The following is the view of Rabbi Tzvi Gartner in his RJJ article concerning get me'usa. In particular the problems of accepting the Rambam's view that in ma'us alei the husband can be forced to give a get. Rabbi Gartner is a well known expert on the subject and is cited in Rabbi Broyde's defense of ORA
It is not sure who is world Jewry, and for such monumental changes to occur, there would have to be monumental changes in the ability of our present and future generations to make monumental changes. Who knows where things will end up, and who will end up the decisors of such a thing, and what politics would surely erupt creating a system of who could vote to change established halacha. Thus, this is not feasible.
ReplyDelete"Thus, this is not feasible."
ReplyDeleteNot feasible because a blogger is objecting while stating he can't fully understand why the Gedolei Yisroel aren't speaking out?
You speak about the desire of Gedolie Yisroel being reluctant to rule on agunos, desiring their opinions only be accepted if it also accepted by a number of other Gedolim. After all, there is the mamzer issue to contend with. Perhaps the concern should work both ways.
This logic is not at all logic, since nothing is there to prevent the man from going with other women.
ReplyDeleteSo the stability of marriage is jeopardized anyway because any man can just go and take a mistress.
Furthermore, if a wife decides to preserve the "stability of her marriage" while going with another man, this is not what the torah wants.
Therefore, these arguments look like red herrings, the real purpose seems to be to continue to dominate women.
Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn
ReplyDeleteWhen you spoke with Aharon Friedman why didn't you tell him that going to arkaot was a grave sin? Are you against him going to arkaot?
See what I can't understand is that you claim to want to uphold the Torah True position, yet you knowingly support(and advised) a man who went to arkaot, and is now using Get extortion to try to get what a B"D can no longer halakhically give him, because the Sh"A has ruled that as punishment for him going to Arkaot a B"D cannot hear the issue that he brought before the secular court.
When you brazenly demonstrate that sort of hypocrisy how do you expect to be taken seriously.
...in a very short time we should be faced with the the frightening specter of myriads of gittin deemed valid by some factions and invalid by others.
ReplyDeleteIs that not where we are now? On this very blog, we have seen gittin by the "MO" world put down(so I am assuming that means we don't accept RCA gittin). We have seen the gittin by the Israeli Rabbanut put down(so that means we don't accept those either). We have seen Sephardi customs and halakha called into question(there goes those Gittin). The Tzitz Eliezer can't be relied upon and neither can Rav Shternbuch(so there goes those gittin).
Apparently we can maybe rely on Rav Eliashiv, unfortunately he is convalescent, and recently disbanded his own B"D after finding out about some serious moral failings in his trusted Dayyanim...
So where does that leave us? Apparently we have to wait until Rav Eliashiv recovers(b'ezrat HaShem) and reconstitutes a B"D and then everyone would have to trudge to Meah Shearim to have a universally accepted Get.
This is getting absurd.
"So where does that leave us? Apparently we have to wait until Rav Eliashiv recovers(b'ezrat HaShem) and reconstitutes a B"D and then everyone would have to trudge to Meah Shearim to have a universally accepted Get."
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think R Eyashiv's gittin are universally accepted? Have you never read the pashkevillim that come out of rechov ein ya'akov in meah shea'rim? Anyone who sets foot in the heichal shlomo rabbanut building is a kofer!
Thank you for proving my point. Though I was speaking in terms of Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn's expressed opinion. But you are correct. If we keep going down this path it leads to insanity.
DeleteTo Michael Tzadok
ReplyDeleteArkoos is only forbidden as a first recourse however once the woman enters arkoos and doesnt exit which means cancel all orders and strictly subjects herself to Bais Dins authority, then its not considered exiting the courts. I dont know all the details about the aharon friedman case, and who went to court first, but if you are in agreement that the torah forbids this, then explain to me why in all other cases such as the Meir/Lonna kin case did ORA and Schachter ignore that she went to court and even had him Gagged so that he couldnt speak freely in front of any Bais Din, yet he was subjected to their wrath??? This blog began with the Aharon Friedman case, but after all the YU defenders spewed their "Halachic opinions on Gittin", no one was able to justify their actions in the Kin case leading me to believe that your camp's values are inconsistent and consisting of a charter villifying and attacking all men equally. I hope that ORA, Herschel Schachter will carefully examine thei roster of men and clean up those lists online and in the J.P as it makes them look like total Halachic ignoramuses when they dont carefully sift thru the facts of individual cases. Once again this is what happens when SHOCHAD (bribery) takes over the mind, as "Shochad blinds the eyes of the wise". BTW, bribery is not always presentes as "Dollars", but even influence and prestige can be a form of bribery.
