It is not old at all. it is be'tokef. it shows what a rosho he is.go yy explain why you employ a sheichegtz.
Is Rabbi Gestetner from Satmar by any chance?
rabbi gestetner is a talmid mivhak and mismach from the pupe rav, rabbi joseph grunwald z'tzal ball "vayan yosef"
what was the outcome of this - did he ever show up fr a din torah - and how do current victoms of his actions proceed
daas torah is the following agreebale to you?send a very detailed logical history of your case to daas torah and he will then post it if you have documents to back up your claims.you can contact rav gestetner as well.
no rav gestetner is not from satmar at all eddie. he is from yiddishkeit.
you may have also noticed that the shulchan oruch is old and the torah is older...
Read the siruv. It says nothing about him refusing to come to beis din. It just says that Rav Nachum Sauer, Rav Avrohom Union and Rav Hershel Schachter are in siruv for saying that Meir Kin is causing his wife to be an agunah when he really deposited a get with a beis din (that no one recognizes as valid!). I don't know the detailed history but presume it is in response to this siruv against Meir Kin Meir Kin SeruvFrom the website http://meirkin.com/"Meir claims to have deposited a get at the beit din (Jewish court) of Rabbi Tzvi Dov Abraham in Monsey, NY. However, this beit din is notorious for its corrupt practices which do not conform with halacha (Jewish law). In particular, this beit din regularly assists recalcitrant husbands in using the get as extortionary leverage in the Jewish divorce process, which is what Meir is attempting to do to Lonna. Therefore, a get issued by the Abraham beit din does not permit Lonna to remarry within the Orthodox world, and Lonna should not give in to extortion.""•No other beit din in the world recognizes the authority of the Abraham beit din. To the contrary, the following rabbis and batei din have issued letters publicly denouncing the Abraham beit din: ◦Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel◦Rabbi Shlomo Amar, Chief Sefardic Rabbi of Israel◦Rabbi Yechiel Tauber of Mechon L'hoyroa of Monsey◦Rabbi Moshe Green of the Yeshiva of Monsey"
The bogus politically motivated letters against the Abraham Beit Din do not contain an iota of halachic proof that the completely KOSHER GET voluntarily deposited by Kin was PASUL. My understanding is that Herschel Schachter issued a bogus "SERUV" against Mr. Kin without ever issuing a hazmana to Kin, after Kin's wife had been litigating in court against Kin for some time K'NEGED HALACHA. More evidence here of Schachter's feminist kangaroo court justice!Mr. Student (of feminist deception and obfuscation) - can you please state any halachic sources which allow bogus SERUVIM to be issued against Jewish men who voluntarily deposit GITTIN while their wives MOSER them in ARCHAOS? This is one more example of the Schachter/ORA/YU feminist utter perversion of Torah Judaism!
Now that we have established that Rabbi Schachter is speaking in public about the idea of beating husbands, perhaps to death, to save them from the sin of making their wives Agunoth, those husbands and their families, who are suffering ORA demonstrations, should certainly not just sit there and take it. This is unwise as it will eventually lead to what Rabbi Schachter talks about in public what to do to save a woman from being an Agunah. One possible way of doing something is to find a Beth Din that Rabbi Schachter must respect and file a claim for a Din Torah. If he refuses, the Beth Din may give permission to go to court. But to let this fellow terrorize people and demonize people and talk about the mitsvah of klling husbands to free their wives - this requires a response.
Everyone believes that there is a concept of kofin oso ad she-yomar rotzeh ani. There is no problem in discussing it, even in public, because it is part of the Torah. The issue is what he is advising people to do and there can be no question that Rav Schachter is not advising people to use any kind of physical violence. I believe all honest and honorable people will agree to that.
We have not established anything. First you claimed that ostracizing ala Rabbeinu Tam was forbidden. There are plenty of sources indicating otherwise. Now you bring up this phony charge that Rabbi Schachter is encouraging violence. The reason Rabbi Schachter is involved with ORA is because he rejects the Satmar/Hareidi approach of sending thugs to beat people up.If you believe he is inciting violence, send your concerns to the DA and they will prosecute him.
You are terrorising agunoth by encouraging their ex-husbands (after civil divorce) not to give them Gittin!Do you tell those future ex-husbands that they should beware not to put their ex in a position where she might pray for their death?
