Monday, January 25, 2016

Rav Schachter joining with Rav Kaminetsky in disregarding the Baltimore Beis din and saying that Aharon should be forced to give a Get

update: added a link to the audo recording

This letter is being reposted because Rav Schacter published it as a response to the  Baltimore Beis Din's 2010 public declaration of Aharon's innocence.  The Baltimore Beis Din's declaration was a response to public attacks and demonstrations against Aharon, his family, (and the Washington Beis Din, which at the time refused to condemn Aharon), by Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Schachter. Aside from the horrifying implication that Aharon Friedman could be beaten by any vigilante lynch mob - it clearly indicates Rav Schachter's contempt for the views of the Baltimore Beis Din and his automatic agreement with whatever Rabbi Kaminetsky did and said. Which we have clearly established has no basis in halacha.



From April 6, 2012  and January 23, 2014


Reposted because of the current interest in evidence that Rav Schachter called for or alluded to the appropriateness of violence against Ahron Friedman. Please click the link for an explicit discussion of the question based on Rav Schachter's recorded comments. Please keep in mind that there is no beis din that has heard both sides and issued a psak. In particular they both signed an agreement to follow the Baltimore Beis Din which has not issued any statement demanding that Ahron Freidman give Tamar a Get.
 
======================================================
The audio of Rav Schachter mentioned below where he says that it is permissible to beat someone with a baseball bat into giving a Get has been removed from the YU site.

In the letter, Rabbi Schachter says that Friedman's situation is the same as "a slave whose master provides for him a Canaanite maidservant, that until now it is has been permissible, and now it is forbidden." In the audio, he explains that in such a situation the slave, or Friedman, as he writes in the letter, should be beaten, and that any person can take the law into his own hands to deliver the beating.

It is also very telling that at 42:45, Schachter says that in the case of someone desiring a get, it is wrong to pressure the other spouse without the orders of a beis din - when Schachter wrote the December 2010 letter, there was no beis din that had stated Friedman had done anything wrong or that a get should be given.


see in particular:
4:00 - beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
4:30 - beat a slave for wrongfully remaining married to maidservant, analogizing this case to the get case, and that anyone can take upon himself to take the law into their own hands to beat the person
9:10 - beat someone up over a get
10:20 - bludgeon someone to death over a get
13:33 - have right to beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
26:50 - beating for a get with a baseball bat


139 comments :

  1. So now the question then becomes on what *halachic basis* did Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky shlita specifically deem Mr. Friedman to be required to issue a divorce?

    It is essential to obtain the above clarification from Rav Shmuel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The last excuse of a wicked scoundrel is I relied on someone else.

    Yet where did R' Kamenetsky state that there should be a vicious public campaign that GetOra against friedman? where did he say there should be public demonstrations?

    As it suits you? Do you follow everything that R Kamenetsky says or does or only the things that suits you Schlachter?

    You were involved in being mevayesh someone be'rabim for no reason. Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally wouldn't be so quick to judge a Talmud Chacham.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't be so quick to judge someone. Especially a Talmud Chacham.

      Delete
  3. This is a formal letter, intended for public consumption. A public rabbinic figure, like Rav Schachter, needs to set an example for the people, by engaging in proper civil discourse. His private thoughts, sometimes expressed to friends and colleagues, are different.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is unacceptable, so if a sage tells him to jump off the brooklyn bridge then he would do that too? Basically Schachter doesnt want to take responcibility for the horrible actions which have been done!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The statement that we cannot question a sage implying that we must pursue the husband and torture him because a sage said so is wrong. Today there is no semicha from Moshe and no individual can compel someone to do anything. This is obvious from a cursory study of the beginning of Choshen Mishpot that no individual has the power RHS has conveyed upon RK.
    Also, the quotes he makes from the Gro and Rabbi Akiva Eiger don't apply to this case. The Gro doesn't talk about Agunoas period, so this is a sleight of hand distortion. Rabbi AKiva EIger talks about a man who deserts his wife, not a wife who deserts a husband who wants the marriage. This letter is a disgrace. RHS surely knows better, but he sees fit to twist the Torah to help Agunoth, actually promoting invalid Gittin and mamzeruth. And who says that RK is a sage in the laws of Gittin. I don't think he is, and I have spoken to him about these matters. He is a prominent Rosh Yeshiva but very few of them are experts in Gittin. So when it comes to Gittin he is not a "sage" even if a sage could compel his will alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RDE, your posts and comments on this matter seem to take two forms. First, you protest the rationale that RHS uses to shame Friedman or any other recalcitrant husband in similar circumstances. Second, you dont accept their applicability to this particular case. This letter is intended to show that with respect to Friedman's obligation to give a get, RHS relied on RSK. THAT is what the Gra is brought to prove - we can rely on a sage to investigate these matters.

      It is one thing to disagree but there is no evidence that RHS "certainly knows better, but he sees fit to twist the Torah to help Agunoth, actually promoting invalid Gittin and mamzeruth." Do you really think he stays up at night thinking about how to twist the Torah to pursue a feminist agenda? Do you have any idea how much the feminists dislike him and how opposed he is to their causes? Isnt it possible that he sincerely reads the sources differently than you do?

      Delete
    2. I wish it were true. It is not as if this is an unknown area of halacha. He is clearly going against the accepted halacha - and yet he offers no explanation. In short the burden of proof is on him for deviating from the norm.

      I am not relying on my own views here but am reporting the consensus of rabbinic authorities I consulted with. Unfortunately this is not the first incident of deviation from accepted halachic understanding.

      So we are faced with 1) he didn't fully understand the facts (as happened in the case of the concert ban) 2) he feels that this is an emergency situation where the halacha can be ignored or changed. If so it is up to him to explain what is the emergency. As the facts come out it becomes more and more embarrassing as to how this situation was handled.

      Delete
    3. First, my comment was a reply to the other RDE. I apologize for the confusion.

      Second, RHS never signed onto any concert ban. That was R' Kamenetsky and it was wrong. Just like it was wrong when Rav Elyashiv banned Making of a Gadol having never read it. The Gedolim are not infallible but is that a reason to denigrate them (or anyone)?

      Your response did not address my main question so I will ask it again. Do you think that RHS "knows better" but is "twisting the halacha" intentionally? That is ascribing to him a motive for which you have NO evidence.

      Once we start denigrating people who we believe are going against the consensus, there is no end in sight. I think Rav Shternbuch's position (and that of the Eida) on the State of Israel is wrong and going against the consensus of the the Gedolim. I also think is is delaying the arrival of the Mashaich. Does that allow me to defame him, slander him, and accuse him of acting out of some ulterior motive?

      Delete
    4. the problem is there are clearly sources against what Rav Schachter is doing as well as the established practice is not in agreement with him. If he wants to change because society has changed - I have no problem with that as long as he can show that there is a consensus that this can and must be done. Otherwise we are splitting the community because of the issue of mamzerim.

      In short - who ever wants to change the status quo needs to provide justification. the justification presented so far is embarrassingly inadequate

      Delete
    5. @James - "Do you think that RHS "knows better" but is "twisting the halacha" intentionally?"

      If you'd like to argue that RHS does not know better, (and I'm willing to consider this argument), fine. But realize that you are actually claiming that RHS is not a competent posek because he is incapable of applying halachic responsa properly to current day circumstances. For example, if Rabbi Akiva Eiger's tshuvah is referring to a man who deserts his wife, then it certainly can't be applied in the Dodelson case because the wife clearly deserted her husband. A wife deserting a normal, non-violent husband cannot be considered an "agunah" without re-writing Judaism.

      Whether RHS is doing it intentionally (that is to appease feminists or because he is a feminist himself) or if he is not doing it intentionally, RHS's letter above suggests that he is not competent to be involved in extremely crucial halachic matters like Gittin.

      Delete
    6. Correction from my previous comment: "For example, if Rabbi Akiva Eiger's tshuvah is referring to a man who deserts his wife, then it certainly can't be applied in the Tamar Friedman case because she clearly deserted her husband."

      Delete
  6. By taking on this "agunah" case in order to raise his own public profile and raise more money for his organization so he can "earn" a higher salary, Rabbi Stern has set back the effort to help real agunahs by decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig,
      I only wish that Rabbi Stern did this for the money. Because when people do wrong things out of avarice there is a limit. But when they do things leshaim shomayim, there is no limit.

      Delete
  7. Let the blame game begin! Rabbi Stern now says he "is not a posek and just accepts that of Rav Schachter". Rabbi Schachter now says "I relied on Rav Kaminetsky". And what will Rabbi Kaminetsky say? I was doing a favor for a big donor. I was ensuring the financial survival of my Yeshiva. His illustrious father must be rolling in his grave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you prove that raising money for the Yeshiva is not the greatest mitsvah in the Torah and that every sin including chilul hashem is permitted to achieve it? If you reject this, maybe you learned in the wrong Yeshiva.

      Delete
    2. rabbi eidensohn - I hope you are kidding -

      Delete
    3. kidding,

      Rabbi Eidensohn's comment is clearly sarcastic.

