But what if we see that the husband is not terrible - but she says she can't stand him. Do we insist that she has to put up with her dislike of her husband for the sake of the family? Or does ma'us alei simply mean - he is not my cup of tea and I want out. What is she could deal with him - if she was on psychiatric medication - does she need to take medication to preserve the marriage? What if he is not frum enough and it grates on her nerves how insensitive he is to Torah - is that considered ma'us alei. What if he is too frum and is machmir on everything - she can't stand it - is that ma'us alei.
In sum, does ma'us alei mean merely she personally can't stand him or does it mean that objectively this person has to be disgusting? Does she have to work on herself not to find him disgusting?
.There are clearly cases such as a wife beater or psychopath where there is no need to explain ma'us since any intelligent adult would also find him disgusting.
ReplyDeleteActually i think this is the place we ought to start.
I am not sure that everyone of the commentors, most especially Stand and Binyamin would say that should pressure for a Get in this case.
Since you have not yet defined a place where all, or at least most poskim will agree that it is a case of Maus Alei in which the husband should be pressured, you have no upper limit to work down from. You have a lower limit. All(or at least most) will agree that if the woman is interested in another man, then no pressure should be applied. However, with all due respect, you have not established the upper limit.
I know that to you and your brother that things such as abuse and psychosis would seem to be common sense. However, I am not sure that common sense is so common, nor do I think that everyone will automatically agree with you on that.
I think that would go a long way in shaping this debate.
I agree
DeleteHowever, I do not think it is appropriate for a court whether a wife should have marital relationships with her husband.
The relationships should ONLY be possible WITH HER EXPLICIT and UNCOERCED CONSENT. Everything else is called RAPE.
This should be a basic tenet anywhere, anything else is immoral.
Furthermore, the argument of promoting stability is nothing but a red herring.
Because if stability was the firest and foremost interest, rabbis would not force a divorce in the case where the wife had an affair, but the couple wants to stay married.
There's a need to meditate on a few of the basics of Jewish Theological perspectives on marriage. Breishis teaches us that they were to become "basar echad." Not partners or counterparts, but ECHAD. And if maus alay is so rudimentary as you suggest it might be, being just a subjective craze, what in the world is the value of all that commitment and todo under the chuppa? And why all the difficulty the Torah poses for her to get out?
ReplyDeleteReally now, the lines between secularism and basic-basic religiosity are getting quite blurred by just asking this question. Secularism is essentially all about me-first. Torah marriage is the antithesis.
We say in the wedding brochos a few eternal truths:
1)"Al yidei chuppa V'KEDUSHIN"
pshut-pshat shel kedushin is devotion/ dedication. A kosher marriage must provide security and dedication. If it can be proven that the security is gone - ok. Let's mourn & start again. But if it's there and the problem is the willingness to keep up the kedushin? "The Altar weeps" for them to relearn.
2)BINYAN ADEI AD
The new family is presumed to be forever.
3)REYIM AHUVIM
Beloved counterparts. Why not beloved FRIENDS? Reya is rooted in the world RA, evil or brokenness. The pre-kedushin nature of the couple is understood to be at odds. But their loving interest in this mitzvah is meant to fix that.
4)ASHER BARA CHATAN V'KALLAH
H' Himself created them! The blessing could have been for creating humans - why not. No, we are celebrating the realization that this couple was a creation of its OWN. Gevalt. Unless proven otherwise, they're meant to go the distance...
@yy
DeleteAll this is not aq reason to keep your wife in a marriage AGAINST HER WILL.
It should have been a motivation for you not to become disgusting to her. Yes. But now that she is disgusted, and that she waited for the children to grow up and be married, you have not right whatsoever to keep her in the marriage AGAINST HER WILL.
You are invoking romantic ideas of the Torah. But not for the sake of the torah. You do it to justify your preconceived opinion and the actions you do out of BAD CHARACTER.