Gil,You write, "Everyone believes that there is a concept of kofin oso ad she-yomar rotzeh ani. There is no problem in discussing it, even in public, because it is part of the Torah. The issue is what he is advising people to do and there can be no question that Rav Schachter is not advising people to use any kind of physical violence."I guess the Shulchan Aruch I have doesn't know about this, because in 154 it clearly says that coercion is only permitted when one is married to a forbidden woman. This is a Yerushalmi and we pasken that way. However, we can make a slight passive pressure if the husband is sterile. But if the wife wants out of an ordinary marriage, we do nothing, and any active coercion can invalidate the GET. This is a Rashbo, and you had better get to this Rashbo fellow and fix him fast. And that Shulchan Aruch fellow in chapter 77 of EH who left out all coercion for a woman who wants out of the marriage, you had better fix him, too. I was surprised that Rabbi Schachter would say in public what he said, but he said it as a scholar who was ready to defend himself, at least, by his standards. But you, you get up and make ridiculous statements about halacha and you are completely wrong, are you not embarrassed? Again, active coercion is forbidden unless the husband marries a woman forbidden to him. Passive coercion is permitted when the husband is sterile and the Talmud demands a GET. But when the wife wants out, the Rashbo says that no coercion at all is permitted, and it is a machlokess of the Rishonim if we may even tell him he must divorce, and Rav Elyashev paskens that he has no obligation to divorce at all. Do you have sources for your fantasies? You are clearly out of your depth. And please spare me the soundbites.
Gil,Do you accept, however, the right of the people being terrorized by ORA, to summon Rabbi Schachter to a din Torah?
On what charge? Presumably they should summon the actual protesters because ein shaliach li-dvar aveirah.
Gil,Rabbi Schachter has personally attended many protests at husbands and families homes.
Note in particular R. Yechiel Tauber of Mechon L'hoyroa of Monsey's response to totally ignore this siruv: link (PDF)
In response to S.T.A.N. If Charedi pashkevil pushers were required to spell out their reasoning, this world would be a lot saner place.-- U'lhaSTANim yinam
By the way, how does R Gil get links to work like that in the comments section?
Since it is clear to me that Rav Shechter is greater than those signed on the beis din, the discussion doesn't start. See SA CM 7:6 Of course it all goes by your personal view of who is greater than whom.
Gil,So you feel that a Beth Din has no right to tell Rabbi Schachter to stop telling people how to solve the Agunah problems with beatings and killings? The suffering of the terrorized people is not only emotional but if someone has a heart condition or some illness such stress can kill a person. And you feel that the force behind all of this terror should be ignored?
You initially said that the beis din can summon Rav Schachter. Now you are saying the beis has the right to tell him to stop instructing to beat and kill people. Of course, instructing someone to kill is halachically different than instruction to commit just about any other type of sin.But since we have established that Rav Schachter has NOT instructed anyone to commit any physical violence, this is all moot. The only remaining question is why you keep raising this incorrect charge. Perhaps he should call you to a beis din for this hotza'as shem ra!
yup gil. not an iota of emes or halocho in the motzi sheym ra of tauber who only works for $$$. perhaps we should say the same thing about anything rav elyashiv wrote in the last 30 years.by the way where are my postings daas torah?
I deleted them as I will in the future unless you can express yourself more effectively. Your manner of expressing yourself is destroying the possibility of anyone taking your comments seriously. I am interested in serious dialogue amongst opposing views and your comments indicate your prime concern is trashing your opponents.
Well thank goodness for that R Eidonsohn, yasher koach and not a moment too soon. It's really painful trying to follow serious discussion when comments like those of stan pollute the waters. I'm all for impassioned shakla v'tarya but reading stan's comments feels like I'm eating treif.
R' Daniel.... When will you delete your bother's comments for the same reason? I mean, he's repeatedly name calling gedolei Torah. It's not like he has yet addressed a single citation posted in disagreement to his thesis. Just ridicule of people in whose shadow he wouldn't be noticed. (And whose pesaq he incidentally relies upon, probably every meal he eats...)Again, look how being matir agunos is typically done, and contrast to the drivel this blog has carried for the past 2 months. What is being posited as the only possible shitah, to the extent that this blogger and his brother allow motzi sheim ra against gedolei Torah who disagree, is not how the din was ever done. A valid shitah? Yes. But anything like rov posqim? Certainly not.You can't promote a shitas yachid by ridiculing some of the rabbim and ignoring the rest. The result isn't Torah, it's peritzes geder. And to be machmir on the back of others... that's Yahadus?
To Gil Student: Just to prove to you that even Yechiel Tauber from Monseys Mechon Lehoroh is corrupted is the fact of "The double standard" take a look at this site: http://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2010/09/rabbinic-hippocrisy.html where a woman received a seiruv for litigating in the civil courts. Can you explain why Lonna Kin and all other women who litigate in the courts never get a siruv??? You know why??? Because in that case seen here http://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2010/09/rabbinic-hippocrisy.html the husband is a "BEREN" a billionaire that bribed mechon lehorooh. See the double standard of these Bais Dins!!!!
Really Shmuel? You can't think of any reason reason why a beis din would permit someone to go to secular court other than corruption? I can.Proof of corruption on an anonymous blog is worthless.
no it is not. look at the post you allowed from gil student concerning rav abraham. if that is not a trsashing exercise then what is. so let's have some consistency.moshe green took shochad to write the letter i cannot help it. do you want the proof i will get it to you? i will ask around to get it as i have seen it from his yeshivah's journal previously.a claim that rav abraham is corrupt without any halachik proof is total motzi sheym ra. how dare you print it?
