שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג - אבן העזר סימן כ
(לד) המורם מכל האמור שהואיל ומצאנו חברים רבים גדולים ועצומים מרבותינו הראשונים דס"ל כשיטת הרמב"ם ז"ל שכופין את הבעל לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי. וכן תיקנו רבנן סבוראי בבי דינא דמתיבתא, ונהגו בתקנה זו עד סוף זמן הגאונים קרוב לשש מאות שנה, ועשו מעשה רב לכוף את הבעל להוציא בטענת מאיס עלי. אף על פי שרבים מהפוסקים אינם סוברים כן, וגם מרן בש"ע /בא"ה/ (סי' עז) סובר שאין כופין, מ"מ כשיש עוד צירופים להקל, שפיר סמכינן ע"ז הלכה למעשה. (וע' להגאון אגודת איזוב (חאה"ע ס"ס יט) בד"ה עוד יש). ובייחוד לבני תימן שאינם זזים מהוראות הרמב"ם בכל אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, וכבר נהגו בארצותם לכוף את הבעל לגרש בטענת מ"ע, כדעת הרמב"ם, לכן גם כאן בא"י שפיר דמי לפסוק להם כמנהגם. ובנ"ד הוכח בעדים שהנישואין נעשו נגד רצון האשה, ולמרות סירובה להנשא אל בעלה זה, כפו עליה קרוביה הר כגיגית בדרך תרמית ותחבולה להשיאה אליו. ונודע שדעת הרשב"ש להלכה דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציא, ורבו האחרונים שכ' לסמוך על הרשב"ש בזה להלכה ולמעשה. ובפרט שיש לצרף בזה כמה ספיקות וס"ס. (וכמש"כ בסי' יח אות ד). וכבר נודע בשערים המצויינים בהלכה מ"ש הרשב"ץ ח"ב (סי' ח) וז"ל, ואף על פי שיש בתשו' גדולי האחרונים שאין כופין בזה [בדין מאיס עלי] כלל, מ"מ אנן לא קטלי קני באגמא אנן, ומילתא דתליא בסברא, אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו ראות. ע"ש. וכן הוא בשו"ת יכין ובועז ח"ב (סי' מד). וע"ע בשו"ת מהר"א אבן טוואה בחוט המשולש (סי' לה). ובשו"ת מעשה איש (חאה"ע ס"ס א). ע"ש. הא קמן שאף הרשב"ץ דקאי בשיטת הפוסקים שחולקים על הרמב"ם, כשיש עוד סניפין פסק להקל כד' הרמב"ם. ודון מינה ואוקי באתרין. (ובתשובה אחרת הארכתי בס"ד להוכיח שדעת כמה פוסקים רוא"ח, שבית דין שפסקו לכוף את הבעל לגרש, ע"פ איזה פוסקים, אפי' טעו בדין, והוי גט מעושה שלא כדין, אין הגט פסול אלא מדרבנן. ומכ"ש בכפייה שבזמן הזה שאינה כפייה בשוטים, אלא בישיבה בבית הסוהר, ואין כל דמיון בין בית הסוהר של זמנינו לבית הסוהר שבזמנים הקודמים. והו"ל כספק ספקא בדרבנן. ולדעת הרבה פוסקים עבדינן ספקא בידים בדרבנן להקל, וכ"ש בס"ס, ומכ"ש בשעה"ד ומקום עיגון כזאת. וק"ו בן בנו של ק"ו בדין מאיס עלי שרבו הפוסקים המקילים הן מצד הדין הן מצד התקנה, ואפי' הרא"ש שחולק על הרמב"ם כתב, דבדיעבד שכפו את הבעל להוציא מה שעשו עשוי. וכ"כ הרשב"ץ, דאם נתגרשה בגט כזה תנשא לכתחלה. ועל אחת כמה וכמה בנ"ד שהנישואין היו בעל כרחה של האשה, דעבדינן עובדא לכתחלה.) ונוסף לזה יש מקום בנ"ד לפקפק על עצם הקידושין שנעשו ע"י איומים והפחדות, ועכ"פ הבעל בודאי עשה שלא כהוגן במעשה הקידושין, ואם כי לא נפקיע קידושיו מ"מ יש לכופו לתת גט. ומה גם שהאשה צעירה לימים ויושבת גלמודה גמולה דא מבעלה, ויש חשש לפי ראות עיני ביה"ד פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, אם תהיה תקותה לקבלת גט למפח נפש. בהיות שזה שנים רבות יושבת בדד כבולה בחבלי העיגון. וכבר הבאנו (בסי' יח אות יג) דברי הגאון מהר"ח פלאג'י דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציאה בגט. וע"ע בשו"ת חקקי לב (חאה"ע סי' נז דק"ה ע"א), שהביא מ"ש בשו"ת מהרשד"ם (סי' נז), ומשאת בנימין (סי' מד), שיש להקל הרבה בעיגונא דאיתתא כדי שלא יצאו בנות ישראל לתרבות רעה, ולא יבואו ח"ו להמיר דתם, ובפרט כשהאשה ילדה ורכה בשנים. ושכ"כ הרא"ם בתשו' (סי' לו), שאין לך שעה"ד גדול מזה להשאיר האשה עגונה כל ימיה, ובודאי דנפיק מינה חורבא, וכ"ש בזמנים הללו שבעוה"ר רבו הפרצות ונתמעטו הצנועות. ע"ש. וכיו"ב כתב הגרח"מ לבטון בשו"ת נכח השלחן (חאה"ע ס"ס יד). ע"ש. ובנ"ד הרי כמה פעמים התחננו אליו ממש חברי בית הדין (בהרכבים שונים משך שנים רבות), ובקשוהו בדברי פיוס וריצוי שיואיל לפטרה בגט פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, והוא כמו פתן חרש יאטם אזנו, וגם לאחר החלטות ביה"ד לחייב את הבעל לגרש את אשתו (בחשבם אולי יקיים מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים (ב"ב מח), ובהסתמך גם על הפו' שכ' שאפי' להחולקים על הרמב"ם וס"ל שאין כופין במאיס עלי, מ"מ חייב לגרשה.) הבעל ממשיך בסירובו ונותן כתף סוררת לכל עצות והחלטות בית הדין. וכל דבריהם נשארו כקול קורא במדבר. וגם כשהאשה פקעה סבלנותה ואיימה בפני ביה"ד ובפניו שאם לא יגרשנה תצא לתרבות רעה, (ודברי התנצלותה לאחר זמן בפני ביה"ד ע"ז, נאמרו אך ורק ע"פ עצת עורך - הדין שלה), וגם בעיני ביה"ד נראה ברור שאין זה בבחינת גזים איניש ולא עביד, אלא קיים חשש מבוסס שאמנם אם ימשך מצב ביש זה לבלי סוף תצא האשה לתרבות רעה. ואין כל סיכויים שהאשה תסכים אי פעם לשוב ולחיות עם הבעל הזה, ולמרות מאמצים גדולים בדברי פיוס ברצי כסף ותחנות ובקשות חוזרות ונשנות פעמים אין מספר לאמר: הבעל עננו! ואין קול ואין עונה ואין קשב. ובדברים לא יוסר עבד. ובצירוף כל הסברות הנ"ל פסקנו בכח ב"ד יפה להלכה ולמעשה לכוף את הבעל לגרש עד שיאמר רוצה אני, ולזה הסכים גם ראש בית דיננו הגאון הגדול מהר"ר ראובן כץ שליט"א (הרב הראשי ואב"ד פה פתח תקוה), ובהיות שהבעל הקשה את ערפו ואמץ את לבבו ולא אבה לגרש גם לאחר פסק הדין דקמן, נלקח אל בית הסוהר ע"י השלטונות בכדי להכריחו לציית לביה"ד, ולאחר שבתו בביה"ס ימים אחדים, הסכים לגרש את אשתו, והגט סודר על ידינו בס"ד במותב תלתא כחדא ביום א' מנחם אב תשי"ט פה פתח תקוה ת"ו, לאחר ביטול מודעות וכו' וכנהוג. והותרה האשה להנשא לכל גבר די תצבי חוץ מכהן. והשי"ת יצילנו משגיאות ומתורתו יראנו נפלאות ויאיר עינינו בתורתו הקדושה אמן. עובדיה יוסף ס"ט
Personally I found this to be the most interesting piece of this Teshuva:
ReplyDeleteאפי' טעו בדין, והוי גט מעושה שלא כדין, אין הגט פסול אלא מדרבנן. ומכ"ש בכפייה שבזמן הזה שאינה כפייה בשוטים, אלא בישיבה בבית הסוהר, ואין כל דמיון בין בית הסוהר של זמנינו לבית הסוהר שבזמנים הקודמים. והו"ל כספק ספקא בדרבנן. ולדעת הרבה פוסקים עבדינן ספקא בידים בדרבנן להקל, וכ"ש בס"ס, ומכ"ש בשעה"ד ומקום עיגון כזאת. וק"ו בן בנו של ק"ו בדין מאיס עלי שרבו הפוסקים המקילים הן מצד הדין הן מצד התקנה, ואפי' הרא"ש שחולק על הרמב"ם כתב, דבדיעבד שכפו את הבעל להוציא מה שעשו עשוי. וכ"כ הרשב"ץ, דאם נתגרשה בגט כזה תנשא לכתחלה.