then explain to me why in all other cases such as the Meir/Lonna kin case did ORA and Schachter ignore that she went to court and even had him Gagged so that he couldnt speak freely in front of any Bais Din, yet he was subjected to their wrath???
DeleteBecause ORA doesn't operate according to halakha. I've already said that. Does that justify Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn also acting contrary to halakha? I think not.
after all the YU defenders spewed their "Halachic opinions on Gittin", no one was able to justify their actions in the Kin case leading me to believe that your camp's values are inconsistent and consisting of a charter villifying and attacking all men equally.
My camp? What exactly do you think my camp is? Personally I believe that in accordance with the Teshuvot of the Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Ovadia Yosef ect. that certain pressures can be applied. Public humiliation however seems completely assur to me.
Reply to BatMelech:
ReplyDeleteWhy must frum women like yourself continually assume, without any careful analysis, that the rabbis are discriminating against you?
If frum women would abandon their hostile feminist attitudes and carefully investigate the halacha, they would realize that the rabbis made great efforts to protect the rights of women, subject to the limitations of gender differences and human weaknesses.
The hostile, feminist influenced attitudes by certain women towards Judaism and the rabbis are a major cause of our divorce crisis. Why don't you encourage women to respect Judaism and reject feminist attitudes?
Because of the cases I have seen around me, that were not addressed properly.
DeleteBecause of the women who renounce child support (faithfull to their husband's whishes and the Beith din's stamp of approval) and are also excluded from social wellfare benefits because of it.
Because of the woman who had to pay 500'000 $ to obtain their get.
Because of the father who signed a bail to obtain a get for his daughter and was later put in Cherem because he refused to pay up.
Because of the women who have been awaiting their gittin for 20, 30, 40 years, while their husbands do whatever they want.
Because of the absurdity of the system: as soon as she ignores the fact that she has no get, the rabbonim will force her husband to give it to her.
I agree with Rav Tzadok and think a middle ground is the proper approach in this topic. To say no harchakas can every be placed upon men (against Rav Yosef, Rav Sternbuch, and Rav Waldenberg Zt'll) is extreme and the Gedolim in our generation have agreed that harchakas can be enforced on some level. However, the pressure that is used today has no real source as this blog has proven and is based upon pure svaras in the harchakas of R'tam that Modern Orthodox Rabbis agree on without a consensus amongst other Rabbis. On the other hand, to say that we can do whatever we want to men and victimize them and support woman no matter what sins they do (as we have seen on this blog) is the opposite extreme.
ReplyDeleteYitzy,
DeleteThis is an interesting comment. If publicizing the names of men who refuse to give their wives a GET is not harchakas of RT, what is? How is using the Internet to collect a petition any different than publishing the names of men in the Jewish Press? The only thing ORA has innovated is the use of a new medium capable of spreading the word and organizing in a way newspapers were not able to.
Do you have a problem with publishing names in the Jewish Press? No Rishon allows that because none of them lived in the times of a printing press and yet we dont say it is a great innovation and a chiddush. Why can we publish names in the newspaper but not the Internet? Are we permitted to gather in front of his home and urge him to give her a GET as per a published list in the Jewish Press but not as per an Internet organized rally by ORA?