I think we just proved the first law of batei din: one accusation of impropriety will result in an equal and opposite accusation of impropriety.Shmuel's and Stan's pseudonymous accusations are not worth the paper they aren't printed on. But I'm sure we'll be able to find someone willing to put his name on an accusation.People like me, with no inside knowledge, can only choose whom to believe based on reputation and experience. That leads me to trust the Mechon L'hoyroa and Rav Hershel Schachter.
no you did not. you did not show any halachik validation just motzi sheym ra. where is your psak halocho showing where the bais din of rav abraham did anything wrong. give me a case of an individual ruling where halochoh was broken not some letter written by a meshugeneh called yechiel tauber which makes no sense?again a live case, name of someone, the ruling and where it is invalid? you can't. but i can show you black and white how moshe green took shochad.i am glad you follow someone who issues fake hazmonos for women in arko'oys.
Rabbi Gestetner is not the target of Rabbi Tauber's letter. There is a confusion so people who don't live in Monsey think that two Beth Dins are the same but they are separate and different. Rabbi Tauber wrote about another Beth Din, not Rabbi Gestetner.
Rabbi Union is asking Rabbi Tauber regarding the beis din that issued the siruv. What siruv is he talking about?
before you post something which denigrates those upholding the torah know what you are talking about!
Gil,You write that, "But since we have established that Rav Schachter has NOT instructed anyone to commit any physical violence, this is all moot. The only remaining question is why you keep raising this incorrect charge. Perhaps he should call you to a beis din for this hotza'as shem ra!"So you feel that Rabbi Schachter's audio and video teachings that a husband who does not give a GET is a sinner who should be beaten with a baseball bat and perhaps killed is simply an intellectual whim and does not represent any danger that somebody would commit violence. The fact is that the audio was about helping Agunoth and delivered in public to an element that was plainly interested in practical solutions to the Agunah problem, how then can you say that this represents no danger? Of course, if you are Rabbi Schachter's lawyer, what else can you say? But if I was his lawyer, I would be embarrassed to say such a thing outside of court. It is plain that we deal here with an insensitive element who will defend this kind of talk and the person who said them to the last drop. Well, this is going to be a real war. And I don't think that many people who see your defense of an indefensible and scandalous lecture will respect you for it.
I just want to know how you eat, given that you think the OU's posqim are a bunch of liars. There is not a single hechsher that is free of OU certified ingredients.No, I take that back. I don't care about Halal either. I don't know what this blog is promoting lately, but it isn't Yahadus.This is the way you talk about gedolei haposqim and rashei yeshiva? Absurd.
Gil,Let me understand. I who protest Rabbi Schachter promulgating the idea that husbands are sinners who according to the Torah are beaten with baseball bats to force the GET, even if they may die, am a motsei shem ra. And Rabbi Schachter, who endangers people's lives, who invented this law of beating husbands in defiance of all poskim, has done nothing wrong. And you, Gil Student, have established clearly that Rabbi Schachter never told anyone to do what he says, according to him, in the Torah, that we must rescue an Agunah by beating the husband with a baseball bat and possibly killing him. I am just trying to clarify your thoughts here.
Reb Dovid,I know you for a long time and consider you to be an ehrliche person.We both know Rav Bess since Lakewood and he is an outstanding and ehrlich talmid chochom of the first order. I also know Rabbi Sauer since boyhood. He is also a straight and ehrlich person.If they are involved here, I find it very hard to believe that they are in the wrong and don't have a valid basis in halacha to follow.Have you spoken to either of them? Have the senior rabbonim spefically discussed this case?
if thay are such "nice pepole" let them work in "hatzolo" or in "shomrim", when comes to halach "being nice" ia not the criteria, let them prove it "al pi halacha", Nobody [even nice pepole] is above the torah
Tsoorba,I don't know anything about this case but the public talk, which I am not prepared to comment on. Unfortunately, there are rabbis and they are known who do beat up husbands. But nobody has yet got them convicted, although Reb Elyashev shlit"o has, as I understand, issued a letter against them and their Gittin. There is tremendous money in beating up husbands, and even more money for making an annulmenet, something which is completely treife except for the most unusual circumstances. Things are going from bad to worse. Some of those who send women away from the marriage without a GET have the highest positions in Botei Dinim. It is a terrible problem.