      It is very sad when people who have spent their whole life being mekadesh Shem Shomayim, can make a chilul Hashem later on in life.

      This doesn't negate all the good they've done. (And they cannot be compared to "rabbis" who seek to propmote current social agendas.....)

      Delete
  8. This really was the perfect storm. With the usual YU Rabbis on the left always eager to rabble rouse in support of "a poor pathetic agunah" and the Epstein money bringing in the support from the right in the form of Rabbi Kaminetsky it was a slam dunk in the eyes of many people who tripped all over themselves in the rush to join the bandwagon. Now that the truth has at long last emerged I wonder if all those people who were so eager to attend the rallies and send the threatening letters and leave those horrific voicemails are going to do the same to Ephraim Goldfein and Jeremy Stern who orchastrated this entire situation for their own personal gain.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rather ironic how it is the chareidim who are questioning the validity of black-box rulings of incompetent self-appointed gedolim and the MO crowd shouting godol, godol, godol and why question the competence.

    Schlachter, if one is allowed to put someone in jail on shabbos for potentially making a woman a true agunah is it not a ka ve'chmoer that one can do so to a kidnapper who wishes to steal a child? After all "goenev nefoshos mos yumos".

    I have repeatedly been accused of eing mevazeh talmidei chachomim. It is the group of fake talmidei chachomim like schlachter/willig/schwartz and the brooklyn mafiosa of belsky/ralbag/ who are actually being mevazeh talmidei chachomim because everyone noe associates rabbis with corruption!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan,
      If you want to be mevazeh talmidei hachamaim, at least be brave enough to use your full name. What a coward!

      Delete
    2. People asked me to respond to the Rosh Yeshivas of the Agudah backing Toeivo in the Defense bill I believe in 2009, namely, putting the crime of hitting a gay as a federal law that can put someone in jail in a federal penitentiary for up to ten years. So I responded that putting someone in jail for hitting a gay to prevent a sin is permitted by a gemora in BK 28a, and the Rosh Yeshivas of Agudah who disagree with you are apikorsim for disagreeing with it as they surely know it. The letter went all over and I only heard compliments for it. People are fed up with the corruption but it just gets worse. Not long afterwards in New Jersey a major Yeshiva backed a pro-toeivo candidate for governor against someone who was anti-gay because the pro-toeivo who promised to produce gay marraige gave money to the Yeshiva. This letter also elicited only praise because people are fed up.

      Delete
    3. It's hard to believe that your letter received only praise. While sex between males is forbidden by torah law there is no compelling reason to attempt to influence the government to uphold that law. It does not affect our own observance.

      It is helpful towards our other political causes if we can ignore the whole issue

      Delete
    4. None,
      Ignoring is ignoring. But backing the gay position? The Aguddah was the only major religious organization to back the gay position. And you think we should ignore this?

      Delete
    5. It's pretty low and wrong of R. D. Eidensohn to spread wild rumors that the NJ Yeshiva backed Corzine againt Chris Christie because he "gave money to the Yeshiva" Did you speak to a specific person who is reliable in their Hanhala that you can testify in front of Beis Din that this was their reasoning and that there were also no other compelling factors involved. You're only kidding yourself buddy. Stop the bashmutzing already and realize that you have an ax to grind.

      Besides, the way things are looking with Christie's vindictiveness these days people are not so sure they want him in that position anymore.

      Delete
    6. Dovid Eidensohn - your first comment in this thread is miswritten - "putting someone in jail for hitting a gay to prevent a sin is permitted by a gemora in BK 28a"?

      Delete
  10. Lkavod Harav Eidonsohn, you state above that "I am not relying on my own views here but am reporting the consensus of rabbinic authorities I consulted with." I want to know who are these people you are consulting with? Can you publicly say who is against this? Without public statements from Rabbis of great stature no one will listen to you. I have never heard any Rav except you're brother speak up against what is going on in America, the big question is why is there so much silence? Many great Rabbis in at least in America know what is going on and there is not one public statement by anyone other than Rabbi Dovid Eidonsohn condemming the Modern Orthodox appoach to gitten.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbis today are frightened by the bullying and intimidation that pervades our communities - both from other rabbis and the common yid who is a total am haaretz but enjoys attacking others. You are correct of course that progress in this area depends on rabbis of great stature speaking up - but as we saw in the Tropper case and the Hersh case and child abuse etc etc - they don't.

      My brother has said the reason that he can speak up is becomes he doesn't have a shul where he is dependent upon baalei battim and he doesn't have a yeshiva where he is dependent on donors and other rabbis to send him students.

      Delete
  11. Stan, I hope you also know many people who were abused by their fathers. Statistically you should. There are way more. You might become less jaundiced.

    Do you agree with Rav Willig's prenup?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe that if Rav Soloveitchik would be alive today, ORA would not exist. Rav Soloveitchik heard such ideas in his time and he replied, "KOLU KOL HAKIKTSIM." But today, after a certain person was put in jail for child molesting, the left has taken over YU, and if the students of Rav Soloveitchik open their mouths they will be dismissed. The head of the Beth Din of YU rabbis GD sent a couple away without a GET because he believes in annulling marriages, and I discussed this with him and am convinced that nobody should rely on that Beth Din, period as it is not a kosher Beth Din and anyone associated with Schwarts is not to be accepted as an authority in Gittin. I heard a similar thought from Posek Hador Rav Elyashev shlit"o.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The head of the Beth Din of YU rabbis GD sent a couple away without a GET because he believes in annulling marriages"

      Rav Eidensohn, I never heard of such a case. Which Beis Din sent away which couple without a Get?

      Delete
  13. I do not wish to denigrate anyone who is not alive but the whole of YU was considered treif 1st by Reb Elchonon and then later by rav shach many eyars ago. these yu leaders did not get created in a vacuum.

    these views sound non-mainstream even to moderate chareidim until you become aware of the destruction wrought by the utter corruption of halocho by the BDA.

    frankly the chareidim are hardly better today, their leaders almost as corrupt. rav eidenson you said lot yourself yesterday, they are scared to stand up for the emes anymore because of their jobs, $, etc. So they fear man and not the Eibeshter ba'avonosenu ho'rabim. they are not much better. the brooklyn courts are full of chareidim, including chasidim. i can't imagine it is that different in monsey.

    why have the telz rosh yeshivahs honored willig and schwartz recently? it is a shanda and a chilul hashem. can we fall any lower than the yidden in mitzraim (mem tes sha'arei tumah)?

    the loss of the gedolim like rav aharon kotler who would have been loudly moche is devastating. today everyone is scared while men lose their houses, their children, their whole lives while these immature corrupt dayonim on both sides fall for these phony agunah's with their false child molestation claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan,
      Well spoken. And it would be easy to agree and just blast away at the obvious decline in Torah leadership. But the problem is much worse than that. The problem is that the system of not working and only learning has destroyed a generation and not produced a single Gadol. We have to be aware of evil, but we must tremble at mistaken idealism, which has no boundaries. Once people are sure that only learning is important, the next step is to honor wicked people who give money to the Yeshiva. And after that the honor of Torah is so corroded that thousands of people just leave the community. When will it end?

      Delete
  14. What's most interesting is that Rabbi Shachter, a non-believer in "Daas Torah", suddenly believes in Daas Torah of simply relying on Rav Shmuel shlita whereas he normally does not simply rely on another rabbi for Daas Torah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, who says that RHS is a non believer in DAAs Torah? He has stated clearly, before this episode, that all differences in opinions between Gedolim are l'shem shamayim, and not due to "bias". As for me, personally, I don't accept either his version of DAASTorah, or anyone else's.

      Delete
  15. This statement of plain truth by R' Dovid should be printed in big bold letters as a separate post:

    "The Gro doesn't talk about Agunoas period, so this is a sleight of hand distortion. Rabbi AKiva EIger talks about a man who deserts his wife, not a wife who deserts a husband who wants the marriage. This letter is a disgrace."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Did anyone notice how schachters letter is written in old hebrew fonts to make it look like a rishon like rashi wrote this teshuva?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Sorry if my comment caused offence - please forgive me.

      Delete
  17. Shmuel, there's a solid halachic reasoning for not using a block Hebrew typeface.

    One is not supposed to use Ksav Ashuris for non ST"M purposes, and in the standard Hebrew typeface, some letters are identical to Ksav Ashuris. This is why some people (including the Rema) were makpid on using the typeface known today as 'Rashi'.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can any supporters of halachic modern Orthodoxy please address my question here?

    James stated - "Do you have any idea how much the feminists dislike him (RHS) and how opposed he is to their causes?"

    It is apparent that the MO feminists are wielding significant power over the MO rabbis.

    If there are any non-feminist MO rabbis left, how do those rabbis propose to maintain any halachic Judaism within modern Orthodoxy while the feminists gain more and more power? Is it possible the "right wing" of MO will break off and join the Agudah camp?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ELY - your premise is entirely wrong. In as far as the current situation in America is concerned, the Agudah Rabbis and roshei Yeshivot are the active "feminist" rabbis, and not MOYU. The letter above is RHS saying he relied on RSK (whether right or wrong). And the issues with Gets, possible annulments are Agudah issues. I don't know the Aguda's positionon PNA's but why do u need a PNA if u have a friendly Kollel that can annul a marriage?