His main point that a Get Meuseh is only M'd'Rabbanan in accordance with the Beit Yosef, and that if it is not with actual sticks is a sfeik sfeika d'rabbanan is astounding.
That should lay to rest the mamzer issue entirely, especially as he brings the Rashbatz who says the the woman can remarry l'chatchila.
In this statement, ROY allows forcing a get when she claims maus alai (even more so if there is an amtalla see the whole teshuva).
Deleteוהו"ל כספק ספקא בדרבנן. ולדעת הרבה פוסקים עבדינן ספקא בידים בדרבנן להקל, וכ"ש בס"ס, ומכ"ש בשעה"ד ומקום עיגון כזאת. וק"ו בן בנו של ק"ו בדין מאיס עלי שרבו הפוסקים המקילים הן מצד הדין הן מצד התקנה
Also,
1. Tzitz Eliezer in vol 4 ch 21 allows it. And in vol 5 ch 26 in a response to Rav Elyashiv, he chides Rav Elyashiv for ignoring a large amount of Rishonim that maintain that one can force a get if she claims maus allai.
2. In Piskei Dinim Rabaniyim vol 1 p 38, Rabbi Reuven Katz, and Rabbi Yizchak Ben Menachem (for those who don't know, he waz R IZ Melzer's son inlaw) allow it as well.
3. Rav Herzog in Hechal Ezra EH 1 chapters 2,3,4 allows it as well.
It seems, that many poskei zmanenu allow for i, and Rav Elyashiv's psak is one of many. There is plenty of maikilim. In particular, ROY responsa is a phenomenal sikkum of shittos. It should not be a cause of major concern.
tzadok, very disingenious partial quote of your favorite part of the teshuva. So I will fill in the few word you left out, for those who did not go through the whole thing:
Deleteשדעת כמה פוסקים רוא"ח, שבית דין שפסקו לכוף את הבעל לגרש, ע"פ איזה פוסקים,
Thats right, there are some poskim who say this, but you try to quote it too look like this is the widely accepted opinion.
And you are right that his statement is astounding. It is wrong, and astoundingly so.
Binyamin I am glad that you are on such a level that you feel that you can simply dismiss the opinions of one of the greatest Torah minds of this or the past generation. Especially has he is paraphrasing the Beit Yosef on Eh"E 154.
DeleteThe time has surely come to report gavriel bechhofer to the hanholo at ohr sameach rav weinbach in particular that they are employing someone who argues with the gedolim (rav elyashiv) and supports an organization and leader herschel der schlachter who issues fake siruvim when women are in arko'oys and their husbands are tzias dina and have deposited gittin.
ReplyDeletelet him get his paycheck only from a sefardishe mosad or from the church, oops i meant yu.
Stan how many sock puppets do you use?
Deletesfardishe mosad? What do you mean?
DeleteModerator, correct me if I am wrong, but the only person you seem to have warned for her "disgusting" comments are Batmelech. Yet, not one of her comments comes close to the disgusting comments, irrelevant racism, and needless ad hominem attacks of "facts" and "Stan".
The issue he discusses is a woman who was forced into a marriage. In this case everyone agrees that we coerce the husband and I believe even with beatings. See Rosh, who is the major opponent to Rambam in many Teshuvose in his chapter 43 and he says that to obey the Rambam is to invite mamzeruth. Yet, the same Rosh says in chapter 35,2 in a case where a woman was tricked into a marriage or something was done in that regard of a similar nature, that coercion is permitted, and the plain meaning is even with physical force. All of this has nothing to do with ORA where husbands who did not trick the wife into marrying are terrorized in defiance of the Rashbo, Bais Yosef, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish who forbid humiliating the husband not only in MOUS OLEI but even when a GET is demanded by the Talmud because such coercion may invalidate the GET.
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the issues that he discusses but by far not the only one.
Delete"The issue he discusses is a woman who was forced into a marriage. In this case everyone agrees that we coerce the husband and I believe even with beatings."
DeleteWhy would that be necessary?
In the whole discussion, you claim that a coerced contract is null and void. So why would a divorce even be necessary in this case?