To Gil Student: You have lost your credibility. You spent hours arguing with Stan And Dovid Eidensohn about the Halochos of Mous Alei and why Herschel Schachter is always right and never makes mistakes but it is now where you will be proven wrong with a different divorce case and different circumstances. Circa: Meir and Lonna kin. HERE IS THE LINK WITH ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTShttp://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2010/08/truth-will-stand-forever.html . Here is a case where the circumstances are clear as the sun, that Herschel the evil as well as the RCC as well as Jeremy Stern have blatant disregard for the Torah. 1) Lonna kin was a plaintiff in a divorce action prior to attempting to go to a Bais Din 2) After Meir Kin called her to Bais Din in an attempt to resolve matters she failed to exit the courts.(You could not pretend to want to go to bais din w/o abandoning your court orders, its likened to going to mikvah while holding a sheretz) 3) The Bais Din that Mr Kin initially went to is called Even Hamishpot run by Rabbi Gobioff and to date nobody has layed claim that this Bais Din was corrupted, yet Lonna Kin refused to appear. 4)After keeping Meir in Supreme Court for 2 years and expending large sums for his legal defense, she dismisses her divorce action and jumps to family court?? 5)She obtains a gag-order against him which essentially barred him for declaring to any Bais Din certain important immoral acts that were occurring at his home which could of gotten him custody of his son, but Lonna stopped it from happening. 6) Lonna attempts to appear innocent by going to her COUSINS (Aryeh Ralbag)Bais Din called Agudas Horrabonim in Brooklyn and attempts to have a seiruv put on him. Unbeknown to Lonna, A rabbi from the very same Bais Din( rabbi tzvi Ginzburg) realized what corruptive measures were coming down, immediately issues a preemptive letter warning the public that Meir Kin was compliant by Halocho and that "NO SEIRUV SHOULD BE PLACED".
TO Gil Student continued...7)Lonna runs to RCC to call him to Din Torah while she still holds unto her court orders. Meir responds that he chooses a differnt BAIS Din, they ignore his response and place seiruv #2. 8)Seiruv #2 is removed at a later date. After waiting for years for her to remove herself from court AND REMOVE THE GAG ORDER WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN REMOVED, Meir was advised by Rabbi Abraham Bais Din to deposit a GET in accordance with What many poskim hold including Rabbi Shternbuch as was brought up in the past blogs and was issued a Heter to remarry since Lonna Kins insistence of staying in the Civil Court system and not abandoning her court orders including the Gag order was unprecedented in the frum community. That Bais Din had decided that she has the status of Moredet which to many poskim loses all her rights and the Gemoro states that "she should remain a living widow till her hair grays".9) then after Meir Kin summons Rabbi Gershon Bess from the RCC to a Din Torah for publicly shaming him and his family, rabbi Bess decides not to respond to the Hazmonos, but instead orchestrated a scheme where rabbi union, rabbi sauer and rabbi herschel schachter sign a new 3rd seiruv! no hazmonos sent to meir kin and a seiruv issued by a bais din without a logo on its stationery, as well as a bais din comprised of 2 rabbis from LA and one from Ny,which obviously smells and appears corrupted. YET.. after seeing all these facts Jeremy Stern publicly and with the approval of Herschel Schachter, humiliated him and his family by having multiple rallies in front of his home, and by listing his name at the ORA website, the jewish press as a recalcitrant husband and by opening a website called "meirkin.com" to bash him in public. SO TELL ME GIL STUDENT WHAT WILL YOU SAY HERE?? A)THERE IS NO MOUS OLAY CLAIM MADE B) HER ACTIONS RENDER HER A MOREDET AND 3) A GET HAS BEEN DEPOSITED!!! NO POSKIM EVER ALLOWED PRESSURE TO BE APPLIED WHEN A GET IS WAITING FOR HER TO PICK UP. YOUR ONLY CLAIM IS WHAT WILL IT COST HER? THE ANSWER IS TO FOLLOW THE TORAH THAT STATES THOU SHALL NOT STEAL ETC.. THOU SHALL NOT ENTER THE COURTS OF NON- JEWS!! Yes there is a price to pay for violating the Torah but this that a Bais Din demands of her is Halocho in their eyes and extortion in your eyes! But surely all the great teshuvas that you have been quoting till now including Rav Ovadia Yosef , never ever state that public humiliation and other means is allowed when the man has already written the GET!!!!
Tzoorbah.. you need to stop saying I know these people are erlich... There are plenty of rabbonim that on the surface appear frum and erlich but dig a little deeper and frum becomes krum...you can read all about it on rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com
This is disgusting. I actually substantively disagree with R Schachter on the Agunah issue. But he has never tried to physically hurt anyone. At most, there are some rallies or boycotts. Furthermore, I realize that R Schachter is one of the greatest Torah sages of our generation. Anyone who went to his shiur can attest to this. I have also been in the 'yeshivishe' velt and Rabbi Schachter is a bigger boki and baal middoth than anyone I met. Finally, the man has more rochmones in his little finger than you seem to have in your whole society. The guy takes this stuff seriously, is honest about what halacha can and cannot do, and does it with compassion. Feel free to disagree but that is the paragon of pesak halacha. I don't understand how you can malign and besmirch a person who may be flippant with his remarks or wrong on some issues but who is also a genuinely great person. Its really disheartening and makes me want to dissociate from you and the Rabbis you claim to represent.
To Gil:You didnt get my point on Mechon lehorooh. I stated why is a siruv placed on just 1 woman? what has mrs klein done to warrant a siruv where all other women are not getting them??? Mrs klein has not violated the Torah in any special way than all other woman who pursues the civil courts?