      Delete
    2. Eddie - Yes, there are a few feminist Agudah type rabbinic leaders who are essentially in the YU/MO/ORA camp as far as Gittin, or even further left, ie doing annulments. But those feminist rabbis do not promote a feminist agenda like women rabbis, pre-nup agreements to force Gittin, women's tefillah, etc.

      There are also many Agudah/Chareidi/Chassidic rabbis who denounce and oppose ORA and "orthodox feminism". Whereas RHS and most of the YU/MO rabbanim seem to support ORA, at least publicly. Also, there is no Agudah/Chareidi counterpart for ORA, and there are no powerful Agudah/Chareidi feminist organizations demanding women rabbis and equal rights for women in the shul.

      So you've exaggerated feminist influence in the Chareidi camp, and you've greatly underestimated the power and influence of the "Orthodox feminists" in MO, and their ability to dismantle the "Orthodoxy" in MO.

      Delete
    3. ELY - yes, you are correct in your observations. I would suggest that the reason for this is the difference - in general terms- between haredi and MO.
      Hareidi world view is a pyramid type world, where power an authority is at the top, and regular people are at the bottom. MO - is a little more egalitarian, ie they have a view the everyone is equal (if u call that an enlightenment view that is fine).

      So in the Hareid world, if you know the right people, an are close to a Gadol or Chosuver rav, then they will do anything to help u - eg quickie conversion if your son falls in love with a goya; quickie annulment etc. It is all about negios. If you do not have the connections, then Rachmono l'etzlan, since you are treated like a nobody. This is the case in all dictatorial systems.
      The MO world , whilst there is also connections and who you know, they have a view of v'ahavta et r'eicha cmochah - they consider that justice should be doen for everyone, regardless of whether they have negios with the Gedolim. That is why R' Goren risked his own reputation and standing by helping free mamzerim that he had not personal connection with. In the Hareidi world, they would not do this for anyone, but if someone close to them had such an issue, they would implement a solution, on the quiet.

      Delete
    4. Hareidi world view is a pyramid type world, where power an authority is at the top, and regular people are at the bottom. MO - is a little more egalitarian, ie they have a view the everyone is equal (if u call that an enlightenment view that is fine).


      That is a horrible misrepresentation of Hareidi thought. As D"T has repeatedly pointed out on this blog, the Hareidi position(at least I consider the Chazon Ish, Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul ect to be mainstream Hareidi) that one is only supposed to rely on psak of a Gadol when one lacks sufficient knowledge/understanding to make a ruling oneself.

      Delete
    5. "that one is only supposed to rely on psak of a Gadol when one lacks sufficient knowledge/understanding to make a ruling oneself. "

      That does not contradict what i wrote, or even relate to what I wrote. The fact is, that in the hareidi world, if you are close to an important Rav, then you will get benefits. If not, they don't really give a damn about you.

      Delete
  19. Superintendant ChalmersJanuary 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM

    RDE says:
    "Also, the quotes he makes from the Gro and Rabbi Akiva Eiger don't apply to this case. The Gro doesn't talk about Agunoas period, so this is a sleight of hand distortion. Rabbi AKiva EIger talks about a man who deserts his wife, not a wife who deserts a husband who wants the marriage."

    A sleight of hand distortion? Where's the distortion??? Of course the Gra's not talking about Agunas, as the letter says, it's talking about paying a knas latzeis yedei shamayim! How you see any sleight of hand or distortion is way beyond me.

    And Rabbi Akiva Eiger from the Shvus Yaakov, is about preventing a man from escaping, correct! Which is exactly what the letter says it says. I would surmise that RHS would likely say that at this point (or the point at which he wrote the letter) that there is no chance of repairing the marriage on either side, who deserted whom first is irrelevant,a s now she is in an aguna situation.

    This response is a disgrace. RDE surely knows better, but he sees fit to twist the words of RHS to in order to further his rabid anti-RHS agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SC: RHS cannot halachicly make the decision that "at this point (or the point at which he wrote the letter) that there is no chance of repairing the marriage on either side".

      ONLY the husband can halachicly make that decision. Alternatively, in the unusual situations where a Beis Din that was duly accepted by both parties and has halachic jurisdiction sees the strict halachic requirements outlined in Shulchan Aruch met, then it can make that determination.

      So RHS has no ground to stand on.

      Delete
    2. Knas latzeis yedei shamayim cannot be enforced by anyone. It is only yedei shamayim.

      Delete
    3. Superintendant:
      Rav Akiva Eiger is not talking about a wife who wants a divorce but her husband wants to remain married to her. Such a husband has not obligation to divorce his wife. Rav Akiva Eiger is talking only about a case where it has been determine by B"D that an obligation to divorce exists. Not every divorce demand by a wife means there is an obligation to give one.

      If she deserts her husband while he wishes to reunite with her and remain married to her, her objections to remaining married do not obligate him to give her a divorce. And Rav Akiva Eiger is not speaking of such a situation.

      Delete
  20. Superintendant ChalmersJanuary 24, 2014 at 3:32 PM

    The letter is rather straightforward, and does not call for violence. Allow me to summarize what the letter says for those who can't understand Rav Schachter's words on their own. (I know Stan can't because as has been demonstrated in earlier posts, Stan doesn't know Hebrew, and thus has no place in this discussion altogether.)

    1) From R Akiva Eiger and Shvus Yaakov, you see there is kfiya al Hamitzvos to prevent an aguna case. 2) From BK 28a, you see that an individual can do kfiya al hamitzvos without B"D bc naase yado kishliach b"d. Hence, individuals can/should help an aguna receive a get, even without psak of a B"D.

    To summarize, the letter says that you don't need psak of a b"d to help an aguna receive a get. Any mention of violence in any of the sources is besides the point. (There are lots of gemaras that talk about violence, and it is impossible to discuss ANY halachic matter without referring to gemaras that mention violence or physical punishment. if you want to change the Torah and disregard any gemara that refers to violence, then you are the one distorting the Torah.)

    Anyone who takes this letter as a call for violence needs is either intentionally distorting, is a total am haaretz, or needs to work on their reading comprehension. (Perhaps all of the above.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A wife is NOT an "aguna" because she wants a Get but her husband does not want to give her a Get because he wants to continue the marriage despite her not wanting to. She is not halachicly entitled to a Get in such a case barring other circumstances.

      Delete
    2. Toleh kileloso be'acherim, I relied onJanuary 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM

      Super chalm:

      "The letter is rather straightforward, and does not call for violence"

      Are you straight, and are you really forward?
      Since R' Elyashiv and other poskim stated that Botei Din applying force to Gitin of these alleged Agunah's causes MAMZERUS and matir Eishes Ish leshuk, how can just any individual meddle in such affairs where it clearly states that kol mi she'eino baki betiv gittin vekidushin LO yehei esek imahen? Even R' SK has fallen korban to such, since he had to publicly retrieve the Siruv in the doodleson case to 'cease and desist' he so had himself declared, veim bearozim noflo shalheves ma yomru ezovei kir. After having prefaced with a qualifier to KASHER and MATIR sheretz bekuf nun ta'amim step by step for anyone to take matters into their own hands and beating to prevent someone not to be meagen and going through all such details:

      " However, to prevent a husband from causing his wife to be an Agunah,
      ...does not require a ruling from a Beit Din... it is permissible to RESTRAIN (APPLYING CATTLE PRODS bel"aaz)...principle of enforcing the fulfillment of mitzvot....one's ACTIONS become an extension of the Beit Din (who Beit Din, where Beit Din, where psak Din ???)... it is proper to PRESSURE the husband to divorce his wife...one cannot question his instruction...",

      if this is not calling bluntly for "VIOLENCE", I do not know what is. You got to be tipshim lehera, in stating otherwise. Besides, where is the specific ruling from any BEIT DIN of a Chiyuv GET to begin with and in not doing so he is bichlal a MEAGEN altogether, so as to follow up to kasher and matir sheretz using cattle prods, Huh? Therefore, I put it to you, there are none. This letter only states
      "an instruction from a sage is sufficient", where is that INSTRUCTION ??? Why can't you show for it? What are you trying to HIDE? You also claim that the sage received Divine Assistance in issuing proper instruction, what happened to the Divine assistance when issuing the KSAV SIRUV that he publicly had to retrieve after the GREAT GEVALDIGE CHILUL HASHEM that it caused, and still goes on as of this very moment expanding strong into the Universe. Doesn't it state in Talmud, that "ein hak'boruch hu mevi tkala al yedei tsadikim"?.

      "UNLESS it becomes absolutely clear that he erred",

      how much clearer you need to be when such a letter has been publicised by himself to "cease and desist"? This is clearly not a secret of G-d. Therefore my friend, it is neither straight nor forward, and you have no case. It seems that those promoting violence are in fear of begetting violence for themselves, aval veda ki al kol ele yeviacho E' bamishpot, vehoElokim yevakesh et hanirdaf, and all the yedei Eisav tikatsets, as Epstein & Wolmark yochiach! Sof davar hakol nishem, es E' yerei v'es mitsvoisov shmor, ki ze kol haadam.

