Friday, May 4, 2012

Forced get: Rav Herzog - full lenient analysis

72 comments :

  1. This is only half of the teshuva, but he brings there a very important principle from the Chasam Sofer. If a person is coerced, and it was a doubt if he should be coerced, say, there was a machlokess about it, and now that the GET was made with a sofek invalid coercion, is the GET invalid as a definite thing, or is it only a doubt? And the Chasam Sofer says that it is definitely no good. The husband when beaten or coerced when he knows he must give a GET that all of the rabbis agree to this, he says, "It is a mitsvah to listen to the rabbis." But if the rabbis are split, some say he should be coerced and some say not, then the husband himself says, "Maybe I should not give a GET as the coercion is illegal" and therefore the GET is definitely not good.

    In the case of Aharon Friedman I have told him and he accepted that he is not to be coerced, so if he gives a GET by the terror of ORA, it is definitely no good and the children are problem mamzerim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So simple question: Since Aharon Friedman went to Arkaot against his wife without B"D approval, and stayed in Arkaot against his wife even after the B"D told him to dismiss the case, why do you support him? While there are lenient opinions for forcing a Get, there are none that I know of that allow one to be in Arkaot when a B"D has ordered you to dismiss the case. Supporting such a person is also supposed to be worthy of Niduy. So where is your justification for that?

      Delete
    2. Friedman agreed to BD"s orders regarding dismissing the civil case. Epstein violated those orders.
      Epstein convinced the court that her abduction of the child should be treated as a fait accompli because of the amount of time Epstein had kept the child in Pennsylvania - because Friedman had agreed to cancel an earlier trial to bring the case to BD. Do you dispute that this was the basis for the court's decision?

      Delete
    3. If your child was abducted what would you do? Would you bring the case to the civil authorities or go to BD?

      Delete
    4. Bob,

      Friedman never dismissed the case. If he had dismissed the case there never would have been a trial.

      Do you dispute that this was the basis for the court's decision?
      I really don't care what was the basis for the court's decision. Aharon whent to Arkaot in violation of the clear halakha for the Shulan Arukh. Any damage he suffered from that, as the Rema rules in C"M 26:1 is entirely his fault.

      He should have gone to a B"D first and demanded his child back. He didn't. He went straight to court.

      If your child was abducted what would you do? Would you bring the case to the civil authorities or go to BD?
      I assume you mean by my spouse in a divorce proceeding, because if it were by a stranger, I wouldn't bother with the civil authorities to be entirely honest, I have friends that specialize in returning kidnapping victims that I would call first.
      So going with my spouse, yes I would immediately go to B"D and demand the child be returned, where I would explain the need to utilize the secular court system should the spouse fail to immediately comply with the order of the B"D.
      All of Aharon's going to court was pre-emptive, without a proper heter or a ruling from a B"D. There is no excuse for that. Pure and simple. That you make one simply shows the hypocrisy and misogyny that infects this discussion.

      Delete
    5. "Friedman never dismissed the case. If he had dismissed the case there never would have been a trial."

      Friedman agreed to postpone the case as per the Beis Din's orders that Friedman postpone OR dismiss the case.
      Friedman also agreed to the BD's orders that both parties agree to dismiss the case and agree not to bring the case in PA. This was prejudicial to Friedman, not Epstein. Nonetheless, Friedman agreed and Epstein refused.
      At that point Friedman could have not have unilaterally dismissed the case, and the BD did not order Friedman to do so absent Epstein's agreement not to being the case in a PA court.

      Delete
    6. "So going with my spouse, yes I would immediately go to B"D and demand the child be returned, where I would explain the need to utilize the secular court system should the spouse fail to immediately comply with the order of the B"D."

      You would have first gone to BD even though if BD had ruled in your favor (and told you to go to court if your spouse did not listen to BD), you would have lost in court because of the delay caused by your going to BD?

      Delete
    7. "All of Aharon's going to court was pre-emptive, "

      This is not the case. Epstein's relocation of the child out-of-State was highly prejudicial and was the first step in the legal process.

      Delete
    8. Rabbi Tzadok,
      You are also neglecting the fact that Friedman agreed to dismiss the the October 2008 pendete lite trial at which it was likely the child would be returned in order to bring the case to BD.

      Delete
  2. Another point. I think I once saw a teshuva, maybe it was this one, about forcing a husband to pay his wife's food and support as a matter of permitted coercion. This is a different type of forcing than the baseball bat rabbi encourages. It is probably forbidden by most authorities, but even if some permit it, it doesn't mean these authorities would permit beatings, getting him fired, or publicly or even privately humiliating him. The vast number of rabbonim consider ORA a mamzer factory. I spoke recently to a prominent modern Orthodox posek and he was a fanatic about coercion of a GET that it is evil in the common case of the woman wanting a GET without serious claims against the husband such as he is sterile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this modern Orthodox posek against ORA? If he is why doesn't he say something? If he isn't why not?

      Delete
    2. It is possible that some rabbonim (modern orthodox or note) won't speak out because they are afraid of taking on Rabbi Schachter, or believe that it would be futile? Is is possible some rabbonim won't speak out because of the fear that Ora will demonstrate against them and their relatives? Is is possible that some rabbonim won't speak out against Ora because they fear for their livelihood?

      Delete
    3. If the vast number of rabbonim consider ORA a mamzer factory, why cant you get a few of them to say so?

      Has the entire Moetzet Gedolei Hatora been duped by the YU feminists?

