Thursday, May 17, 2012

Having Aharon fired: Passive pressure of R' Tam?!

Guest post: The measures taken by ORA and Tamar's other supporters against Aharon are far more than passive, and started well over a year before any beis din order against Aharon of any sort.  For example, Tamar and hers supporters, such as ORA, are attempting to have Aharon fired (and have been doing so for more than a year before any beis din order against Aharon of any sort).

(This is not to mention the effective threats to his life.) To demand Aharon's boss insist that Aharon give a get is to demand Aharon's firing if he doesn't give a get. And the publicity campaign is clearly intended to make Aharon fear for his job should he not give a get. (See below for just a small sample.) ORA took these actions despite the position of Rabbi Schachter (ORA's posek) that pressure on a spouse can only "be done with a legitimate beis din."

Note also that the parties mutually agreed to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din, which held several hearings with both parties participating, and the Beis Din never ruled that a get must be given. Tamar and her supporters have not explained how the child's best interests would be served by Aharon's losing his job.  But then again, for Tamar and her supporters, the best interests of the child have always been secondary at best (or subsumed by the principle that whatever Tamar is convinced will make Tamar happy is necessarily inthe best interests of the child). Why Tamar and her advocates think that Aharon would be more likely to give a get if he were to be fired from his job is mysterious – but those attacking Aharon are mostly interested in making ideological points, getting their names into the newspapers, and fundraising, (some are attacking Aharon to avoid themselves being attacked, while others do so to satisfy the Epsteins), and care little, if at all, as to whether Tamar actually receives a get.

Why some are demanding that a non-Jewish government and its officials intervene in religious disputes within the Jewish community is even more mysterious - and disregards the tragedies such practice has brought upon the Jewish People through the ages.
ORA essentially threatened Aharon in September 2010 that if Aharon did not do what ORA demanded, ORA would (amongst other things) attempt to have him fired, specifically noting that their campaign against Aharon would be picked up by the newspapers that cover Congress
The demonstration against Aharon in December 2010 was aimed, at least in part, in having him fired.  For example, there is a poster denouncing Aharon's boss in a Washington Jewish Week picture of the rally.
The plight of an ‘aguna’ reaches Capitol Hill  ==============================================
Dave Camp: You Have the Right to Fire Aharon Friedman 

On Dec. 20, [2010,] Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of Washington, who supports Ms. Epstein, wrote to [Aharon's boss], accusing Mr. Friedman of “psychological terrorism.” Rabbi Herzfeld urged [Aharon's boss] to “tell Aharon to give the get immediately,” and warned that “it is appropriate to also rally in the vicinity of Aharon’s work place.”


  1. Everyone agrees (including in previous comments RYGB and RMB) that applying monetary pressure for a Get results in a Get Me'usa.

  2. Not the Agudah. The archivist there couldn't care. he is machzik his tzayskah in arko'oys but the Agudah couldn't care.

    mesirah to them is nothing as is destroying someone nechosim.

  3. he already is, in effect, fired.

    no other congressman would ever hire him (or hire another up and coming young jewish lawyer.)

    nor would any lobbying firm (the natural promotion for such a legislative aide) ever hire him (or any other young (or not so young) jew.)

    1. my piint is, that as a lawyer ion such a suituation, he has no advancement. and adbvancement is not only important to him, but to the oprofession he is involved in.

      important point #2,:

      the protests against him are leading to "good advice" NEVER to hire an orthodox jew for any position. if an issue develops (not necessarily his fault, like in this case, where all agree its not his fault) one can be met with protests, and protests calling for illegal actions.

  4. hopefully mediant hayam you are wrong. he is more than 1000% right to stand up against the abduction 0of his child. he should have obtained a heter from bais din but did at least attempt to obtain a heter from a rov and very importantly he litigated for gain but to prevent a loss which the tzadok and his getora/ yu biryonim friends claim that a heter is not needed anyway. I await a fiction novel pages long full of rambling from tzadok claiming that a morrocon godol in fez held otherwise.

    1. Thanks for the racial epithets.

      I never said that a heter wasn't required. I just said that b'diavad it is not mesira.

  5. Where is R' Tam define his harchakos as "passive"?

  6. So what if I own a small business where I employ a yid who doesn't want to live with his wife but refuses to give her a get, and I decide I don't want that kinda guy around and fire him. Which I would very much be inclined to do without out his wife (who many commenter's here are convinced is a no-goodnik moredes who obviously is at fault for the break down of the marriage even though she didn't do anything because she is only hypothetical) having any input what soever.

    According to the line of reasoning here I have just made it impossible for her to receive a kosher get ever??!!! I'm still having a hard time swallowing this.

    1. If you follow the passive sanctions and don't employ him - that is withholding something which you have no obligation to provide i.e., a job. however if you put pressure that an employer fire an employee - that is a problem.

      This is what Rav Sternbuch wrote - if you avoid him for having a bad character - that is not kefiya. If you yell at him for not divorcing his wife - that is a problem of kefiya

      If you avoid the husband - that is Rabbeinu Tam

      if you hold public demonstrations that is not Rabbeinu Tam.

      Is the community wihholding something from him - passive
      Or doing something negative to him - active.

    2. All right, but if I DO yell at him? Where do we go from there?

    3. My concern is that since the concern for get me'usa is well established in the rabbinic literature - a person needs to get a clear psak that whatever he does - doesn't raise the possiblity of get me'usa. Why are you troubled that your pressure might not be halachically proper? This issue is a halachic problem no different than kashrus or Shabbos.