      You first have to come clean and show the SOD HASHEM LIREIOV I-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N as well as psak of a CHIYUV GET from a legitimate Beit Din, then we talk.

      Delete
  21. RHS goes against his own position that a finding of wrongdoing by a BD is necessary before any action can be taken against a husband. The case was before a BD at the agreement of both parties, and both parties participated in several hearings of the BD. Tthe head of the BD actually said at the time RHS wrote the letter (and was quoted in Washington Jewish Week) that it was wrong to take any action against Aharon because there had been no BD finding of wrongdoing of any sort against him.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The letter by RHS and circulated by ORA is a directy threat of, and inctiement to, violence against Aharon. RHS takes a case in the gemara that has nothing whatsoever to do with gittin, and absurdly says that Aharon's status is the same as the eved ivri in that case, who the gemara says should be beaten. Than RHS takes yet another case from the gemera in which the gemara rules naases yada kishliach B'D, changes the gender on the phrase, and says that this applies against Aharon.
    It is also noteworthy that the case from which RHS lifts the phrase naase yado kishliach b"d refers specifically to a case in which the person was attacked in the genitals, which RHS is using as a reference to the Epstein/Wolmark gang.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The parties had brought the case to the Baltimore BD, and had held several hearings in the case with the participation of both parties. Epstein violated the Baltimore BD's orders regarding dismissing the case from civil court. The civil court ruled that the child should stay in Pennsylvania (to which Epstein had abducted the child) because Friedman had agreed to cancel an earlier civil court trial to take the case to Beis Din.
    RSK's attacks against Aharon were and are completely outragrous. RSK has extremely close financial and personal ties to Tamar's family. RSK was acting as Tamar's toain and publicist.
    That RHS would attack Aharon based on the word of RSK and against the word of the BD that was hearing the matter is completely outrageous. RHS was and is perpetrating the extreme abuse of the beis din process that RHS denounced in Ami magazine.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rabbi Schachter permits beating or maybe killing a husband when the marriage is over. Surely, if the wife leaves the house and goes to live with her parents the marriage is over. Nobody agrees with this. Marshal Teshuva 41 says that even if the wife has strong complaints against the husband who is wicked and goes to her father we may not coerce a GET. Reb Moshe Feinstein says that nobody ever heard of coercing a GET when the marriage is broken. Until Rabbi Schachter came along. Of course, he heard it from Rabbi Kaminetsky who I know does not know the laws of Gittin. A disciple of Rabbi Schachter once attacked me for attacking his rebbe, and I said to him, "Call up Rabbi Shachter right now and ask him for his sources. My sources are the Rashbo, Radvaz, Beis Yosef, Chazon Ish and others who forbid humiliating a husband to coerce a GET, even when the Talmud demands a GET. This is also the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch EH 77 2 and 3 and all of the commentators there. The Gro there #5 says that nobody permits coercion when the wife says her husband repels her and demands a GET. So what source does Rabbi Shachter have?" I waited, and the person got back on the phone and said, "Rabbi Shachter says that his source is the rabbis in Washington and a rabbi at the RCA." The rabbis in Washington don't know the laws of Gittin and rely on Rabbi Shachter. And the rabbi of the RCA permitted a couple to leave without a GET telling theme there was no kiddushin, a ridiculous statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Schachter permits beating or maybe killing a husband when the marriage is over.

      I'm sorry but you are horribly misrepresenting his words. He quoted a Gemarra, he explained said Gemarra in culturally relevant terms, and then went on to say that we do not do that today.

      I understand your point that divorce on demand is a huge problem, and will, given time, bring us to the same breakdown of society that is found in much of the western world today. However, if you ever want to be taken seriously you really do need to be more exact in your statements, with less exaggeration.

      Yes I think the YU internet lecture should not have been made available for public consumption. However, I would say that about EVERY SINGLE lecture that they offer online. They are providing deep, and at times seemingly contradictory Talmudic and halakhic analysis to a public, the majority of whom, have never learned how to learn properly.

      In that respect his allowing of public posting of said lecture was dangerous as misguided individuals could come to take it out of its context, much like you are doing here.

      However, quite honestly, you saying that a Rav, who many consider to be a Gadol, is saying this, is no less dangerous, and may in my opinion be more so, especially now that the original remarks are no longer easily accessible. As a Rav yourself you need to consider your actions. If you quote a Gadol, even one you disagree with, as holding a certain position, those who hold by said Gadol, then have on your authority, what their Gadol holds to be valid halakha. When you misrepresent his words, that is even worse. Now YOU are permitting in his name, something that he himself never permitted.

      It should be enough that he relied on the word of another in a regards to a Din Torah, which itself is a serious issur brought in the Shulhan Arukh. That he would commit such to writing, in my mind says that, while he is humble enough to admit his errors, is unreliable as a Dayyan or Posek.

      Delete
    2. @ Ramatz "It should be enough that he relied on the word of another in a regards to a Din Torah, which itself is a serious issur brought in the Shulhan Arukh. That he would commit such to writing, in my mind says that, while he is humble enough to admit his errors, is unreliable as a Dayyan or Posek."

      This one paragraph of yours has virtually disqualified the entire Rabbinic , especially Haredi establishment, even going back to Chazal.
      Firstly, those who go by the oracle Daas Torah, ie they follow the rulings of the Gedolim nominated by Yated neeman/Degel haTorah etc. do this all the time. The Chief rabbis who are subservient to a Gadol who instaleld them, for example. Rav Riskin tells a story where a herem was given agasint him by Rav Shach, R' Elyashiv and R SZ Auerbach. he called RSZA, who started crying saying he was pressured by Rav Shch to sign the herem. Your argument - which may be correct, disqualifies RSZ.
      He called R' Elyashiv, saying that they had never met and hence R' Elyashiv cannot make a ruling on him without hearing him. Riskin gave the same argument as yourself - slaying he could not rely on RYSE.
      Again, your argument may be correct and may have basis in the SA - but it effectively proves that you cannot rely on anybody.

      Delete
    3. interesting bubba maaisa, ed.

      Delete
    4. Rav Riskin tells a story where a herem was given agasint him by Rav Shach, R' Elyashiv and R SZ Auerbach. he called RSZA, who started crying saying he was pressured by Rav Shch to sign the herem. Your argument - which may be correct, disqualifies RSZ.

      Do you have a copy of this supposed Cherem, or a recording of him saying such a thing? I have various reasons to doubt the integrity of Rabbi Riskin but none to doubt Rav S.Z. Auerbach.

      I find it hard to believe that the entirety of the Chareidi establishment could not pressure Rav Auerbach to change his views regarding heter mechira(he was for it), but Rav Shach could convince to place a Cherem upon a person in direct contradiction to the Sh"A.

      Delete
    5. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2012/01/gedolims-edicts-and-mishpachah.html

      scroll down at the comment by Seth (Avi) Kadish · אבי קדיש

      although I am sure you will doubt this source, i will search for more

      Delete
    6. @ CV - maybe it is bubba maisa. Rav Shach had already called R' Soloveichik a spreader of heresy, presumably without having met him or read his works. This was despite the fact that RMF and R' Henkin showed great respect to RYBS, and he was in fact a much higher level scholar than the Rosh Yeshiva at Ponovezh. Nevertheless, Riskin wanted Mrs nechama Leibovotz to speak to men, and this was agreed to be done form behind a mechitza. Riskin also told Rav Shach (this I heard directly from Riskin) that he is not a follower of R' Shach but of r' Soloveichik.
      I assume that this may have been the statement that lit the fuse - since R Shach had already attacked a giant, RYBS - it would not be rocket science to attack a relative miniature, R Riskin.
      Of course, to those who are followers of R' Shach i apologise, and i am sure you consider him to be right and RYBS to be wrong.

      Delete
    7. Riskin himself is an unreliable source for a hearsay unknown story about himself or to promote his position. Regardless of whoever this Mr. Seth Kadish is.

      Delete
    8. Depends what u mean by "reliable" or unreliable. It is usually the case that Hareidim consider themselves to be infallible, yet pile on any incrimination agasint MO.
      Another example, is the Haredi Dayan Sherman, who invalidated thousands of Giurim, under the auspices of R' Elyashiv - without having looked into any single case or met any of the geirim. That is well known, and it is a total abuse and violation of halacha/SA. You can't simply claim that because "we" are reliable, or "we" have Daas Torah then we can break all the rules.

      Delete
    9. Another example, is the Haredi Dayan Sherman, who invalidated thousands of Giurim, under the auspices of R' Elyashiv - without having looked into any single case or met any of the geirim. That is well known, and it is a total abuse and violation of halacha/SA.

      That is not quite how it happened. He had seen numerous "converts" come through the B"D that never even kept their first Shabbat, that had never used the mikvah ect.