What I mentioned about a woman who was tricked into marrying that we may coerce the husband and the plain meaning is with physical force is not just the ROSH that I mentioned, but this is brought in Shulchan ARuch EH 77 lihalocho. The GRO explains that when a woman has been tricked into marriage, a situation whereby the gemora says, "He did the wrong thing to her so we will do the wrong thing to him" we may rely on the Rambam. I understand this to mean that although today we no longer rely on the word of the woman that she is repelled by the husband, lest every woman just run away and get the husband beaten and she will find someone that she likes better. But when we know the fact that she was tricked into the marriage we pasken like the Rambam, not that we accept the Rambam in regular cases, but only in this case where we know the trick the husband did and we assume that she really does despise him.
ReplyDeleteHence Rav Ovadia ruling that if there are other factors that go along with the Maos Ali.
DeleteHowever, you cannot get around him saying that a forced Get is only possul m'd'rabbanan. He definitely understands the Rosh differently than you do.
BatMelech,
ReplyDeleteGood point. But there are many women who are pressured to do things the don't want to do but they finally decide to do it. For instance, a girl's father pressures her to marry someone, or there is another great pressure, or even a trick that is not hideous enough to nullify the marriage. In these cases the marriage may not disappear on its own, and we have to force a GET. There is, however, another aspect. Let us say that there was a trick and the marriage is invalid. The woman is free. But who would marry her? They want to see a GET. Perhaps in such as case the husband is forced to make a GET, even if it really isn't needed. Perhaps, it is possible.
There are two real issues here that have to be separated.
ReplyDeleteThew first is the halachic discussion of maus allai and keffiya. That is clear and is subject to debate, and machlokes haposkim. We can discuss the sides to this issue forever. Baruch Hashem and it's a fascinating sugya.
The second issue is far more serious, and it is effecting the first issue. Doveid Eidensohn suffers from a disease called Elyashivitis. I do not mean to disrespect the holy Rabbi. I DO mean a shout out to Dovid Eidensohn. He believes that it is forbidden to disagree with Rav Elyashiv, and that he must either twist everyone into agreeing with him. In cases that he can't do that, he just ignores their validity as an opinion. The title "Posek Hador" has no halachic ramifications. No one, not Rav Schechter nor any other rabbi must bow to Rav Elyashiv's opinion. DE's usage of the title every time shows that he suffers from this sickness.He is inferring that it is the only valid opinion and that makes everyone who disagrees "reshoyim." He doesn't address R O Yossef because he doesn't view him as a legitimate posek anyway.
The reality is that Rav Elyashiv's opinion is not agreed with by the majority of poskim in Eretz Yisrael, notwithstanding that it has been a machlokes Rishonim, and Acharonim, and a machlokes today.
Unless DE states clearly that there are legitimate poskei zmanenu, that may, and do disagree with Rav Elyashiv, this discussion is a waste of time, and not Leshem Shamayim.
Kollelnick,
ReplyDeleteLet me understand. I have a disease. When I say that forcing a husband in MOUS OLEI to divorce is wrong, I am not quoting the Rashbo, Beis Yosef, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish, I am sick. And when I say that the above mentioned poskim forbid humiliating a husband to force a divorce, it is simply proof that I am sick. And when I say that no poskim disagree with this, and that even the Beth Din who wrote the Siruv on Aharon Friedman told me that it is forbidden to publicly humiliate Aharon, it just shows that I am sick. And when I ask, why, if Rabbi Schachter is right, and that every woman who leaves her husband can force the husband to give a GET or be beaten, perhaps to death, if so, why is it that this has never been stated by any posek for thousands of years, and why is it that in the many discussions how to save a woman when the husband doesn't give a GET, nobody ever said that she should just leave the house and have her husband beaten. Do you know a doctor who can help me with my condition, or is it hopeless?
I am not quoting the Rashbo, Beis Yosef, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish, I am sick.
DeleteYou are not quoting the Beit Yosef. The Beit Yosef said, amongst other things, that we may beat his father until his father tells him to give a Get, and then we may beat him to do what his father told him. So no you are not quoting the Beit Yosef.
I posted a critique of this teshuva at my blog, http://yishkon.blogspot.com/2012/04/obfuscating-get.html
ReplyDeleteDovid Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteHere are a few of legitimate poskim of the last 50 years that have ruled that one can force a get when she claims maus allai.
1. Tzitz Eliezer in vol 4 ch 21 allows it. And in vol 5 ch 26 in a response to Rav Elyashiv, he chides Rav Elyashiv for ignoring a large amount of Rishonim that maintain that one can force a get if she claims maus allai.
2. In Piskei Dinim Rabaniyim vol 1 p 38, Rabbi Reuven Katz, and Rabbi Yizchak Ben Menachem (for those who don't know, he waz R IZ Melzer's son inlaw) allow it as well.