      A few weeks ago, Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky granted an interview to the Jewish Press in which he spoke frankly about his views on metzitza b'peh. Within a few days, he had to "clarify" his remarks. If his views are being used to create mamzerim, it shouldnt be so hard to get him to say so.

      Delete
    4. I think I once saw a teshuva, maybe it was this one, about forcing a husband to pay his wife's food and support as a matter of permitted coercion... It is probably forbidden by most authorities, but even if some permit it,

      Let's see I have posted links and sources to the following Rabbanim saying that you can:
      The Ben Ish Hai
      The Yaskil Avdei
      Rav Eliashiv
      The Tzitz Eliezer
      Rav Ovadia Yosef
      All of these bring numerous sources from previous generations permitting it.

      So if you have been paying attention to the comments on this blog, I hope you have seen a teshuva saying so(this would appear to be another one).

      So when you say, it is probably forbidden by most authorities who exactly do you have in mind? but even if some permit it you say this like those who would are somehow the also rans of the Rabbinic world. You cannot possibly have that view of the above list of Rabbanim(or at least I hope).

      Delete
    5. Perhaps they have been paying attention to the comments on this blog which explained how badly you misread a lot of your sources.

      Delete
    6. Nice try. Again pronouncements without anything to back it up.

      Still waiting for that condemnation of Aharon Friedman for going to arkaot and then staying there after the B"D ordered him to dismiss that case. Until then you and your sock puppets really having nothing worthwhile to add, because it is clear that you twist Torah to be any woman.

      Delete
  3. Listen, you and I are crazy, but most people are not. But it is a good point and I have to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that we need to go through this teshuva/kuntress, as it is very thorough in presenting the issue from alef to tav and maybe there can be less rancor in seeing room for makilim

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMay 5, 2012 at 9:19 PM

    I just want to make something clear. The fact that we find that some opinion to be lenient does not always mean that we should be lenient. We usually go in halacha according to the senior rov's opinion, or the majority, or the rov with the most influence or talmidim. The fact is, that normative halacha respects the Shach and Chazon Ish more than present rabbis, and the present rabbis have a difficult time explaining why they would make a GET considered invalid by the Shach and Chazin Ish. When we find someone lenient in a GET law, we want to see sources in earlier or greater rabbis' opinions, and if these are lacking, it is not a simple matter to be lenient. But surely when we have many authorities forbidding something and some rabbis permiting it, we don't want to make such a GET.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their sources are pretty solid. The kulla is not without 'raglayim." To start with they have Rif (takona) and Rambam. The opinion of Rema is up for debate. R Herzog insists that Rema holds like the Rambam, and the Gra does seem to back up his reading of Rema (but not the Cham).
      As for your assumption that Chazon Ish is more normative halacha, than others being cited, you'd be surprised how many poskei zmanenu do not hold that his positions are binding. There are many poskim that consider him posek acharon, but there are many that disagree.
      Specifically in Even Haezer, due to the fact that legally only the Rabbanut and Edah are legally allowed to practice, I'd say that Poskim that have the responsibility of the psak should be more influential (assu maaseh).
      As for your worry about the Get. Even the Rosh agrees that the result will not be a mamzer. At worst, the Get is a psul derabanan. The main part of the discussion is the propriety of a Bes Din forcing.

      Delete
    2. The problem with this statement is this. There is also the Beit Shmuel, Chelkat Mechokek, and the Taz(all of whom actually made the daf as the Notei Kelim, an honor that Shach did not merit in Eh"E.

      You can pound on about the Shach, but he has equally heavy weight competition.

      The Chazon Ish is hardly universally accepted, and when poised against his peers, he is by far not the majority. Again I give you Rav Ovadiah Yosef's quote when questioned about the Chazon Ish, "He was a private citizen without communal position or authority who like to pile chumra upon chumra."

      What this seems like is that you found the Rashaba, a partial B"Y, a Shach, and the Chazon Ish. Despite a majority of the Rishonim being against the Rashba, the B"Y not ruling like the Rashba(if you would read on), the actual Notei Kelim being against the Shach, and the Chazon Ish having the majority of his peers against him, you hold onto these and ignore the rest(except for a vague and as yet unfulfilled promise to refute the Teshuvot brought on this blog by the various Gedolei HaDor).

      We usually go in halacha according to the senior rov's opinion, or the majority, or the rov with the most influence or talmidim.
      You do know that the Chazon Ish said this wasn't true right?

      So simple question: Since Aharon Friedman went to Arkaot against his wife without B"D approval, and stayed in Arkaot against his wife even after the B"D told him to dismiss the case, why do you support him? While there are lenient opinions for forcing a Get, there are none that I know of that allow one to be in Arkaot when a B"D has ordered you to dismiss the case. Supporting such a person is also supposed to be worthy of Niduy. So where is your justification for that?