      He then possuled something like 15k conversions. Rav Amar immediately overturned the decision, Rav Ovadia, Rav Elyashiv and several other Chareidi Gedolim had a spirited discussion, and decided that the Rabbinut B"D would review each of the converts, and so long as they kept at least their first two Shabbatot, their conversion would remain valid.

      Even Rav Elyashiv agreed, in the end, that Rav Sherman overstepped halakhic bounds. So please stop with you shameless anti-chareidi polemics.

      To be clear, considering the various talks that RHS has given about the responsibility of Dayyanim to stick to the Sh"A and to search out facts on their own, I would not have believed that he would have done such a thing. However, we have it written in his own hand that he did. So that we have to deal with.

      Delete
    10. RMT: Where did you get this tidbit that Rav Elyashev ever disagreed with Rav Sherman or that he ever modified Rav Sherman's psak? I do not believe that is the case and that has never (certainly not authoritatively) been reported anywhere.

      Furthermore, the other court that purported to overturn Rav Sherman's psak (whether it was the secular Israeli court, as one did, or any other putative beis din [none of which has anything to do with Rav Elyashev]), would be without authority -- under Halacha -- to have overturned Rav Sherman's beis din's psak and would be halachicly meaningless if they purported to have.

      Delete
    11. any other putative beis din [none of which has anything to do with Rav Elyashev]), would be without authority -- under Halacha -- to have overturned Rav Sherman's beis din's psak and would be halachicly meaningless if they purported to have.

      Um... you do realize that Rav Sherman ruled as a Rabbinut Dayyan in a Rabbinut B"D. Thus giving the Chief Rabbi and his high court the authority to review and overturn, right? Further such an ability is clearly delineated in the Sh"A in the hilkhot of Dayyanim regarding appealing to a greater B"D.

      Where did you get this tidbit that Rav Elyashev ever disagreed with Rav Sherman or that he ever modified Rav Sherman's psak? I do not believe that is the case and that has never (certainly not authoritatively) been reported anywhere.
      You clearly didn't follow the news reports or apparently this blog regarding the "conversion crisis".

      Delete

    12. scroll down at the comment by Seth (Avi) Kadish · אבי קדיש

      although I am sure you will doubt this source, i will search for more


      Coming back to the discussion at hand. Yes of course I disbelieve this source. I'm not going to believe some internet commentor. Especially considering even he admits it is an "unknown story."

      Look if Rav Shach(and much of the rest of Ashkenazi Chareidi community) couldn't convince Rav S.Z. Auerbach to change his position on Heter Mechira over the course of decades, I have absolutely no reason to believe that they bullied him into signing some ban on Riskin regarding an event he was getting ready to hold.

      It just doesn't make logical sense.

      Delete
    13. Ramatz - the argument you bring about RSZA sticking to his guns on Heter mechira is about him standing up to others in an area of psak. This was not too difficult since he was certainly the Posek hADor - as far as the Ashkenazim were concerned. Nobody else in Israel was as great as him.
      In regards to the Riskin story - this was not so much a halachic question, but one of hashkafa. Rav Shach did not have so much halachic power, but he did in hashkafa. My understanding of the episode was that although there was nothing halachically wrong with an old lady speaking from behind a mechitza, there were at least 2 hashkafic problems:

      1) That having modern female scholars teach yeshiva bochrim or rabbis was a slippery slope to "reform"

      2) That some upstart, clean shaven YU New Yorker can tell r' Shach that he does not accept his views, but instead relies on Soloveichik and the Lubavitcher rebbe - is evidence of heresy, and he should be burned at the steak.

      Delete
    14. RAMATZ - Regarding D' Sherman - I remember that you were in one of the meetings with ROY and R' Shternbuch, but I don't know if it was regarding the Sherman-Druckman dispute, or the Army Rabbanut conversions. So obviously there are some things you are privy to, that I am not. However, in your retort to Ben T, you refer to news reports as the information source.
      There were actually 2 dayanim who overturned the conversions - shamelessly. The other was R' Atia of the Ashdod BD, who told a woman she did not require a divorce, as he had nullified her conversion.

      http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/17695/rav-amar-rav-druckman-respond-regarding-giyur-controversy.html

      Rabbis Amar and Druckman refuted the validity of these actions, saying that neither of the dayanim had consulted with Druckman, and were therefore kneged halacha. Now MK Gafni, who as Degel party leader, is totally following the Daas of RYSE, stated that Amr and Druckman were making up the halacha. this proves that Degel and its spiritual leader had a hand in these actions of the Dayanim.
      it should be noted that R Amar is today the leading Sephardi posek and is the Gadol Hador - it doesnt matter about politics or races for office, he is greater than any of the Yosef sons.
      So it is clear that Sherman and Atia were violating halacha, and so were theire backers in Degel political party.

      Delete
    15. Rav Dovid Eidensohn - Please listen to Rav Schachter's hesped for Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt'l

      http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/798928/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Hesped_for_Rav_Ovadia_Yosef_zt-l From 9:50 – 13:27 he mentions a Teshuva from Rav Ovadia that quotes many sources, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi, that permit a Beis Din to pressure a husband to give a Get even when Halachically they are not allowed to coerce him.

      Delete
    16. Sherman's ruling dealt primarily with the IDF conversions. He was over ruling a B"D of equal authority, but different hashkafa, which is in direct contradiction of several halakhot in Hilkhot Dayyanim. Further his ruling consisted of three points:
      1)That Israeli population registries must follow the ruling of leading haredi (ultra-Orthodox) decisors including rabbis Elyashiv and Eliezer Schach, who had declared that any conversion that did not entail full-fledged mitzva observance was meaningless.
      Rav Ovadiah and Rav Amar agree on this point.

      2) He further contended that his court had supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in the state’s system,
      Like I said, this is against various halakhot in Hilkhot Dayyanim.

      That in contemporary times all declarations of fidelity to Halacha remain subject to examination based on future observance.
      This is a definite Chiddush on his part. It directly contradicts the Shulhan Arukh 268:2 that states, וכיון שטבל הרי הוא כישראל שאם חזר לסורו הרי הוא כישראל מומר שאם קדש קדושיו קדושין

      See the Shach and Taz there who do not argue, but rather simply explain this halakha and point to other places in Even HaEzer where it is brought forth in slightly different language.

      Now if Rav Sherman wants to say that the world or society has changed, and thus there is a necessitated change in the halakha, he would need to write a much more detailed teshuva and seek wide backing of the Gedolim. Which he did not do.

      The Eidah initially sided with Rav Elyashiv in backing Rav Sherman. That was until Rav Mosh Tzedaka Rav Reuven Elbaz and Rav Shalom Cohen joined the fray on Rav Ovadia's side and helped him to clarify that his statements were in line with his previous rulings that so long as a Ger kept their first two Shabbatot they were to be considered a valid Ger even if they went secular on week three. The Edah, agreed to this, and now facing a majority the other way so did Rav Elyashiv. All of this can be found in reported news.

      Therefore it would seem to me that the consensus of the Gedolim is decidedly against Rav Sherman.

      Delete
    17. "Um... you do realize that Rav Sherman ruled as a Rabbinut Dayyan in a Rabbinut B"D. Thus giving the Chief Rabbi and his high court the authority to review and overturn, right?"

      That is not Halachicly correct or applicable even if the Chief Rabbi did have such a legal power under Israeli law. And it is not even legally correct under that rabbanut system. The Chief Rabbi cannot overturn a beis din decision rendered under the Chief Rabbinate Supreme Court such as the one headed by Rav Avraham Sherman.

      Now the secular Israeli High Court of Justice purported to overturn the beis din decision, but halachicly that is a joke:

      http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/125632/high-court-validates-rabbi-druckmans-giyur.html

      The Chief Rabbi (Amar) only "issued a p’sak halacha that prohibits rabbinical courts to invalidate the geirus of any former convert" going forward, but never even purported to overturn any previous decision rendered by the Chief Rabbinate Supreme Court (such as Rav Sherman's.):

      http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/46701/israeli-chief-rabbi-seeks-to-put-the-brakes-on-invalidating-state-giyur.html

      "Further such an ability is clearly delineated in the Sh"A in the hilkhot of Dayyanim regarding appealing to a greater B"D."

      The provisions delineated in the Sh"A for this were never provisioned in this case by any higher court that falls within the guidelines outlined in Sh"A that issued any contrary psak.

      "You clearly didn't follow the news reports or apparently this blog regarding the "conversion crisis"."

      I very much followed the news closely from the outset until now. Making this silly comment does not change the fact that Rav Elyashev never critiicized or overturned or in the slightest way disagreed with Rav Sherman's psak.

      You haven't offered any evidence of such an action by Rav Elyashev and you won't be able to since it never happened. But you are still welcome to provide any such evidence or even hearsay news reports purporting that.

      Rav Elyashev always strongly supported Rav Sherman's psak and Rav Sherman consulted with Rav Elyashev throughout the process and his psak closely adhered to Rav Elyashev's halachic positions.

      Delete
    18. You are quite confused both as to what B"D Sherman was running at the time(the Chief Rabbi always runs the Chief Rabbinate Supreme Court. Also Sherman's primary target was not Druckman, but rather the IDF conversions.