TO outraged: you too are very naive to the ways of the world. Why do you think that Korach had 250 followers? They knew that they were aligning themselves against Moshe Rabbeinu, but they rationalized as you do "But Korach is a Talmid Chochom (which is a fact) and if he stands up to Moshe so should we"!!! and guess what... they perished along with Korach. So much for that logic. Now you that lives after the fact of Korachs demise so you look at him as a Rosho because he was already punished. But had you lived at the same generation and belonged to his shevet, you perhaps would have also been convinced that he's right and Moshe was wrong..So instead of making naive statements as I know Herschel schachter, Rabbi sauer to be upright people etc... go and learn halocho and investigate the facts in this blog and see if it adds up! Remember the Torah warns that "Shochad blinds the eyes of the wise and the righteous" so obviously they can be corrupted too!!!
Gil Student posted above, quoting the meirkin website:"Meir claims to have deposited a get at the beit din (Jewish court) of Rabbi Tzvi Dov Abraham in Monsey, NY. However, this beit din is notorious for its corrupt practices which do not conform with halacha (Jewish law). In particular, this beit din regularly assists recalcitrant husbands in using the get as extortionary leverage in the Jewish divorce process, which is what Meir is attempting to do to Lonna. Therefore, a get issued by the Abraham beit din does not permit Lonna to remarry within the Orthodox world, and Lonna should not give in to extortion."Gil, I assume you only read this very quickly before posting. The last sentence should show how clueless the writer is. They are saying that a GET won't let Lonna remarry??? They say she won't be able to remarry, so she should not give in to extortion - but how can they extort her if anyway she won't be able to remarry? They were not even thinking when they wrote this. They just want it to sound horrible.And as for the initial statement, which is what I assume you wanted to show:this beit din is notorious for its corrupt practices which do not conform with halacha (Jewish law). In particular, this beit din regularly assists recalcitrant husbands in using the get as extortionary leverage in the Jewish divorce process.You may not approve, but this is hardly against halacha. It sounds like what they meant to say was "This beis din is notorious for conforming to halacha, and not forcing the husband to divorce with a non-halachic settlement"
My observations:1) Lonna went to arkaot and thus lost her rights in B"D.2) Lonna going to arkaot means that all who support her should be treated with contempt(that includes Rav Schachter).3) This also possibly gives Lonna the din of Moser.4) If I'm understanding this right Rav Schachter refused a hazmanah from a B"D(which generally is a no no).This is not Get extortion, and calling it so undermines the efforts of those who are fighting what is actual Get extortion. Such as when husbands want to throw their wives aside and not pay their Ketubah, and hold out on the Get until the wife agrees to forgo her Ketubah so that she can move on with her life.Gil... you are on the wrong side of this one. It's just that simple.Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn:If you please, would you kindly stop taking Rav Schachter's words out of context. He doesn't have the halakhic support that he claims, that is clear. However, by insisting that he advocates for something that he clearly does not, you are unnecessarily weakening your position, because you make it harder to take you seriously.
I debated commenting for a long time. But I feel I have to.1. This issue of coercion in a get is a very big issue that is being debated by big talmidei chachamim. Debates in the comments sections of blogs cannot achieve that much. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, yet we should have the basic humility in approaching such a complex issue.2. Furthermore, regardless the issue, basic respect of our fellow and abiding by the laws of lashon hara, rechilut, motzi shem ra should be obvious.3.I am shocked, R' Daniel that you have not censured a lot of what has been going on in the comments; I actually stopped reading the comments at a certain point. For example, Dovid E. responding to Gil:“…you had better get to this Rashbo fellow and fix him fast… I was surprised that Rabbi Schachter would say in public what he said, but he said it as a scholar who was ready to defend himself, at least, by his standards. But you, you get up and make ridiculous statements about halacha and you are completely wrong, are you not embarrassed? …Do you have sources for your fantasies? You are clearly out of your depth. And please spare me the soundbites.”Never mind the tone, which is enough to invalidate this comment regardless of who it is aimed at, but defaming Rav Shechter and Gil Student of all people?4.Finally, I think it is good to publish the above pesak from the Beit Din in Monsey, but I would expect a disclaimer or the like indicating that this Beit Din is not necessarily recognized or accepted.
Observer,Your comments are ridiculous when applied to Rav Bess. He is one of the top talmidei chachomim in the world and does everything al pi torah and not emotion. Their side has not been presented here from their Torah point of view.Shmuel,The author of rabbinic corruption is either Meir Kin or one of his cohorts. His statements appear to be pure motzi shem ra without any proof. This source doesn't prove a thing.Rabbi Michael Tzadok,If she went to court al pi horoas chochom she loses nothing. Do you know that she didn't get reshus to go?
tzoorba, no, a horaas chacham is not enough to go to court. She needs a seruv and permission from beis din (before she goes.) If she would have those, they would be public.
tzoorba, you can be as big a talmid chochom as you like and as humungus physically as you like. bess is not more knowledgable than belsky. explain the fake siruv when the wife was in arko'oys and a get was deposited in a valid bais din lifnim meshuras hadin.
explain the fake siruv when the wife was in arko'oys and a get was deposited in a valid bais din lifnim meshuras hadin.EXACTLYIf a Get had been deposited with a B"D the marriage is done. There is no point in giving a seruv. Doing so requires some serious serious explaining, and honestly even if you were to gather the greatest halakhic minds of the generation they would have a hard time giving a valid defense of something that is so completely against halakha.
well michael tzadok that is what schachter has done repeatedly. that is the issue not the epstein case which does have sickening humiliation and malbin pnei chavero ber'rabim.at least we have agreed on something.