      Delete
    3. I would also like to cite Tzemach Tzedek regarding his analysis insofar as "bedieved" is concerned (ie. stating that תצא and to state sofek mamzer):

      שו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסב

      וכ"ז אף לכתחלה. ולענין דיעבד כ' הב"י סי' ע"ז סד"ה כ' הר"ש בן הרשב"ץ שהדין שוה בכל המקומות שלא תנשא ואם נשאת לא תצא עכ"ל והרמ"א בד"מ סק"ט כ' ובמ"מ פי"ז משמע דאף אם נשאת תצא עכ"ל והיינו אפילו בכפייה גמורה ובתשו' מהרש"ל סי' מ"א משמע נמי דאפילו נשאת תצא. וזה לכאורה נגד תשו' הרא"ש כלל ל"ה סי' א' הנ"ל. ועוד נ' להחמיר דעכשיו כבר בטלה תקנה זו יותר כיון שאין עושים מעשה כן ועיין בש"ג ס"פ הספינה בד"ה מההיא דאגרדמים. שכתב דהמקדש תלה דעתו בקיום הקדושין ובטולן כדעת רבנן דאתריה. ולפ"ז יש לנו ללכת תמיד אחר מקום הקדושין כו' עכ"ל. וא"כ עכשיו שבכל המדינות מכמה מאות שנים אין נוהגים לכוף. א"כ לכאו' בטלה הטענה משום כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. שזהו טעם דתקנת הגאונים לכוף כמ"ש בתשו' הרא"ש. ומיהו י"ל שמה שנוהגים שלא לכוף זהו מטעם שאינו נצרך כמ"ש הסד"א בתשו' סי' י"ג הנ"ל. וגם שהמנהג שלא לכוף כפייה גמורה בשוטים אבל על כפייה בענין הרחקה דר"ת י"ל אין מנהג וכמ"ש הסד"א הנ"ל שהסכים כן למעשה בנדון שלו וכן פסק הלבוש סס"י קל"ד. והכפייה במעות דנד"ז י"ל דלא הוי כפייה יותר מהרחקה דר"ת כדלקמן ואף שבהרחקה דר"ת ג"כ לא נעשה מעשה לכתחלה מ"מ בדיעבד אם גירשה מחמת הרחקה זו ודאי היו מורים שלא תצא. ונד"ז הוא דיעבד. וגם י"ל כעין מ"ש בגמרא פרק א"ט אינהו מיכל אכלי לדידן מיסתם נמי לא סתים בתמיה. ר"ל הרי יש מי שמתיר לכתחלה לכוף ממש אנן נסמוך בדיעבד שכבר נשאת בענין שאינו כפייה גמורה רק כערך הרחקה דר"ת:

      Delete
    4. Let me also cite aand focus on the loshon of Tzemach tzedek regarding Harchokos Rabeyno Tam:

      שו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסב

      וגם שהמנהג שלא לכוף כפייה גמורה בשוטים אבל על כפייה בענין הרחקה דר"ת י"ל אין מנהג וכמ"ש הסד"א הנ"ל שהסכים כן למעשה בנדון שלו וכן פסק הלבוש סס"י קל"ד.

      He rules (like he writes in the kitzur that I cited earlier) that there is NO minhag not to use harchakos Rabbeynu Tam

      Delete
    5. Friedman ultimately agreed to the beis din's orders regarding postponing and then dismissing the civil case. It was Epstein who violated the BD"s orders in this regard.
      Friedman agreed to the BD"s orders even though those orders were extremely prejudicial to him - if BD had ultimately ruled in Friedman's favor, the further amount of time that would have lapsed while Epstein held the child in PA (by Friedmans' again agreeing to postpone civil court adjudication) would have made it much less likely that the court would uphold the BD"s ruling.

      Delete
    6. Bob,

      I'm sorry but the procedural summary shows that that is just not the case. He continually postponed the trial(i.e. cancelling the dates) but he never dismissed the case.

      What Friedman should have done was approach the B"D immediately demanding his child back, and get a ruling from them before proceeding straight to court. He didn't. So he was in violation of the halakha.

      I understand that the misogynistic side of this argument wants to make excuse and exception for following halakha, but that is hypocritical at best.

      Delete
    7. Rabbi Tzadok,
      Friedman canceled (not postponed) the October 2008 pendete lite trial, and postponed the final trial until June 2009. This was highly prejudicial to Friedman because while if the case were to be heard in civil court at a later date, it was much more likely that the court would rule that the child stay in PA because so much time had elapsed after Epstein had abducted the child. This is not mere speculation, but what ultimately happened. The court ruled in June 2009 that the child stay in PA because Epstein had kept the child there for so long.

      The procedural summary does not claim what you state it does. The BD did not order Friedman to dismiss the case until June 2009 (even though you claim that the BD should have ordered Friedman to dismiss the case in January 2009, as soon as the parties told the Beis Din that the case was pending in court).
      When Beis Din ordered Friedman to dismiss the case before it went to trial, it was contingent on Epstein agreeing not to bring the case in PA (regardless of whether you think the BD should have done this - perhaps the BD realized that if the case were dismissed from the MD courts, Epstein could have filed the case in PA). Friedman agreed (even though it was highly prejudicial to him) and Epstein refused. In any case, the court would not have dismissed the case based on a motion from just one of the parties.

      Delete
    8. Bob,

      Simple question. If the roles were reversed and it was Friedman that took off with the child, would you be as adamant about Epstein's right to take this to secular court?

      Delete
    9. Simple question.
      If the roles were reversed and Aharon took off with the kid and it was Tamar who was filing, would you be equally agreeable to it?

      If yes, my fight is not with you. If no. Then you like Stan/Binyamin/EmesL'Yaakov are a hypocrite and a misogynist who is in violation of the commandment to have one law for all the people.

      Delete
    10. Yes, if the roles were reversed (Aharon had unilaterally relocated the child), Tamar would have been justified in filing an emergency court motion. Why would it be any different?