      Finally his ruling goes clearly against the hilkhot of Gerim as I stated.

      Delete
    19. it should be noted that R Amar is today the leading Sephardi posek and is the Gadol Hador - it doesnt matter about politics or races for office, he is greater than any of the Yosef sons.

      I'm not sure that he is greater that Rav Yitzchak Yosef, author of the Yalkut Yosef. He has been an affirmed Gadol B'Torah from a very young age.

      Further he certainly isn't a greater Gadol than Rav Moshe Tzedaka, Rosh Yeshiva of Porat Yosef, and who quite frankly Rav Ovadia saw as the closest thing to an equal that he had since the petira of Rav M. Eliyahu.

      Delete
    20. RMT: Please provide any evidence, even if it is hearsay news reports, that Rav Elyashev ever changed from his strong support and endorsement of Rav Sherman's psak.

      Rav Elyashev never dropped his support.

      Delete
    21. ROY had nominated R' Amar as his successor, but the Chief rabbi elections got int he way of that. In any case, he is a leading posek, and gadol and carried more weight than D ' Sherman.

      Delete
    22. here is R' Yehuda Henkin's critique of the Sherman judgement.

      http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%207%20Henkin.pdf

      Delete
    23. Ben TorahJanuary 27, 2014 at 8:07 PM
      RMT: Please provide any evidence, even if it is hearsay news reports, that Rav Elyashev ever changed from his strong support and endorsement of Rav Sherman's psak.

      Rav Elyashev never dropped his support.

      It was reported, even on this blog. Beyond that I have no interest in arguing with a troll over a move that was clearly against halakha, and lacked all support(in the end) of the Gedolim.

      EddieJanuary 27, 2014 at 8:32 PM
      ROY had nominated R' Amar as his successor, but the Chief rabbi elections got int he way of that. In any case, he is a leading posek, and gadol and carried more weight than D ' Sherman.

      Eddie this is what a Russian friend of mine calls, telling the bear how it sleeps in the woods

      Is Rav Amar a Gadol? Most certainly, and that is the primary difference between Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Sephardim have always appointed a Gadol as chief Rabbi, primarily because we respect the position of Rishon L'Tzion which far predates the state or Zionism, and if Naftali Bennett has his way and their becomes only one chief Rabbi will continue to exist amongst Sephardim even separately from the Rabbinut.

      That being said, as much as I greatly appreciate Rav Amar, he was never the successor of Rav Ovadia Yosef. His first choice there was his son Yaakov Yosef who had a mind like his father's. However, his brilliance brought him into dispute with Maran and the two drifted apart in several of their positions. Second to that would have been Rav Yitzhak Yosef, who Rav Ovadia would have preferred to keep running the Yeshiva instead of being Rishon L'Tzion.

      Once again Naftali Bennet managed to confound the Rav's plans.

      Delete
    24. RMT: The point is you are trolling a factually incorrect claim. Rav Elyashev was consulted by Rav Sherman, and Rav Elyashev fully supported Rav Sherman's psak. And Rav Elyashev never wavered from his strong support of Rav Sherman, and you have provided absolutely no substantiation of your erroneous claims otherwise.

      Additionally, the Eidah Chareidus never opposed Rav Sherman's psak, as you claimed without a shred of substantiation. (As none exists.)

      Delete
    25. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4031359,00.html
      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2011/02/rav-ovadia-yosef-backs-down-on-army.html

      Now would you please answer how Rav Sherman(who has since been indicted for corruption btw) made a psak that runs directly against the Sh"A(Y"D 268:2) Shakh and Taz?

      Delete
    26. Ok, you're finally providing what you feel is the basis for your claim. That's a start. But YNet (which is all you have provided plus DT's link to YNet), is hardly a reliable source itself (to put it mildly) plus it itself is admitting it is speculating.

      "The addition is SAID to be accepted by leaders of the Eda Haredit movement, including head of the Lithuanian Orthodox faction Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv..." (emphasis my own)

      1) Ynet is an unreliable source, especially for supposed halachic rulings in the Torah world.

      2) Ynet itself is admittedly speculating. Not that if it didn't admit as much it would be reliable, but it actually itself is admitting as much.

      3) It is actually, in the same sentence as supposedly saying that the Eida accepted this supposed compromise, it is saying that Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv is a member of the Eida!!! How much more wrong can it be that that,

      And this is the best basis for your claim that you can come up with?!? A Ynet story??

      Delete
    27. That Ynet report is about the cancellation of planned protests by Hareidim against ROY. The protests were cancelled, so RYSE must have agreed to something.
      In any case, BT, by saying the RYSE stood by D' Sherman's ruling , considering it was in violation of the Sh'A, is not very good if you follow RYSE.

      Delete
    28. Rav Sherman's psak is available in full online. And it is well sourced and fully in accordance wit S"A/Halacha. Read the entire psak,

      There never were any plans for "mass protest against Rabbi Yosef" by Rav Elyashev that he called off. That is laughable in the extreme. Rav Elyashev called off a planned "mass protest against Rabbi Yosef"? Sheesh. Rav Eliashev never would have planned a "mass protest against Rabbi Yosef" to ever call off. And no one would have made a "mass protest against Rabbi Yosef". There was nothing to call off. That Ynet yellow journalism is a big joke.

      Delete
    29. Mr. Levi Brackman, author of that YNET aricle linked above, is a yellow journalist extraordinaire who aside from his vitriolic hatred of Torah Jewry (and his support of YCT/Avi Weiss) writes articles that are at best half-truths and usually complete fiction.

      Delete
    30. BT is very much in denial.

      http://www.vosizneias.com/76357/2011/02/16/jerusalem-rabbi-elyashiv-calls-for-mass-protest-against-idf-conversions/

      They were agasint R' Yosef's rulig , but they were backed by RYSE. Until they were called off.

      Delete
    31. Ed, do you have a reading comprehension problem? You just linked to ANOTHER YNet article (via a VIN link). All the same non-reliably applies.

      Btw, I found it interesting that according to this Ynet, Rabbi Amar disagreed with Chacham Ovadia.

      Delete
    32. So you are saying that D"T and YNet just made the whole thing up? You really are a next level troll aren't you?

      Oh BTW it was also reported by
      Jpost
      http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Eda-Haredit-calls-off-IDF-conversions-approval-protest

      Haaretz
      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/yosef-backpedals-on-broad-approval-of-idf-conversions-1.344688

      and VosIzNais
      http://www.vosizneias.com/76717/2011/02/20/jerusalem-eda-haredit-rabbi-elyashiv-and-rabbi-yosef-reach-deal-on-idf-conversions/

      Are all of those bad journalism as well?

      Delete
    33. DT never said it is true. He, and VosIzNeias simply linked to the Ynet article. DT and VIN never imply endorsement or agreement of the reliability of websites they link to.

      JPost and Haaretz are no different than Ynet. Which was more reliable, Pravda or Der Stürmer?

      Oh, btw the JPost article you linked to says that "Deri, who they said humiliated Yosef by “bending” his ruling in a “compromise” and the Haaretz article you linked to says "Yosef backpedals on broad approval of IDF conversions". So what we are seeing in these articles is that they are saying Rav Ovadia modified his stance. Being you are a big chosid of the Ynet, Haaretz and JPost cabal and accept their stories like Toras Moshe M'Sinai, you might want to think about that.

      Delete
    34. From Toras Ha'aretz:

      "Still, it appears Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's latest qualifications are liable to cast doubt on the Jewish status of many IDF converts... The document brought to Weiss was signed by the three Shas rabbis, along with Yosef... Shas insiders close to Aryeh Deri, Yishai's predecessor as party chairman, said yesterday that the fact that Yishai affixed Yosef's name to the bottom of the document, and the fact that the paper's existence was made public, "insults the dignity of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef."

      Delete
    35. B"T I was there, in the room, when the deal was worked out so it really doesn't give me anything to think about.

      To me I can tell who(or at least who's askanim) talked to which news source. However, it happened, so deal with it.

      So Deri was taking a pot shot at Yishai? Your point? I don't doubt that that happened either. The two are not exactly known to be friendly.

      However the truth is that you obfuscate. Instead of dealing with the issue, that there was a compromise in which Rav Elyashiv also backed away from some of his support of Sherman, you would rather make this discussion about internal Shas politics.

      Delete
    36. According to your own linked "sources" it was Rav Ovadia who compromised into a position where his new position then "cast doubt on the Jewish status of many IDF converts" and Aryeh Deri got Rav Ovadia to "compromise" by "bending his ruling" (all verbatim quotes from your holy reliable source.)

      All any of your "sources" say is that after Rav Ovadia changed his position to a more restrictive one where certain IDF "converts" would have their purported "conversions" deemed invalid, then the Ashkenazic Rabbonim decided Rav Ovadia's changed position wasn't something worth going to the streets to protest against. Nowhere, anywhere, even in your sources does it purport that the Ashkenazic Rabbonim changed their position. Only that they decided to forgo protesting Rav Ovadia's newly restrictive position against IDF converts.

      In a nutshell all it is saying is that Rav Ovadia backed down.