StanIf you have thought that I was in favor of what Rav Schachter is doing, you are wrong. I think it exceeds halakhic bounds. I just want to discuss what those halakhic bounds are.The Friedman-Epstein case is a failure on both sides.He went to Arkaot.They embarass him publicly, which may be considered the Kofin of the Rambam which is absolutely forbidden. There is no clear winner in that one.
I don't know what you mean by "which may be considered the Kofin of the Rambam which is absolutely forbidden". The vast majority of shu"t and actual practicing batei din do hold like the Rambam, and permit kefiyah when the husband isn't fulfilling she'eir, kesus and onah. I posted this two months ago, and I posted this (with some sample sources) in another comment chain two hours ago.
Rabbi Berger - despite your bekius in Otzer HaPoskim and the Bar Ilan program - you simply don't understand either the views of the poskim or what we have been discussing here.The Rambam's view - according to the Otzer Hapokim - is that in a case of ma'us alei you can beat the husband into giving a get. Now you claim that is the "majority of Shu't and practicing batei din"?! Rabbi Broyde makes no such assertion. Nobody makes an assertion. Otzer haPoskim makes no such claim. Please look at Rav Gartner's review article - who Rav Broyde cites as an authority.You are also failing to notice how the word pressure is understood. To Rambam it means beating. While Rabbeinu Tam does permit pressure but it is explicitly social isolation. As Rav Sternbuch, Rav Yosef & Tzitz Eliezer and others point out - there was a period when the harchachos of Rabbeinu Tam weren't used - or at least not widely used. Rav Yosef says there is a need in our present generation to use them - on occasion when the beis din sees a need. Rav Sternbuch is more cautiousAn additional problem you have is that you are lumping together all reasons for divorce. A case of ma'us alei without justification is not the same thing as in impotent husband or a wife beater.The gemora lists cases where physical force can be used - no one disputes those cases. We are only concerned with ma'us alei period!So yes you will find poskim who posken pressure - such as calling the husband a sinner or advise him it is a mitzva to give a get. you will find other poskim in ma'us alei who used Rabbbeinu Tam. The issue of concern here is ORA's public and active humiliation against husband, his family and employer - no matter where he lives. Rabbeinu Tam - and Rabbi Broyde agrees - requires that the husband can escape by moving far away. ORA doesn't allow that. Rav Schacter says ORA is Rabbeinu Tam or less. Not a single teshuva in Otzer HaPoskim mentions Rabbeinu Tam being other than social isolation. Chazon Ish says no humiliation is allowed. So Rav Schacter ORA is a chiddush and an apparent deviation from all the cases discussed in the literature of Otzer HaPoskim. ORA does not claim support of Rav Yosef, or Rav Sterhbuch or even Rav Kaminetsky or Rav Belsky. The burden of proof is on ORA and Rav Schachter and that is what we have been discussing.
"So yes you will find poskim who posken pressure - such as calling the husband a sinner or advise him it is a mitzva to give a get. you will find other poskim in ma'us alei who used Rabbbeinu Tam."Thank you. This isn't grounds for your brother to run off on accusing MO of ziyuf haTorah even if I were wrong. It's the kind of ridicule I called leitzanus, the kind of divisiveness I would call sin'as chinam, and a dishonesty I would call sheqer. Your brother is trying to write off entire communities of shomerei Torah umitzvos and insult people whose shoes he isn't fit to polish, and you gave him a forum for such narrishkeit???Now on to the issues, since you blessedly stick to discussing the facts:I am saying puq chazi -- that "some" is lemssaseh the norm.Do what I do -- go to the dayanim in the field and see how it's done regularly. (Many BD for geirushin are slow now; due to a machloqes in how to spell Iyar/Iyyar, some communities avoid gittn this month, when possible.)WADR, I believe you misunderstand how R' Tam is applied lemaaseh, as well as in the sources you cite. (RYGB isn't even sure you got R' Elyashiv himself down correctly, if you're referring to 3:344.) In any case, RYSE was on the BD with ROY when they did rely on RT. So it would seem that at one point in his life, he didn't think it created mamzeirus issues. Or I presume he would have left, as he eventually did over the Langer case. (I spoke to the third dayan's son, but unfortunately he was of no help.)As for the Gra, he is justifying R' Tam by showing how it's different than niddui. Not limiting R' Tam, but pointing out an inherent limitation in implementation. If the guy runs away, the niddui is still chal. But here there is no chalos, if he doesn't feel ostracized, there is no compulsion being applied. Not that harchaqah can't or shouldn't follow him, but that it doesn't in metzi'us.