3. Rav Herzog in Hechal Yitzchak EH 1 chapters 2,3,4 allows it as well.
4. R O Yossef in the teshuva being cited over and over here. It is clear that he permits it in a case of 'amtalla' and that it is better than a safek bederabanan, therefore he permits doing it lechatchila against Shulchan Aruch. The rest is tziruffim.
Basically, we know that it is a machlokes Rishonim, and that Shulchan Aruch prohibits it. We also know that there are poskei zmanenu who allow for it. From the teshuvos I cited, it is obvious that it has been practiced by legitimate rabbis in Eretz Yisrael for the last 50 years or so. It is also clear that Rav Elyashiv has been against the practice (as Tzitz Eliezer is writing to him)for a long time. I find it ironic that R Elyashiv himself has not been waging war from within the Rabbinate against these gittin. Lets not forget that he worked with all the above mentioned rabbis long after they wrote their hetter. He seems to have accepted that the others around him disagree.
Yet others wish to make his decision the only binding one. They need a Dr.
Therefore, I can assume that it is a legitimate machlokes. I'd love to see if you can state the following clearly: There are legitimate poskim that have lived in the past 50 years who allow forcing a get when she claims maus allai. Can you state that?
The teshuva presented here is not a simple case of ma'us alei
DeleteBTW you have apparently not read through the many teshuvos I have posted which talk about "what type of pressure is permitted"
The issue is one of what type of pressure is permitted not whether the husband can be pressured. I have been unable to find a single source that prescribes the pressure that ORA uses under the direction of Rav Herschel Schachter - even though he claims it is either less than hachakos of Rabbeinu Tam or no different than Rabbeinu Tam.
The other issues involve whether it is active pressure or withrawal and social isolation?
Is the pressure escapable by moving to a different community?
Can it involve famiily and friends or employer?
These are issues which have not been resolved and are not answered by saying "Did you see that there are poskim who allowed pressuring the husband"
"it has been practiced by legitimate rabbis in Eretz Yisrael for the last 50 years or so"
Deletethe rabbanut is not a legitimate institution. They are a political body, not a religious body, and have been so since their inception. They have always been subject to extreme pressure which they generally give in to quietly.
Since well before the shulchan aruch until contemporary times, it was accepted that we do not force a get for maus alai. There ha clearly been a shift over the last 50-100 years towards forcing a get in many cases. This shift is quite clear by the rabbanut, and I take it that most people outside the rabbanut who support forcing a get rely on them.
So the challenge is to see how this shift was legitimized when it occurred. Today you rely on those who started the shift to justify forcing a get - but who did they rely on? What argument did they present for changing the halachic practice?
1. That's why he split it up into 3 teshuvos. Still, it is clear that he would permit it if she has an amtalla.
Delete2. He is clear that he has found room to be mekil against SA.
3. The other sources mentioned allow for it as well.
4. My sources mentioned allow kefiyye beyadayim, let alone R Tam's. Furtheremore, id assume that a stint in jail is more than is being done. You can't work from jail.
5. I know nothing about the specifics of this case. I'm sure there is more than one side.
6. Id love for your brother to state that there are legitimate poskei zmanenu that allow for it. Alternatively, he can state (which personally I think he maintains) that all of the mentioned mattirim are not legitimate poskim. In that case we can ignore any halachic statement your brother will ever make, and write him off as a rabble rouser, who pics a rabbi, and demands that everyone else agree with his choice.
Since well before the shulchan aruch until contemporary times, it was accepted that we do not force a get for maus alai.
DeleteFor a simple case of Maos Ali that is more of an argument that I will leave aside for now.
However in a case where there are extenuating circumstances such as spousal abuse ect... Which is the case of this Teshuva, that has definitely not been the case. Even Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn will agree that in such cases we do force the husband.
Binyamin, your critique is of yourself. Lack of proper analysis. I find the Teshuva to be well done. In fact, after a careful analysis, I find it to be the most complete teshuva of all those who discussed this sugya in the last century. Including those on both sides of the hachra'ah. His analysis is lucid, clear, astounding bekkiyus and iyyun.
ReplyDeleteno one challenged his bekius. he clearly knew a lot.
DeleteWhat kind of careful analysis did you do? Did you look up all his sources? Did you research opposing opinions?
You find this to be a complete discussion of all those who discussed the issue i the last century? You seem to know a couple sources on the subject, so you must be better informed than this.
This teshuva only brings support for his position - he does not give any consideration to those who disagree. There are plenty of recent poskim who disagree. It is a very one-sided presentation. Hardly a complete discussion.
I find this Teshuva to be a complete discussion on how to handle a wife with an abusive or otherwise severely unworthy spouse.
Delete