      Delete
    37. R. Tzadok:
      I just looked through the news articles you cited, and while I cannot vouch for their accuracy or those press outlets general trustworthiness or lack thereof, the articles themselves -- none of them -- indicate anywhere that Maran HaRav Eliashev ZT"L ever changed away from his support of the ruling of Dayan HaRav Sherman SHLIT"A.

      Again, just looking through your secular news reports.

      Delete
    38. Rav Sherman possulled ALL the conversions, supposedly with the support of Rav Elyahsiv. Rav Ovadia initially stated that he was uphold ALL the conversions. Then the article writes:

      The understandings reached on Sunday, mediated by political opponents former Shas chairman Arye Deri and current Shas chairman Eli Yishai, were that someone who can be proven to have had lied at the time of his or her conversion regarding his intent to accept the mitzvot, will not be considered Jewish.

      At the same time, it changes the sweeping nature of the approval of the military conversions, and leaves room to investigate cases that are problematic.


      Considering that Rav Elyashiv agreed to the compromise shows that both backed off their initial positions somewhat.

      Delete
  25. @ R' Dovid :

    "The rabbis in Washington don't know the laws of Gittin and rely on Rabbi Shachter. And the rabbi of the RCA permitted a couple to leave without a GET telling theme there was no kiddushin, a ridiculous statement. "

    If RHS relies on Washington, and Washington rely on RHS, then this is an illogical circle!

    I don't know which RCA Rav is being referred to, but is this the same guy who annulled Tamar's Kiddushin?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Eddie,
    Illogical circle? A circle comes back to its beginning, but these rabbis come back to a new Torah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A circular argument - which is not logical. A tea biscuit (cookie) can also be a circle, but that doesn't help the analysis.

      Delete
  27. R. Michael Tzadok made an important comment that needs to be emphasized when evaluating the pro-agunah/divorce on demand rabbis and organizations : "divorce on demand is a huge problem, and will, given time, bring us to the same breakdown of society that is found in much of the western world today."

    R. Tzadok, the breakdown of Orthodox Jewish society has in fact already occurred, and not just in MO, but also in various Chareidi segments. The pro-agunah/pro-divorce on demand/pro-archaos rabbis and organizations like RSK, RHS, ORA, Epstein, Belsky etc. have brought a huge disaster on the whole Orthodox community, not just MO.

    This article focuses on MO, but a lot of what he says is relevant to Yeshivish/Chassidic types:

    http://5tjt.com/the-new-shiddach-crisis-over-40-orthodox-singles/

    "In the over-40 Modern Orthodox divorced population, marriage has come to be seen by both sexes as something exclusively for procreation. If no procreating, no need to tie the knot. Companionship and intimacy are increasingly seen as commodities that can be leased, not purchased."

    ReplyDelete
  28. BTW, this article http://www.scribd.com/doc/202377527/Rabbi-Safran-Broken-Marriage-Must-Divorce-rebuttal
    has now been pulled from this blog.
    Perhaps because of the embarrassing errors it makes in attributing to R' Safran things he never said, especially about coercion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it was because the article was based on a teshuva from Rav Elyashiv that the blog owner later showed to be fraudulent and rejected by Rav Elyashiv himself.

      Delete
    2. Superintendant chalmersJanuary 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM

      Could you please elaborate on this?
      What did the fraudulent tshuva say, and what was Rav Elyashiv's true position?

      Delete
    3. R safran was not advocating coercion - he was simply saying "be nice, and give a get, just like i did." That is not coercion. In fact R' Dovid's solution , to impose fines, is stronger than simply saying "do the right thing".

      Delete
    4. Superintendant chalmersJanuary 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM
      Could you please elaborate on this?
      What did the fraudulent tshuva say, and what was Rav Elyashiv's true position?


      See these two blog posts:
      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/rav-eliashiv-reliability-of-psakim-said.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/rav-eliashiv-maos-alei-from-kovetz.html

      Everything you need to know should be found there.

      Delete
  29. Eddie,
    You say my article was pulled from the blog because I invented Rabbi Safran's remarks about coercion. In my copy of his article page 3 he states clearly the gemora in Kiddushin 50a"that if a man refuses to give a woman a divorce, he is forced." I point out in my article that this gemora only referred to very rare cases such as when a man married a woman forbidden to him, and it surely does not apply to MOUS OLEI and certainly when the woman would really prefer a different husband. But he did say it, and the gemora there is talking about strong coercion that forces him to divorce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a Gemara, and he is entitled to cite it. he is not swinging his baseball bat and beating up people, he is just saying be nice, and give the get.
      If i tell people to keep shabbos, it does not mean I am advocating executing those who don't, but i can say that the Torah prescribes such a punishment.

      Delete
    2. the letter is both a threat and incitement to violence in a specific case against a specific person. the letter contradicts RHS's own stated position on these issues.

      Delete
  30. Eddie,
    If you want to find reasons for my material being pulled from the blog I am sure you can find something truthful to say so you don't have to invent things. I swing a heavy bat and sometimes it is better to give me some time off. But I don't say lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree you dont tell lies, but I think it was wrongly alleging that Safran is threatening to beat people who don't give a get. if he says be nice and give a get, you cannot claim that the man is still married to his wife, and offspring will be mamzerim. that is a bit of a stretch.

      Delete
  31. It is NOT the right thing for a husband to give a Get if he wishes to continue the marriage; even if this is over his wife's objections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom... ever hear of it?

      Delete
    2. Of course I heard of it. And it has nothing to do with my point.

      If a husband wishes to continue his marriage and his wife wants out, he has the right to continue the marriage despite her wanting out.

      Delete
    3. Let me understand you before I start pulling out sources. You are saying that a husband is permitted to force his wife to stay married to him against her will? That is what you are saying, and you are trying to claim that it is in line with the Sh"A and poskim?

      Delete
    4. "ou are saying that a husband is permitted to force his wife to stay married to him against her will?"

      Absolutely.

      "That is what you are saying, and you are trying to claim that it is in line with the Sh"A and poskim?"

      Absolutely.

      A husband does not have to divorce his wife on demand simply because she demands a divorce and there is no extenuating circumstances that halachicly entitles her to a divorce. (i.e. she is bored, hates marriage, thinks she could do better, feels he is not emotionally her type, etc.)

      Delete
    5. Sorry but that goes directly against what is written in the B"Y EH"E 134 and what Rav Elyashiv himself wrote in Piskei Din Vol 7 pgs 201-207. There you will find his teshuva is available in full online and fully sourced.

      Please give your sources that enable you to go against them.

      Delete
    6. Absolutely incorrect. Neither of your sources support divorce-on-demand. Neither say if the wife wants a divorce the husband must give one, end of story. Reread.

      Delete
    7. sod Hashem liyereiovJanuary 28, 2014 at 9:07 PM

      Is E'eseh lo ezer kenegdo a license for a divorce in case of lo zochoh? If the cattle Prod, malbin pnei chavero berabim, topped with aonoas dvarim has been the secret weapon of hashem - liyereiov, it is all out there by now. It may only be used if it provides an income for a dvar tzedaka such as either a makom torah like a yeshivah or buying malbish arumim colored underwear for Weberman's Torah 'Therapyee' victims.

      Delete
    8. B"T- Did you even read the sources? Clearly they say that a wife is not a slave that her husband can keep against her will, and say that he has a halakhic obligation to give her a Get.

      You can deny simple facts if you like, but you have yet to bring a single source to the contrary.

      Delete
    9. RMT: You have yet to bring a single source saying divorce-on-demand is halacha. Not a single source. None of the two sources you cited say anything close. Not being a slave in no way equates to being entitled to a divorce simply because she wants a divorce. And none of the source say or imply anything like that. You are being completely disingenuous in purporting to claim they take any such position as divorce-on=demand.

      Delete
    10. You are joking right? So in Piskei Din when they write that he has an obligation to give his wife a Get... that somehow means to you that he is not obligated?

      Delete
    11. Neither Shulchan Aruch nor Piskei Din say "he has an obligation to give his wife a Get" anytime she wants one. Stop repeating this bubbe maaisa.

      Delete
    12. Didn't say Sh"A said B"Y. Piskei Din says it clearly. "We tell him that he he has a mitzvah to give his wife a Get."

      Stop denying facts. Bring a source already that says otherwise. You have yet to bring a single one.

      Delete
    13. Michael,

      Under what circumstances does the B"Y say he has a "mitzvah" to give his wife a Get?

      And if the B"Y only says he has a "mitzvah" to give a Get, that does not necessarily mean he has an obligation to give a Get. It is a "mitvah" to be mesameach a Choson and Kallah. That doesn't mean it is an aveira if one is not mesameach a Choson and Kallah (or that he is obligated to.)

      Delete
    14. B"Y or Piskei Din, that is.

      Delete
    15. Nat. There are four rulings that a B"D can give regarding a woman seeking a Get:

      Shalom Bayit: If the B"D thinks that the marriage is somehow salvagable and both sides will agree to follow whatever plan the B"D lays out.

      Advised to give a Get: In the case of a moredet or Maus Ali without clear justification according to the above Piskei Din the Beit Din should advise the man to give his wife a Get.