      Delete
  6. This seems to an unbelievable statement. Your contention is exactly what the disagreement is all about: You claim that "normative" is the sources that you cite. Others quote Gedoyley Yisroel who cite other "normative" opinions and MAJORITY opinion and come to opposing conclusions:

    You cite Shach and Chazon Ish as the only normative and majority; yet I'll cite you Tzemach Tzedek (Lubavitch) -whose teshuva is highly praised by Rav Hertzog in the teshuva cited here "סיכום כמעט מלא מצאתי בשו"ת צ"צ להגאון החסיד אדמו"ר מליובאויטש ז"ל באה"ע סי' רס"ב", and there he writes in the middle of the teshuva

    שו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסב

    שר"ת עצמו שהוא הרחיק הכפייה הזאת בכל עוז עכ"ז התיר לעשות להבעל הרחקה עצומה עד שיגרש כמבואר בתשו' מהרי"ק שורש ק"ב הובא ב"י סי' קל"ד בד"ה כתב מהרי"ק. וכ"פ הלבוש שם סס"י קל"ד ססע"י יו"ד

    and most important in the kitzur there he writes lehalacha:
    שו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסב

    קיצור וא"כ בנד"ז שיושבת כמה שנים י"ל כופין לפי התקנה אך רוב גדולי הפוסקים דחו תקנה זו מכמה טעמים. ומ"מ היינו שאין כופין. אבל לעשות ההרחקה דר"ת י"ל שרי כמ"ש הלבוש סס"י קל"ד. ובתשו' סד"א סי' י"ג

    (even though he mentioned earlier that there are achronim who were machmir on these harchokos, yet he applies a heter at least in the case where she is "יןשבת כמה שנים". I'm sure others can find other teshuvos from geoyley yisroel. But I hope that Tzemach Tzedek is "normative" and rules lehalcha having in mind the "majority" of opinions (bekamus ubeeychoos)..

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The Chazon Ish is hardly universally accepted" laughable. he is much mpore accepted in the oylom hatorah than rav ovadyia and was far bigger.

    the only thing i can say about rav hertzog is that i know that he spent much time rescuing children held in convents and by goim after the second world war.

    however any p'sak lekulah written by any rabbi or dayan while in the employ of the state of Israel is not worth the paper it is written on and that was the opinion of the brisker rov.

    peo-ple needed parnossah and they had no choice. they had to please their employers who had given up on authentic yiddishkeit and substituted it with Zionism instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still waiting for that condemnation of Aharon Friedman for going to arkaot and then staying there after the B"D ordered him to dismiss that case. Until then you and your sock puppets really having nothing worthwhile to add, because

      Delete
    2. however any p'sak lekulah written by any rabbi or dayan while in the employ of the state of Israel is not worth the paper it is written on and that was the opinion of the brisker rov.

      You do realize that all of the Shu"T of Rav Eliashiv were written while "in the employ of the State" right? You are such a hypocrite.

      Delete
    3. The Teshuva of Tzemach Tzedek waswritten by someone not employed by the Zionist and so there are numeous by other gedolim and posskim.

      Delete
  8. Regarding what Kollel nick mentions from Rav Hertzog who holds that Remo may hold like Rambam, something that was very much critiqued here, it's worthwhile to quote the teshuva of Rav Hertzog Siman 2 (one before was u/l by RDE). שו"ת היכל יצחק אבן העזר א סימן ב

    (ח) והנה עד כאן דיברנו מהראשונים ז"ל אבל אף בגדול האחרונים הרמ"א ז"ל ג"כ יש סעד לשיטת הרמב"ם שהוא פוסק בסי' ע"ז כעין בעובדא של הרא"ש, היכא שנישאת האשה ע"י נבל ותרמית שכופין אותו לגרש, וברור שאין זה משום ביטול הקדושין שאין זכר מזה שם וע"כ שהטעם הוא משום שבענין שכזה יש יסוד חזק להניח שבאמת היא טוענת מאיס עלי, ודון מינה שבכל ענין שדעת הבי"ד מתישבת שטוענת באמת, (עד כמה שאפשר לדיין לראות, ולא ניתנה תורה למל"ה), כופין לגרש, ולפלא בעיני ששום אחד מהבאים אחריו ז"ל לא הרגיש שהרמ"א בעצם פוסק כהרמב"ם ולע"ד זהו יסוד גדול. [ועיין בביאור הגר"א ז"ל שאומר שבכגון זה סומכין על דעת הגאונים ז"ל, והיינו שכופין במאיס עלי ואעפ"י שמרן הב"י ז"ל פוסק דלא כהרמב"ם] אבל יש לנו עמוד גדול כרמ"א, ובמליצת החת"ס ז"ל וכל בית ישראל יוצאים ביד רמ"א. ואם כי הרמ"א איננו פוסק בפירוש כהרמב"ם אבל ברור לענ"ד שעכ"פ לדעתו אם כפו בטענת מאיס עלי לא תצא שהנימוקים שקידשה ברמאות וכו' אינם לבטל את הקידושין אלא כדי לכוף מלכתחילה.

    To be fair he does not say that the Remo writes like Rambam "befeyrush" but feels strong enough that there is "saad" to Rambam from Remo.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rabbi Dovid,

    We all know about the Gadlus of R' Herzog, and that both R' Shlomo Zalman and R' Elyashiv used to go to him on Fridays for a Chabura.

    Does this make him more senior to them in your hierarchy of "Gedolim"? Are you Kafuf to him like R' Elyashiv was?

    Every serious Posek I have read or listened to, respected the view of the Chazon Ish. However, they definitely do not hold his view L'Maaseh in most/many cases except for B'nei Yeshivah etc whose raison detre is to be Choshesh for all opinions L'Chumra (unless they come from RIETS, of course). Most recently I heard R' Schachter express this in respect of the Starbucks controversy, where he was mattir it in certain cases (e.g. non Latte ) for the B'aal Habayis, but said that for Bnei Yeshivah who wanted to be machmir according to the Chazon Ish, that it was a good Chumrah to adopt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Herzog perverted Jewish law and replaced it with something a lot closer to English law, which he apparently preferred:
    (sorry, it is all in Hebrew)
    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ezrachut/harabanut2-2.htm

    He is responsible for appeals courts, lawyers, child support, and legal fees, among other perversions.