The Beth Din of Rabbis Kamenetzky and Belsky are not ordering any ostracization. They simply issued the seruv ordering Aharon to give Tamar and GET and encouraging the public to do whatever is necessary to urge him to do so. In the past, the Jewish Press would publish that seruv and, at worst, the man would find a new shul. In NYC, with shtieblach on every corner, such a seruv is useless. Organizing a thousand people to publicly urge a GET refuser to give a GET was logistically impossible but not assur. The people at ORA decided that they were going to organize the masses to urge aharon to give the GET as per the order of the Beth Din. How is that not within the framework of Harchakas Rabbeinu Tam?
Lastly, do you really think being subject to ORA's campaign is worse than being subject to harchakas RT in the twelfth century?
James, thanks for responding to my post. The harchakas of R'tam state that the Rabbis should tell the community that the man lives in to stop doing business with him, (in some versions don't honor him,) stop feeding, drinking, don't visit him, don't give his son mila etc. They are all passive actions. I agree that the pressure may not be as strong as it was in the past. But Today, active pressure is being used as buses are bused in from out of state, and dirty tactics are done to men behind the scenes that you never hear about. These active strategies R'tam doesn't talk about, and in matters as serious as gitten, I believe a consensus between great Rabbis should be agreed upon before innovating new strategies that don't come close to fitting into the words of R'tam. If the greatest Rabbis in our generation learned R'tams harchakas the way the Modern Orthodox Rabbis do, I would have no problems with their actions. However, their is no consensus on this issue, and great Rabbis argue with these methods. The result is that people will question the validity of these gitten and perhaps the status of children from future marriages.
DeleteAside from the actual halacha, the entire approach of Modern Orthodox Rabbis is one sided and totally bias as can be seen on Rabbi Bechhofer Shlitta's blog. From my own experiences, the feminist bias approach in these matters places a stumbling block for the man to actually give a GET. Instead of expecting 2 sides to come to some fair compromise and move on with their lives, the Men are called domestic abusers and bullied even when the woman acts improperly according to Jewish Law. Therefore, my opinion is a middle ground approach following the actual torah. The last time I read the Torah, judges are commanded to be neutral and not have an agenda before deciding cases.
Yitzy Hillel, thank you for at least trying to assume an objective position.
ReplyDeleteORA goons are actively supporting Jewish women litigating in non-Jewish courts and removing children from their fathers, so ORA itself is preventing these women from receiving kosher Gittin.
A fatal flaw in your argument "harchakas can be enforced on some level" is your assumption that the women do not have moredes/moseres status and therefore Evan HaEzer Chpt. 77 does not apply. Please see the tshuvah of Rav Menashe Klein ZT"L which has been posted on this blog today.
I just read the teshuva you mentioned and still hold that since Rav Yosef 8:25. Rav Sternbuch 3:344 and Rav Waldenberg 17:52 Zt'll all hold the harchakas can be applied in certain cases, they argue with Rav Eidonsohn's teshuva and his sources that say the harchakas can never be enforced today in cases of Mius Alai. You're point about being a Moredes is interesting. I plan to look into your point...
DeleteORA goons are actively supporting Jewish women litigating in non-Jewish courts and removing children from their fathers, so ORA itself is preventing these women from receiving kosher Gittin.
ReplyDeleteAnd Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn is doing the same with men. It is hypocritical and misogynistic to blame one and not the other.
A fatal flaw in your argument "harchakas can be enforced on some level" is your assumption that the women do not have moredes/moseres status and therefore Evan HaEzer Chpt. 77 does not apply. Please see the tshuvah of Rav Menashe Klein ZT"L which has been posted on this blog today.
Moredet status should not affect this one way or the other. If the woman has gone to a B"D with her claims(whatever they may be) and not secular court then according to the opinions listed(i.e. Rav Feinstein, Rav Shternbuch, the Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadia Yosef, the Yaskil Avdei, the Ben Ish Hai ect.) then some form of harchakas is allowed.
Furthermore if the wife is actually being beaten by her husband she is permitted to go to secular court according to the Rema.
If she is not actually being beaten, but simply making up stories than yes it is an absolute case of mesirah to make up lies in order to damage her husband by secular court.
What you don't seem to realize is that all of the Rabbanim listed as the middle position would say that.
In brief for a moredet the vast consensus is that some form of R"T can be used. For a moseret she is in trouble in a multitude of ways.