      Chiyuv L'Get: Maus Ali with a clear justification but which does not reach a certain level of extremis the Beit Din tells the husband that he must give a Get, but they have no real ability to pressure him.

      Kofin L'Get: In rare cases of true extremis the B"D can take various steps(in Israel imprisonment ect.) to force a man to give his wife a Get.

      Now according to the cited Piskei Din if the wife presents herself to the B"D and says she hates her husband heart and soul and under no circumstances will continue the marriage. Depending on the specifics the B"D will either advise him that the right thing to do is to give a Get(which goes against comment that started this sub-thread) or they will tell him that he is obligated to give a Get.

      Delete
    16. So if the B"D is "advising" him to give a Get, I understand he does not have a halachic chiyuv to give a Get.

      Delete
    17. No. He does have a halakhic obligation, because his wife is not a slave that he can keep against her will. Just that the Beit Din, because of the situation, lacks the power to do more than to advise him, and thus can take absolutely no action if he refuses. The Beit Din can advise someone to not be angry, or not be a Kapdan, but they lack power to force them Likewise in the laws of Hashavas Aveida, there are places where a person should return something, but lacking true Semikha the B"D lacks the power to force them. Please read the sources.

      All of that aside let us look at the original statement by B"T:
      It is NOT the right thing for a husband to give a Get if he wishes to continue the marriage; even if this is over his wife's objections.

      Clearly the B"D is advising him to give a Get because it IS the RIGHT thing to do.

      Delete
    18. You gave three categories for B"D:

      1. Advised to give a Get
      2. Chiyuv L'Get
      3. Kofin L'Get

      The third category means the husband has a halachic obligation to give a Get and B"D can force him to.

      The second category means the husband has a halachic obligation to give a Get but B"D cannot force him to.

      The first category means the husband has NO halachic obligation to give a Get but B"D recommends he does because it is the "right thing" to do even though he has no obligation to. Similar to when someone's minor child damages someone else's property it is the "right thing" for the father to compensate the victim for the damages even though he has no halachic obligation to. Or similar to Bava Metzia 83a where Rav, per Midas Chasidus, told Rabba to pay the wages of his indigent hired help and to not charge them for the goods of Rav that they damaged during transport even though halachicly he wasn't obligated to pay their full wages and was halachicly entitled to collect damages from them.

      According to your last comment there would be no distinction between categories two and three, which makes no sense as otherwise they would both be one category rather than two sepeate categories, and by their very titles you assigned whereas one was "Advised to Get" and the other "Chiyuv L'Get" (which itself is distinct from Kofin L'Get).

      Delete
    19. And the earlier category of "Shalom Bayis" means the husband has no obligation and B"D doesn't even recommend he do so. As an aside to my last comment, during a "Shalom Bayis" type situation in B"D, I don't think it is contingent on (to quote you) "both sides will agree to follow whatever plan the B"D lays out". B"D has the halachic power to order this even if one side unilaterally declares a refusal to attempt Shalom Bayis.

      Delete
    20. "According to your last comment there would be no distinction between categories two and *three"

      Typo: That comment of mine should have read "no distinction between categories one and two.

      Delete
    21. The distinction between 2 & 3 is that under the dictates of #2 they can publicize that he is refusing to obey a B"D, deny him an Aliyah ect. But they cannot take direct action against him or his property.

      Under 3, at least in Israel, they could have his passport seized, his bank account frozen, he can be denied employment, and under extreme circumstances placed in prison.

      Delete
    22. I corrected my typo to indicate there was no distinction in your explanation between your categories ONE and TWO (using the numbering system I assigned above.)

      So, yes, there's a distinction between 2 & 3, as you've said, but not between 1 & 2 according to your view. (Which doesn't make sense as they're separate categories.)

      Delete
    23. Again there is a rather large difference. Under 1) the B"D has no ability to do anything to the man. They cannot even publicize that he is acting against their advice.

      Where as in 2) they can, and can deny him an Aliyah and not count him in a minyan, and make him possul l'eidut ect.

      Delete
    24. Your last comment changed what you earlier said. Now you're saying in 2) "Chiyuv L'Get" that "they can, and can deny him an Aliyah and not count him in a minyan, and make him possul l'eidut ect." But in your earlier comment regarding 2) "Chiyuv L'Get" you said "Beit Din tells the husband that he must give a Get, but they have no real ability to pressure him."

      Your original description of 2) "Chiyuv L'Get" was the same as your 1) "Advised to give a Get"

      Delete
    25. No Nat. It didn't change what I said earlier. Harchakot Rabbeinu Tam are not considered real pressure. Of course anyone devoted to Torah will follow the instructions of a B"D, and a Chiloni doesn't really care if he is denied an Aliyah or not counted in a minyan.

      Really Nat why don't you simply read the referenced Piskei Din, this is all outlined there.

      Delete
    26. We are only talking about people who care about the Torah not people who are Mechalelei Shabbos, eat treif and don't do taharas hamishpacha. Those people couldn't give a hoot about Beis Din or Halacha altogether. Obviously we are talking about frum people.

      So your second description of 2) "Chiyuv L'Get" was materially different than your first.

      In any event, putting aside the P"D, what does the Mechaber write in the B"Y or more specifically in the S"A, which is where normative Halacha is derived from. (And from the Rema in the case of Ashkenazim.) Let's see how the S"A differentiates regarding the permitted pressures -- or lack thereof -- and more importantly whether there is a Chiyuv Shamayim to give a Get, between the cases we described as 1. "Advised to give a Get" and 2) "Chiyuv L'Get".

      Delete
  32. Rasha lama sakeh reachaJanuary 28, 2014 at 3:13 PM


    RE:
    @ Superintendent ChalmersJanuary 24, 2014 at 3:32 PM

    Super chalm:

    "The letter is rather straightforward, and does not call for violence"

    Are you straight, and are you really forward?
    Since R' Elyashiv and other poskim stated that Botei Din applying force to Gitin of these alleged Agunah's causes MAMZERUS and matir Eishes Ish leshuk, how can just any individual meddle in such affairs where it clearly states that kol mi she'eino baki betiv gittin vekidushin LO yehei esek imahen? Even R' SK has fallen korban to such, since he had to publicly retrieve the Siruv in the doodleson case to 'cease and desist' he so had himself declared, veim bearozim noflo shalheves ma yomru ezovei kir. After R' S. having prefaced with a qualifier to KASHER and MATIR sheretz bekuf nun ta'amim step by step for Anyone, as to take matters into their own hands beating and cattle Proding away to prevent someone not to be meagen and going through all such details as in the following:

    " However, to prevent a husband from causing his wife to be an Agunah,
    ...does not require a ruling from a Beit Din... it is permissible to RESTRAIN (APPLYING CATTLE PRODS bel"aaz)...principle of enforcing the fulfillment of mitzvot....one's ACTIONS become an extension of the Beit Din (who Beit Din, where Beit Din, where Psak Din ???)... it is proper to PRESSURE the husband to divorce his wife...one cannot question his instruction...",

    if this is not calling bluntly for "VIOLENCE", I do not know what is. You got to be tipshim lehera, in stating otherwise. Besides, where is the specific ruling from any BEIT DIN of a Chiyuv GET to begin with and if and when not doing so he is bichlal a MEAGEN altogether, so as to follow up to kasher and matir sheretz using cattle prods, Huh? Therefore, I put it to you, there are none. This letter only states:


    "an instruction from a sage is sufficient", where is that particular INSTRUCTION ??? Why can't you show for it? What are you trying to HIDE? You also claim that the sage received Divine Assistance in issuing proper instruction, what happened to the Divine assistance when issuing the KSAV SIRUV that he publicly had to retrieve after the GREAT GEVALDIGE CHILUL HASHEM that it caused, and still goes on as of this very moment expanding strong into the Universe. Doesn't it state in Talmud, that "ein hak'boruch hu mevi tkala al yedei tsadikim"?.

    You then go on ..."UNLESS it becomes absolutely clear that he erred",

    how much clearer you need to be that he erred, when such a letter has been publicised by himself to "cease and desist"? This is clearly not a secret of G-d. Therefore my friend, it is neither straight nor forward, and you have no case. It seems that those promoting violence are in fear of begetting violence for themselves, aval veda ki al kol ele yeviacho E' bamishpot, vehoElokim yevakesh et hanirdaf, and all the mekatsetsim bintios and mechablim bakromim yedei Eisav tikatsets, as Epstein & Wolmark yochiach! Sof davar hakol nishma, es E' yerei v'es mitsvoisov shmor, ki ze kol haadam.

    "Ukvar horeh hazoken"...
    You first have to come clean and show the SOD HASHEM LIREIOV I-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N as well as Psak of a CHIYUV GET Meheichan dantani from a legitimate Beit Din, then we talk. Short of that, it is bibchinat, "RASHA LAMA SAKEH REACHA!

    ReplyDelete
  33. The classic sources are talking about real agunos. Not cases of women who don't work on their marriages and just want to toss the guy out of the house for stupid reasons.

    ReplyDelete

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