    For all his scholarship, there is no way to respect him when we consider the damage he did. Considering that when we finally had an independent country, which was seen by many as the beginning of the geula - should he not have moved to bring the batei din closer to the original halacha, trying to remove various practices which were accepted because of the lack of autonomy throughout the galus?

    Instead, he decided to give us Mishpat Sodom, and call it Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. however any p'sak lekulah written by any rabbi or dayan while in the employ of the state of Israel is not worth the paper it is written on and that was the opinion of the brisker rov.

      Delete
    2. Meant to say:
      Still waiting for that condemnation of Aharon Friedman for going to arkaot and then staying there after the B"D ordered him to dismiss that case. Until then you and your sock puppets really having nothing worthwhile to add, because

      Delete
    3. Look athte cources he he quotes. Look at the lengthy Teshuvaof Tzemach Tzdek and see therein how he views many of the issues discussed here. For example: He rules in certain situations that it is permissible to use harchokos derabeyno tam. In fact he writes that there is no CLEAR MINHAG not to do it. and so regarding many issues discused here, he writes along the lines that run witth what Rav Shechter says!

      Delete
  11. It is important to note the Rav Herzog is rejecting the conservative approach of the Chasam Sofer which is based on the Rosh - not to force because we don't want to get into the dispute of who is correct and we want to avoid the problem of mamzerus which will result from a forced get. - Rav Eliashiv cites this Chasam Sofer as his foundation in dealing with the issue of forcing. Rav Sternbuch is also resistant to using any force other than simple declarative statements to the husband that he should give a get. Same with Rav Wosner and Minchas Yitzchok etc etc.

    thus we see that there are those who rely on various leniencies to force a get - at least according to Rabbeinu Tam - whoever it seems that the major chareidi authorities refuse to use thse leniencies - including Rabbeinu Tam.

    Rav Herzog, Rav Yosef, Tzitz Eliezar are no way considered outweighing the poskim who are machmir not to force accept to tell the chasan that he should give a get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rav Herzog, Rav Yosef, Tzitz Eliezar are no way considered outweighing the poskim who are machmir not to force accept to tell the chasan that he should give a get.
      If they were the only three that held that way, you may have point, but they are not.

      Delete
    2. "conservative" approach?

      Tzemach Tzedek writes in the teshuva that there is NO conservative approach. He brings REmo and Levush and Seder LEouya Rabah and RULES TO BE MATIR in cases where there is strong maoos alay lechatchila. There is no ONE "conservative" approach.

      Delete
    3. I disagree. It seems that most/All? of the big contempoary poskim say not to force or to force in a minimal way or an indirect way. This approach is clearly stated by a number of them. Rambam represents the opposite- you can beat anyone who refuses to give a get in ma'us alei. Assuming you have to justify doing any type of pressure is the conservative approach

      Assuming that there is no major chidush to do the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam is the liberal position.

      Rav Hertzog when he rejects the Chasam Sofer is taking a liberal position

      Delete
    4. Are you seriously going to suggest that the Tzemach Tzedek was a liberal?!?!

      I'm really not sure how you justify your categories.

      On the Machmir side we have(so far discussed here):
      The Rasbha, a very spotty reading of the B"Y, the Shach(on siman 154), the Chasom Sofer, and the Chazon Ish

      On the Makil? side, You have the majority of the Rishonim(and I'm not talking Rambam, I'm talking R"T). The B"Y(siman 154, if taken as a whole), the Sh"A, the Rema, the Notei Kelim, the Tzemach Tzedek, the Ben Ish hai, the Yaskil Avdei, Rav Ovadia Yosef, the Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Herzog.

      Somwhere between those two positions you have Rav Shternbuch, Rav Wosner and the Mincahs Yitzhak. While personally I give a lot of weight to what this group says, the spitting on and bullying of a 7yr old girl in Beit Shemesh, the bullying and vandalism of Manny's books, repeated scandals of swindling the govt out of funds by enrolling false students ect. All without condemnation coming from the Badatz and arguably with the tacit approval of their pay masters(i.e. the admurim of Toldot Aharon ect.) their views have become increasingly marginalized in the minds of many American(and even Israeli) Chareidim.

      Where Rav Schachter falls out is still in question.

      Delete
  12. @Binyamin,
    Take a look at this. http://www.mschick.blogspot.com/2012/04/remembrances-and-reflections-ix-shabbos.html
    You show your lack of understanding of nuance when you find yourself more extreme than greater people.

    @Stan, I think you mean oylam htoora with an alef not Torah with a heh. What makes you think that your narrow vision of who is a legit posek is the only accepted one and that if it is not agreed with it is not acceptable. BTW, just as far as numbers are concerned, there are more people who follow R O Yossef psakim than Chazon Ish's. Doesn't being accepted by the masses have a big say in kabbolas haposkim. How far would you go with your extremism. Would you throw out a kulla by R Eliashiv? How about R Tz P Frank? what about R Moshe Feinstein who contemplated taking over Rav Frank's job?
    To you it's all about the politics. It is unfortunate that legitimacy of poskim has been decided by the immature.