I gather you concede that based on the teshuva literature - especially as discussed in Otzer Poskim your understanding is clearly wrong. That you jumped into this discussion without understanding what the issues were and just starting firing away.(Interesting to note that is what you claim you find distasteful in my brothers comments. It just depends on whose ox is being gored.)You are now claiming that your views are not based on an informed understanding of the teshuvos but rather that there is major disjoint between what the gedolim say in their teshuvos and the norm of what a beis din does in practice.Assumming this incredible assertion is true - On what basis do they reject or ignore the teshuvos? Further What beis din are we talking about? Do you assert that it is the norm for American courts? Israeli courts, Modern Orthodox courts - or all courts? Since you demonstrated a clear lack of awareness of the issues of type of pressure and the type of ma'us alei - it is hard to give your words any credibility. If you asked a dayan - "do we use pressure today" and he says yes - we don't know whether he meant we tell the husband he is wrong or we don't give him an aliya or whether we bring out the sound trucks - or we call the mafia.If in fact the facts on the ground are like you are saying - it is strange that Rabbi Broyde did not mention that in his defense of ORA. This is highly relevant to the thesis he presented and yet there is no mention of it is essay. Could it be that Rabbi Broyde is ignorant of such a critical piece of information that you gleaned with a quick conversation with some dayanim?! Or maybe you simply misunderstood or misinterpreted what you were told?Furthermore your understanding of Rabbeinu Tam is not that of Rabbi Broyde and the Shach, the Gro etc etc. So if I have to chose between Rabbi Broyde and Rabbi Bechhoffer - Rabbi Broyde clearly wins. Especially since he is consistent with the understanding of teshuva literature e.g., Rav Sternbuch. But this is a side issue.
I do not concede that. We have three points of disagreement:1- We have blatantly different readings of the few sources we actually both mentioned. For that matter, of R' Broyde as well.2- What is the majority opinion in shu"t?3- What is done lemaaseh? Since R Broyde publishes theory, this isn't of his concern. The only thing ORA innovated was getting organized.And as for tone, I see civil discourse is impossible with you as well. "Jumped in the discussion without understanding" -- because I address a different point in one post? "Wins"? "Ignorant of such a critical piece of information"? "Gleaned from a quick conversation" -- who said it was quick? In fact, I spoke to friends, at length, since the first travesty of a post on this topic. That's how halakhah is discussed -- as though we were two kids in middle school? These reads more like your brother borrowed your account than the RDaE I know.
It is unfortunate that you didn't bother clarifying any of the substantive points I raised. Your comment about the Rambam being accepted halacha is simply wrong - that is simply not a legitimate difference of reading the material as is clear from many sources including the summary I recently posted from Rabbi Gartner. You insist in reading into my words "Wins" which simply indicated that I give greater authority to Rabbi Broyde than Rabbi Bechhoffer as proof that I am not interested in civil discourse?!. My comment that you "jumped into" - was simply stating the obvious because of your clearly incorrect understanding of the elementary issue of the status of the Rambam's psak. Likewise my reference to Rabbi's Broyde not mentioning your assertion about what is the norm - by asking rhetorically how could he be ignorant of this critical piece of information - you label as lacking in civility?! Furthermore you claim that Rabbi Broyde isn't interested in lemasseh but theory is also strange since the essay was requested to clarify the halachic basis le'maashe of ORA. In fact he does note in a footnote that the Charchakos of Rabbeinu Tam are practicsed in the Rabbinut system in Israel. Since he is intimately acquainted with the American system - which is what ORA is all about - it would have been appropriate to comment - "and it is the norm here in America". But he didn't. Nor did he say it was the norm in Modern Orthodox or chassidic beis din.You casually dismiss our concerns about ORA by saying "the only thing ORA innovated was getting organized" Rabbi Broyde could have saved himself the trouble of writing an article by simply stating, "ORA is nothing new it is just a better organized manifestation of harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam which is the norm in all batei dinim around the world." Rav Schachter apparently shares your view - but he does not bring any justification nor do you. Rabbi Broyde at least makes an attempt.I do concede that I should not have labeled your discussion with dayanim as a quick conversation. That was simply a deduction on my part from the way you presented your understanding of the issues.Bottom line - you claim ORA is a trivial issue of utilization of Rabbeinu Tam "of getting organized". I note that there is not a signal teshuva in Otzer HaPoskim which mentions use of public demonstrations to actively humiliate husband, family employer - in a plain case of ma'us alei - and this case probably isn't even a case of ma'us alei just I don't want to be married to him. There is not a single teshuva I have seen that says that Rabbeinu Tam's harchaos are valid even if they are not escapable by going to a different community. Please ask your rabbinical authorities - where these discussion may be found in the rabbinical liteature.
Rabbi Michael Tzadok,A get is nothing without nesina. She didn't make the bais din shluchei kabbolo. The allegation is that the beis din won't become shluchei holacha without exacting insufferable conditions. Why is a siruv not applicable?