      On the other hand if you yell at him but he doesn't give a get - then obviously there is no problem of get me'usa.

      However if instead of pressuring him with passive or active sanctions you sat down with him and calmly explained the advantage of giving a get and you succeeded in convincing him - I don't think it would be a problem because if he thought your reasoning made sense - he would simply be forcing himself.

    4. The issue isn't about how it should be done lechatchilla, at least you certainly aren't leaving it at that. The fact is that the entire tzibur isn't always going to behave the way we would like, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. I'm trying to understand according to your shita, because you are the one who is rocking the boat here, how a woman is able to obtain a kosher get from a man who doesn't really want to be married to her once such pressure has been applied.

      So I don't want the guy around and I fire him. Fine you say, but if someone else encourages me to do so it is a get me'usa. Then what? Who says the woman asked them to get involved but she is now unable to get a kosher get, or at least unable to get one where your commenter's aren't going to cas aspersions on and call her kids mamzerim?

  7. There is not one word in Rabeyno Tam about being "passive. Actually, placing n "אלה חמורה" and a גזרה that they not do BUSSINESS with him is quite active. Making a Gezeras Alah on every single individual is putting pressure on them to let the husband be without sustenance.

    Rabbeno Tam is not saying "passive" versus "active"; he is distinguishing between placing a monetary fine or physical threat that is chal directly on the *husband*, versus a method that falls upon outsiders (even though that will ACTIVELY affect the husband).

    Also: There is no direct source, that yelling at him is "kefiya".

    1. ספר הישר סי' כד): "אך אם כל רבותינו שוין בדבר תגזרו באלה חמורה על כל איש ואשה מזרע בית ישראל הנלוים אליכם, שלא יהו רשאין לדבר עמו לישא וליתן עמו להאריחו ולהאכילו ולהשקותו וללוותו ולבקרו בחלותו. ועוד יוסיפו חומר ברצונם על כל אדם, אם לא יגרש ויתיר אותו האיש את הילדה הזאת, שבזה אין כפייה עליו. שאם ירצה מקיים, והוא לא ילקה בגופו מתוך נידוי זה, אך אני נתפרד מעליו".

      זאת אומרת שאין כאן הכאת גופו, אלא רק מניעת הטבה אין בזה משום כפיה, ועי' בספר כפיה בגט (עמוד תע"ט). שהביא כן מכמה פוסקים.

      נקודה נוספת יש בשו"ת ושב הכהן (סי' כה) שאין אומרים לו שמעשים אלו נעשים לו כדי שיגרש, אלא הם כעונש על שעבר על דברי חכמים. וכן מרומז בביאור הגר"א שם.

    2. סליחה:
      זה לא כתוב בדברי הר"ת עצמו. הוא כותב שאנו גוזרים "באלה חמורה" שלא "לישא וליתן עמו", "ועוד יוסיפו חומר ברצונם על כל אדם". מה שכתוב כאן, הוא שאין מלקין "גופו", אין עונשים אותו ישיר, וכדברי הר"ת "אין כפייה עליו", אבל בוודאי ובוודאי יש כאן מעשה חמור מצידינו עם הכוונה להעיקו ולגרום שהוא יתן הגט. כן הובא הדבר במהרי"ק ובב"י ובהרבה תשובות ובצ"צ באריכות ושם שבאמת יש עניין הכפיה "גלות קשה מכולם" כו' ומובא כמה הסברים בדבר. אבל בפועל כן כתבו הרבה פוסקים שעושים כן ואין מנהג ברור ומדויק שלא לעשות הרחקות הללו. והנקודה העיקרית: כשקורים דברי הר"ת עצמם רואים בעליל שאין הוא אומר כלל וכלל שהכפיה היא "פסיבית" ו"מניעה הטבה" (אין שום זכר מעניין זה), אדרבה הרי כשאין נושאים ונותנים עמו (לכל הפחות כשזה חיותו) הרי זה בגדר "יורד לחיי חבירו" וכשאין מבקרים אותו הרי בכמה אופנים זה יותר ממניעת הטבה, אלא כל הנקודה של הר"ת הוא שאין עושים דבר עמו באופן "ישיר" ולכן אין זה נכלל בגדר ההלכתי של גו מעושה לפסול הגט אבל בוודאי ובודאי עושים מה שיכולים כדי שההוא יתן הגט. ובוודאי ובוודאי כשגוזרים על כל אחד מצבור ב"אלה חמורה" זה הרבה יותר מלבזותם על מה שמטיבין עם המסרב ליתן הגט.

      איני רואה ה"רמז" בהגר"א בזה. כל מה שאומר הוא שכיון שאין "עושין מעשה בגופו" אינו נקרא עישוי, הוא אינו כותב שהטעם משום שהוא "מניעת הטבה" אלא יש כאן "מעשה" אלא שאינו מעשה בגופו (אין אנו מדברים עמו ואין אנו מטילים קנס עליו, הכל נעשה שלא באופן ישיר עליו).

      לדאבוני לא מצאתי המראה מקום בושה הכהן בסי' כ"ה.

      גם אין מקור בכל הנ"ל שלצעוק עליו הוא "כפיה".

  8. "Thanks for the racial epithets.

    I never said that a heter wasn't required. I just said that b'diavad it is not mesira."

    exactly what is racist about what I said tzadok?

    suddenly its bedieved not mesirah. previously it was not mesirah at all. i will be happy to retract when you prove you said previously it was bedieved not mesirah. you said it wasn't mesirah at all.

    oh, have shas updated their black volvos from the oslo times as they are out of date?


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.