    I am moche for the kavod of all the many gedolei olam who worked for the Rabbanut. R Kook, R Herzog, R Tzi Pesach Frank, R Ben Menachem, R Reuven Katz, R Goldshmidt, R Koolitz, R B Jolty, R Eliashiv, R O Yossef, R Waldenberg, R Shlomo Fisher and the many other poskim that took the achraus of the tzibbur working for the Rabbanut (I mentioned the more famous ones, I do not mean to disrespect others). I'd rather have them on my side in Shamayim than a cynical comment attributed to the Brisker Rav.

    @r Daniel,
    They only begin working the kulla because even according to the Rosh, it is a Get pasul MedeRabannan. The result would not be a mamzer.
    The real discussion here is being ignored. It's about legitimacy of rabbis. There are people that maintain that it is prohibited to argue on Chazon Ish and R Eliashiv. That one who does is a rasha. Only acceptable poskim, pre decided by yeshiva world can dare disagree. As I mentioned once before it is nothing less than a sickness. It is perversion of halachic process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Chazon Ish is followed by the wide Ashkenazic Torah world. Rav Ovadiaa Yosef is only followed by the Sephardic world, which is less than 20% of the Jewish world.

      Delete
  13. "Still waiting for that condemnation of Aharon Friedman for going to arkaot and then staying there after the B"D ordered him to dismiss that case. "

    I answered this and will not be re-posting out of protest for totally inconsistent censorship by the blog. get him to post my response.

    ReplyDelete
  14. however any p'sak lekulah written by any rabbi or dayan while in the employ of the state of Israel is not worth the paper it is written on and that was the opinion of the brisker rov.

    peo-ple needed parnossah and they had no choice. they had to please their employers who had given up on authentic yiddishkeit and substituted it with Zionism instead.

    From Binyomin:
    Herzog perverted Jewish law and replaced it with something a lot closer to English law, which he apparently preferred:
    (sorry, it is all in Hebrew)
    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ezrachut/harabanut2-2.htm

    He is responsible for appeals courts, lawyers, child support, and legal fees, among other perversions.

    There really is nothing more to say except that the YU clan with tzadok et al have replaced torah laws and values with american ones which is midas s'dom and they probably have dinim of an ir hanidachas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hypocrite AlertMay 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM

      however any p'sak lekulah written by any rabbi or dayan while in the employ of the state of Israel is not worth the paper it is written on and that was the opinion of the brisker rov.

      peo-ple needed parnossah and they had no choice. they had to please their employers who had given up on authentic yiddishkeit and substituted it with Zionism instead.


      So Rav Eliashiv's psakim are worthelss? Rav Shach's as well?(After are Ponevezh unlike Brisk has the salaries of its Rabbanim paid by the Zionist govt).

      Delete
  15. koillel nick who should really be named mizrochnik you can be moche all you like.

    no it is those employed by the tzionim who had no choice to go with politics and distort halochoh. bring poskim in the generation before the mediah who held these p'sakim. you can't because there really aren't any. knowledge is not enough. if you invent new fangled p'sakim where does it end.

    none of the posklim of the b'datz like rav dushinsky, rav ya'akov fisher, the minchas yitzchok, reb meir brandsdorfer, and many others who preceeded them on the bedatz bought into this new fangled nonsense.

    the difference was they refused to bought out by the medinah and its kefirah. in the end rav elyashiv saw the light and had to resign from the rabbanut because of the kefirah there.

    telling me that reb moshe considered it and didn't take it means nothing. he realized if he went there he would lose his credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  16. REgarding Remo's position (if like Rambam or like opponents) where I cited Rav Hertzog's diyyuk that he is like Rambam, I want to mention that Tzemach Tzedek cites a Darkey Moshe that Remoh holds like opponents of Rambam:

    שו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסד

    ודעת מהרש"ל בתשו' סי' מ"א שאפילו בדיעבד אם נשאת תצא וכאילו מרבה ממזרים בישראל. וכ"כ הרמ"א בד"מ סי' ע"ז סק"ט בשם המגיד משנה. מ"מ זהו בכפייה גמורה. אבל עכ"ז הביא הלבוש סס"י קל"ד שיכולים לעשות להבעל ההרחקה דר"ת שהביא מהרי"ק שורש ק"ב והביאו הב"י סי' קל"ד

    ReplyDelete
  17. koillelnick, thanks for sharing that link about R' Aharon and R' Herzog's levaya.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Simchi wrote earlier:
    "For example: He rules in certain situations that it is permissible to use harchokos derabeyno tam. In fact he writes that there is no CLEAR MINHAG not to do it. and so regarding many issues discussed here, he writes along the lines that run with what Rav Shechter says!"

    There was no question that harchakos rabbainu tam may be used in certain situations, and from the other sources dealt with here it seems that there was a custom to avoid it, but to use it occasionally.

    This does not apply to what Shechter does, for two reasons:
    As far as anyone can tell, he will use harchakos in EVERY case of a refused get where ORA's help was requested. He cannot rely on the Tzemach Tzedek or other writers on Harchakas Rabbeinu Tam for this, who said it should be used sparingly. (If I am wrong and anyone knows of a case where ORA refused to get involved, due to questions about the appropriateness of forcing a get, let me know.)
    Second, and very important, and mentioned here already a few times:
    Once a woman cashes in on her marriage, maus alai DOES NIT APPLY. No one allows this - not the Rambam and not anyone else. Yet Shachter/Ora regularly supports woman who cashed in with a civil divorce, and now want to take advantage of maus alai - which no longer applies.