Nu? What are the supposed conditions. Start there. A siruv is not applicable because a valid B"D(to which the the wife did not object and ask for ZBL"A) made a ruling, and the husband deposited a Get in accordance to halakha. If you can show that a violation of halakha took place, then you will have something. However, the way this comes across is this. A woman goes with her husband to B"D. Doesn't like the outcome. Refuses to accept the Get. Goes to Arkaot. Then gets another B"D to place siruv. Actions like this make the B"D system a joke.
One of the 2 batei dinim are wrong. If the first bais din is valid, the 2nd had no right to get involved. However, if the first bais din is doing shelo cehogen according to the 2nd bais din, why shouldn't they get involved?Which bais din issued the siruv?
Sholem,You attack me for saying to Gil Student:“I was surprised that Rabbi Schachter would say in public what he said, but he said it as a scholar who was ready to defend himself, at least, by his standards. But you, you get up and make ridiculous statements about halacha and you are completely wrong, are you not embarrassed? …Do you have sources for your fantasies? You are clearly out of your depth. And please spare me the soundbites.Never mind the tone, which is enough to invalidate this comment regardless of who it is aimed at, but defaming Rav Shechter and Gil Student of all people?"A scholar who makes remarks to change the accepted normative practice in a sensitive areas such as divorce must stand the criticism. But Gil Student wants to play the game and he is not qualified as R Sch is, so I told him so. This is not defaming anyone, it is arguing about a scholarly matter, and calling a spade a spade. Anyone who comes on this blog and starts prattling about things they are not equipped to argue about should think twice. I spent many decades studying with and talking to the greatest authorities in the world, and I have to listen to prattle from people who create halacha like bubbles.
Yes Dovid, someone who makes remarks to change the accepted normative practice in a sensitive areas such as divorce must stand the criticism. So why, when you are criticized on your claim that some new way of doing things is the only right one, do you ignore substantive objections and just insult those who disagree with you?What you're describing doesn't match Otzar haPosqim or the vast majority of teshuvos since. Again, R' Elyashiv bikevodo munach -- you don't need to choose between distorting or insulting the majority for holding as we always did, lequlah. You are trying to make the change.And you actually think you haven't defamed anyone? I love that line -- it so clearly shows a disconnect with reality. This post is about a siruv from a beis din a third party already dismissed as illegitimate, used to besmirch RHS. R' Broyde collected your use of “slither,” “brazen” “bald lie” and “completely wrong” against him. Then there is "part and parcel of the new Torah emanating from the modern YU rabbis."So I thank you for providing such a transparent lie to evidence your own lack of neemanus. Nothing else I could say could discredit your position any better than you just did.
You are attempting to justify the MANNER in which you are doing something by explaining why/what you are doing.Even *IF* you are the great protector of Torah and kavod shamayim and Gil is the great blasphemer - there is a way to conduct a debate le-shem shamayim.And if Gil is not an apikores whose entire aim is to undermine Torah, then how can you justify attacking him (or any Jew, or any human, for that matter) in the way you have?
Micha Berger your points make zero sense yet again. Which majority holds le'kula? The YU biryonim? The reform? The Catholic Church? Who exactly?Mr Michael broyde wrote absolute hogwosh, he distorted and misrepresented and was shown up very, very glaringly. his lack of knowledge was particularly glaring.And his only defense is a whole op-ed about how is keeping quiet when he is not keeping quiet at all but because he has no defense he purports to keep quiet.As a purported rabbi and dayan, albeit even at the death bin of america, he should know that distorting is not acceptable.Your piece and rant against R Dovid E is entirely illogical. Next time run your piece by someone to make sure it has even a drop of sense in it.But now let's get to your camp's hypocrisy about running your oponents down. look at the filth Gil Student wrote about Rav Abraham without naming a single source of halocho, a single violation or a single person just a blatant attack.To quote"So I thank you for providing such a transparent lie to evidence your own lack of neemanus. Nothing else I could say could discredit your position any better than you just did."
Micha, Meet Stan. I hope you find him as pleasant as I have. Looks like you are off to a good start.
your comments on schachter were "2) Lonna going to arkaot means that all who support her should be treated with contempt(that includes Rav Schachter)."Please clarify what "contempt" means. Does this mean he should be in cheirem and not be counted for a minyan or given a aliyah? Does this mean that he should be removed from YU? does this mean we should demonstrate outside his house and harass him and his family?It means that I am against anyone going to Arkaot without a proper heter from a B"D and that anyone supporting them should be placed in nidui in accordance with C"M 26:1. Which does not include demonstrations outside their homes.So long as you are willing to equally apply that answer to both Aharon Friedman and Rav Schachter, I have no problem.
It has come to my attention that another B"D claimed prior jurisdiction in this case and thus the above Seruv may be in contempt of halakha... So with that I will say until it can be proven which B"D was actually the B"D to initially handle this there is no way of knowing.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!please use either your real name or a pseudonym.