of the geonim (and the shitta of the Rambam) where forcing with actual violence is permitted in cases of meus alai if we have no choice... In his most recent 2012 shiur (Fighting the Agunah Crises minute 23 to exact)), Rabbi Schachter claims that today we are actually following the harchakas of R'tam and bases the actions of the ORA on chacham ovadias teshuvot. He mentions that R'tam held that one can't use force but could humiliate the husband, and He says that is what he relies upon today)In Summary: (Please listen to the shiurim yourselves and you will find that Rabbi Schachter says 3 different approaches in all 3 shiurim.1) todays cases are almost always where physichal force can be used because the couple is no longer living together. (He doesn't say to do it but he says the cases fall into the category in Shulchan Aruch where physical force can be used.2) Today we DONT do the harchakas of R'tam and are machmir for the pitcha teshuva (shach) which says (according to Rabbi Schachter)to cut off the guy financially. He says we only humiliate which is much less from of pressure that doesn't invalidate a GET. He states if things get much worse we may have to use actual force like the Rambam's oppinion (but he never mentions to use actual violence)3) He says we DO follow the harchakas of R'tam based upon Chacham Ovadia. In this shiur he calls humiliation as part of the harchakas of R'tam unlike shiur 2, and he doesn't state or imply any allowances of actual physical force. Can someone please listen to his 3 shiurim (to save you time just listen to the minutes that I quoted above) and try to explain his shitta in a coherrent manner. I personally feel the above 3 shiurim totally contradict themselves and am wondering if anyone can explain how the shiurim don't contradict each other.
With all respect, how is it possible for Rav Elyashiv shlit"a, in his convalescent state, to have given any kind of serious attention to this question at all? Personally I don't believe he was even consulted, and that this letter was "signed" on his behalf by askanim who believed they knew what he would have said, had he been able to. It is very difficult to give credence to any statement purportedly made by Rav Elyashiv these days.
Shaul B. - with all respects - I don't understand why you didn't notice the date on this. It is from the Yated Neeman of June 24, 2005!
I spoke at length with Rav Elyashev shlit"o about coercing a GET some decades ago, and this is exactly what he said, although in my case I had more particulars than is mentioned in this short letter of his. But there is no question that this is his opinion.
James,You claim that ORA's Beth Din does not include Rabbi Schachter. I spoke to Rabbi Stern and he told me that everything he does is based on the opinion of Rabbi Schachter. I surely do not attack the idealists at ORA, but I do attack Rabbi Schachter. He does not know how to pasken and his opinion about beating husbands unto death is plain murder that has nothing to do with halacha, and I hope to prepare this in more depth.
Rav Schachter has also claimed that he rules based on the information presented to him by Stern/ORA. GIGO, if bad information is being fed to any Gadol it will result in a bad psak, as we have seen here, when Rav Eliashiv had to revise his stance on Shabbos Elevators three times based on who was feeding him the information. his opinion about beating husbands unto death is plain murder that has nothing to do with halacha, and I hope to prepare this in more depth.Seriously you need to get off this. You are like a pitbull with a bone, only it's an imaginary bone. Your own brother has even said this is not what Schachter said. So stop inventing things to attack your opponents with and deal with the issues already.
Someone said that this has nothing to do with ORA. I spoke to Rav Eliyashev shlit"o about coerced Gittin and this is an extremely problematic case, perhaps one of the worst, because they publicly humiliate the husband which is like murder in chazal,and even plain humiliations are forbidden as coercion by the Rashbo and the greatest poskim, including the Bais Yosef and Shach, and because ORA works on getting the husband fired which is coercion of money that we pasken invalidates the GET.See Michtova MaEliyohu at the end of chapter 19 he says in the name of "all of the rishonim" with perhaps some exceptions that ONES MOMONE is ONES or a GET given without the will of the husband and it is invalid.
This is flat out wrong. I address the assertion in the notes tohttp://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/04/mechooh-continued.html
One of the more positive outcomes of this very painful controversy is that I came across the blog or R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer shlita, and found his knowledge of Torah to be very impressive. Sometimes good things emerge from the not so good!
I have spoken to many rabbonim who are experts in Gittin and they all say that what ORA is doing is wrong. Rabbi Ralbag who signed the Siruv against Aharon told me and another person that the SIruv is not a command to divorce, and that demonstrating is forbidden as it could make a coerced and invalid GET. Therefore ORA with the backing of RHS, are inventing and lying and terrorizing people, including children. The gemora in BM second perek says that children cannot forgive. If you terrorize a child, even the child cannot forgive you. But the fanatics only know one thing, help the Agunah. RHS tells us how, anyway you can, even if you have to terrorize children, sick people, people who have nothing to do with the husband except that he is a relative. Anyone this cruel is like a Nazi whose mistaken idealism led them to kill even small children.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!please use either your real name or a pseudonym.