    The point here is not to help women who are trapped with no get. (Those cases are not interesting to divorce agencies. When this case first came up I mentioned it to a friend who told me of a case he knew where a woman legitimately wanted a get, because her husband walked out on her and stopped being religious. I asked him why she couldn't get help from some aguna agency, and there was no clear answer. It seems like it just wasn't an appealing case for them. It would do nothing to advance free and profitable divorce.)

    What ORA is trying to do (and everyone who supports their approach) is to make secular divorce an acceptable Jewish option. They want women to have the option to take full advantage of the non-Jewish law which is destroying western society, and then still be able to free herself from her Jewish commitments. They want the benefits of marriage without any corresponding commitment on their part - and they want this to be normative Jewish practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once a woman cashes in on her marriage, maus alai DOES NIT APPLY. No one allows this - not the Rambam and not anyone else. Yet Shachter/Ora regularly supports woman who cashed in with a civil divorce, and now want to take advantage of maus alai - which no longer applies.
      You claim this without any clear proof. However, in Aharon Friedman we do have clear proof that your side of the argument is fine with a man going to Arkaot and disobeying a B"D.

      They want women to have the option to take full advantage of the non-Jewish law which is destroying western society, and then still be able to free herself from her Jewish commitments.
      And you have demonstrated that you want men to be able to do the same, and only keep the women in any sort of halakhic bonds, and those the strictest that you can find.

      They want the benefits of marriage without any corresponding commitment on their part - and they want this to be normative Jewish practice.
      And you want the same, just for the men. You would rather that women be slaves to their husbands with their husbands free from any actual commitment and able to make use of secular courts at will to enforce their will.

      Your hypocrisy is reaching new heights with this comment.

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Tzadok,
      Do you support one parent unilaterally relocating a child to another State over the second parent's objection and without the permission of a Beis Din or court?

      Delete
    3. Bob,

      Good question and one without an easy answer. For instance can a parent relocate a child from LA to San Fran wihtout parental permission? That is further(380mi) than Merion Station is from Baltimore(95mi), and with the express train between the two, the commute is about a half hr, you would need a jet to get from LA to San Fran that fast. Personally I am not sure State borders should make as much difference as distance(you can move from the East Side of Kansas City to the West Side and cross a state border).

      It is not entirely clear whether Tamar Epstein had consent or not. She(and those around her) claim that she did. Aharon Friedman(and those around him) claim that she didn't.

      Now if you want my honest opinion, I don't agree with a parent relocating a child to a different city, without consent of the other parent. However, legally I have no basis for that.

      What I don't support at all is going to secular court without the permsission of a B"D, and then staying there against the orders of the B"D.

      Delete
    4. Epstein does not claim that she had Friedman's consent to relocate the child. She first lied about this in court (at an emergency motion at which Friedman coudldn't prove otherwise), But Epstein later admitted to the court that she had unilaterally taken the child out-of-state.

      Delete
    5. One parent's unilaterally relocating a child (although not technically illegal) is deemed to be an abduction that is reprehensible and unjustifiable. But if the second parent does not quickly go to court, the second parent is deemed to have acquiesced in the relocation. Friedman's going to beis din instead of court would have meant that even if the BD had ruled in his favor, the court would never have upheld such decision because of the delay in bringing the case to court. As it were Friedman cancelled the pendete lite trial and postponed court adjudication to bring the case to bd only because that was required by the psak he had received - and the court ultimately ruled that the child should stay in PA because Friedman had agreed to postpone civil adjudication to being the case to BD - showing that the psak was too strict, not too lenient.

      Delete
    6. Bob,

      The psak was against Jewish law. It is as simple as that. If you are willing to allow women to go to court against men without a valid psak, then we really have nothing more to discuss.

      However, if you are like Stan/Binyamim/Emes L'Yaakov... and the rest of the sock puppets, and hold that a woman cannot under any circumstances, even with a valid claim. Then this is hypocrisy pure and simple.

      Personally I would be strict both ways. That is where I hold on Arkaot. Either side going without a valid heter from a B"D is assur. Full stop.

      I understand that at least for Aharon Friedman, you feel that the halakha of the Shulhan Arukh should not be applied to him. Would you feel the same way if it were a woman doing it?

      Just in case you do not understand my problem with Binyamin/Stan/EmesL'Yaakov et al, it is that from the time this discussion got started have been screaming about the evil of women going to arkaot(secular court) even for a valid claim(such as you say is Aharon Friedman's). However, they are not upset with Aharon Friedman.

      My problem with that is this, they say that we should strictly enforce the Shulhan Arukh when it is women who have the claim, but not when it is men. That is not Torah. Torah says that there is to be one law for all the people. Torah makes no distinction about the severity of mesirah or arkaot if it is a man or a woman. They do.

      Now if you will admit that Tamar would have had as much right to go to secular court if Aharon had run off with the child... then really we have nothing to discuss. Because while I may not agree with your position, and may be willing to debate it on an esoteric level, you will at least be consistent and honest.

      Delete
    7. Rabbi Tzadok,

      If the roles were reversed (in other words, Aharon had unilaterally taken the child out-of-state and refused to come back or negotiate), than Tamar would have been justified in going to civil court for an emergency motion. Why would it be any different?

      If a man or woman goes to court because court would provide a better outcome than BD (or at least they think that to be the case), than that is wrong. The person is going to court to avoid BD.

      It is a different case where someone goes to court in a time sensitive situation (especially where the other party has acted unilaterally to create that situation) on an emergency motion to prevent them from completely losing any legal rights they might have, such that even if BD were to rule in that party's favor, the ruling would be a nullity because the party would have given up any rights they had in court. This is particularly true where the person later suspends the court process to being the matter to court, and especially so where such suspension is also extremely prejudicial in that even if the BD were to rule in that party's favor it would be much less likely that a court would uphold the BD's decision at a later date.

      Delete
    8. Well you see Bob, Binyamin/Stan/EmesL'Yaakov don't agree with you. They have said repeatedly that in such a case the woman would be a moseret.

      That is why I keep asking them to condemn Aharon Friedman. It has nothing to do with whether Aharon Friedman did anything right or wrong, it has to do with their own hypocrisy.

      Delete
  19. As far as Stan is concerned there is little difference bet Rav Frank, Rav Eliashiv, and a prostitute. After all, according to him, they all compromise to earn a living.

    I am moche about the zilzul talmide chachamim here on this blog. Stan is an apikorus, ve'in lo chelek leolam habo. He is a disgrace to Klal Yisrael, and a disgrace to his Rabbonim. Afra lepumei.

    (and his parshanut of the history is incorrect too, but that is besides the point).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all do stuff that we don't want to just to get money, so in that sense everyone is like a prostitute.

      Delete
  20. i will not even respond to this filth except to ask how you allow this kind of personal attack DT without any justification.

    since these p'sakim of these rabbis who are employed by the mediah le'kulah have no precedent in recent acharonim who preceded them instead of him cursing me out, it behooves him to justify their new fangled unprecedented rulings.

    again this indicates incredible hypocrisy on the part of you DT.

    mizrochnik you should be moche the mesirah of these women and the kefirah of the BDA and schachter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow Stan you really don't like it when someone gives it back to you the way you give it out do you?

      While I am saddened that someone sunk to your level, especially during the Sefirah, I hope that you will learn from this just how repellent you are.

      Delete
  21. mizrochnik show me where rav chaim brisker, his father, the ohr sameach, the rogetzover goan, reb chaim ozer et al held like any of these invented psakim?

    ReplyDelete
  22. What is repellent are your laughable attempts to wiggle out of falsehoods, that is what is repellent.

    DT has a long history of siding with women e.g. in the Briskman case (search it if you don't believe me) and the the only reason he is posting differently now is because it would appear that he is fighting for his brother's kovod.

    that is why he somehow tries to wiggle out by calling the ban on schlachter old, allows a sickening attack on rav abraham which is baseless yet claims belsky and bechoffer are talmidei chachomim when they openly advocate the violation of halochoh.

    I have no problem with attacks based on sources but not vicious attacks which are baseless e.g. your claims that I never answered you about friedman in arko'oys.

    lastly he will probably publish this to prove how wrong I am and how open minded he is.

    I am abusive but all the rshoim of getora are not...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan,

      What possible connection do you see between the Briskman case and this one?

      Now while Hebrew books only has the first 18volumes of Piskei Din available online, and I don't have time to shlep to the national library to hunt up the case in the later volumes, it would appear that there is nothing in common between the two cases.

      In the Friedman-Epstein case you have a wife who decided she wanted out of the marriage. Who(possibly with the consent of her husband) moved back to her parent's home with her child, and whose husband went to Arkaot(with or without a valid heter depending on who you listen to), and no valid B"D has issued a ruling.

      The Briskman case, from what I have been able to find via google(again haven't seen the piskei din so I am not certain of all the details). The husband left the wife, the wife went to B"D to seek a proper divorce. A valid B"D(and several after) ruled in the wife's favor. The husband refuses the order of a valid B"D, and flees the country. A valid B"D ordered harchakot ect.

      Now let me head you off with your Brisker Rav quote, saying that Rabbinut is tamei. Even if you feel that way, and if Briskman felt that way, he was not without recourse. The 1955 Beit Din law allows either party to refuse to be judged by the Rabbinut B"D in favor of any of the Eida Batei Din that pre-existed the State(i.e. the Eida HaChareidit or Eida HaCharedit Sephardit if you lived in Jerusalem). At which point the respective Eda B"D would supply two Dayyanim who would themselves pick a third from the Rabbinut approved Dayyan list so that their ruling would be legally enforceable.

      Whether or not Briskman chose to do this is irrelevant. What it establishes is that he was judged by what he considered a valid B"D and he refused their ruling...

      That you consider taking a stand against that to be "pro-woman" is actually quite disturbing.

      Delete
  23. Bob, why do you assume you know what Tzadok is saying? You must have missed his warning here http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/halachic-impact-of-psychologicalsocial.html?showComment=1335266853139#c4658913602805969766 not to make such rash assumptions.

    Tzadok is not looking for anything else than an excuse to defend his position. (I have no idea what that position is, but he is pretty hard put to defend it.) Aron going to court is just an excuse, something to grab on to to say "Look - he's wrong! who cares what she does next!". It is a very common attitude towards divorce issues, where people find one mistake the man made, and justify everything the wife does based on that.

    So tzadok needs to go all out on this issue. He doesn't care about child abductions. He has no interest in anything except for having that excuse to blame aharon. And you are trying to take that away from him with a rational explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh slander in the midst of the Sefirah.

      Aron going to court is just an excuse, something to grab on to to say "Look - he's wrong! who cares what she does next!"

      Actually it is a chance to point out the misogynistic hypocrisy of you and your sock puppets. You think that there are two Torahs(l'havdil) one for men, and one for women.

      Delete
  24. DT in order to shut the putz tzadok up i urge you to post my posting refuting his baloney about Friedman claiming that i support men who break halochoh.

    ReplyDelete

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