So give her a get already. Maybe she will not grow back to love you. But at least she will keep a little ounce of respect. At least she will not hate. At least she will not pray for your speedy dismissal!
Bat - this will be my last exchange w/ you. I have no intention of getting embroiled in these rounds of degrading soundbytes about the deepest, eternally important choices in life.
DeleteBut I do want to clarify for others the severe mistakes in your supposed "religiosity" of liberating the poor wife at all costs:
1) No one is KEEPING her in this marriage. She opted in, after tremendous opportunity for her OWN choice in the matter davka (we were already out of our parent's home), and she continued to opt to build a family with me al pi Torah v'chossidus.
2)Our first Rav, a widely known posek, thinker and great leader in communal Rabbanus, made it clear to us when the question first came up, that marriage is not a place to escape from problems but within which to confront them. The Mizbeach mourns when this is not done. We took that guidance and built a model family with tons of extremely positive and uplifting experiences. It's ignorant and mean-spirited to suggest that "she waited for..." This is Onaat dvarim k'pshuto! (One of the reasons to avoid such blogs)
3) "Not for the sake of Torah" is a hard one to even stoop so low for answering. The lady protesteth too much. YOU know what is l'shma?? You have ANY basis for assuming I'm not? Not a single Rav has told us to divorce and the BD she initiated through her case out! True, the ugly slander and humiliation that the feminist group that is representing her have cultivated give me pretty good reason to drop her from my life once and for all, but I'm holding out davka out of my deep concern for the well being of her and our family. Is it so hard for you to imagine a man doing that sincerely?
4)I have consistently asked poskim and Admorim if I have any obligation to grant a Get under these circumstances. All they'd say is that I'm certainly ALLOWED, and perhaps even encouraged to IF I WANT, but if I truly still feel love in my heart I have all the right to strive to convince her via BD to first undergo some counseling with me (w/o medicine!)
5) Disgust. What makes you think that is her feeling and that its the man's duty to PREVENT her from ever falling into it? She doesn't express any feelings about me per se. She just wants out. We know she just got a nice yerusha. We don't know where she goes on Seder and Shabbosim when all the kids are by me. Who knows if she has her eyes elsewhere? Who knows if she's ill? These are all matters to be investigated before deconstructing a family.
Woe to those who are so cavalier with kedushas Batei Neeman B'yisroel. And those who pretend to be banot Melekh!
If you are doint it out of love and concern for her, your love and concern is misguided.
DeleteI never met her, I never met you, I just build my opinion on the information YOU provided on this case.
You just said that there were problems in the marriage early on, but the hassidic rebbes you turned to would not want to hear about divorce. You do not tell me who wanted to divorce, but since she wants to divorce now, I assume that it was her, back then too.
You say that, in your opinion, a husband has no duty NOT to be disgusting to his wife. What more is there to add? You went on and on and on about binyan adei ad, but the husband has not duty to be agreeable to his wife???
Now that you informed me she got a nice yerusha, I cannot help but think that this might be an additional reason for you to be so concerned about the "Binyan adei ad".
I don't buy your pure intentions. You are deluding yourself.
Oh. I didn't even think of the witholding of Get for the sake of the yerusha idea! How sad. This must be briefly stated for the record. Ppl like this gal apparently are so hyped up on having to prove that marriage is a one-way street of men pampering their wives and that she has no responsibility that they'll go to lengths to jump on whatever bandwagon they can find that justifies their cause.
DeleteNo, I do not believe that any member of a couple has a duty to assure that the other one is not out to lunch. Each has a duty to build up the MARRIAGE, to connected and cultivate what is between them. Once EITHER one of them is bent on putting their feelings on a pedastool that the other must attend to -- disaster... to be relearned how to work around.
No, she never sought divorce. And no the Rav wasn't chassidic. She actually loved him very much. His zchuyos for keeping us on track should shame all those who speak here so calvalierly about letting anyone go.
Fundamentally, I agree with you.
DeleteMarriage is about reciprocity and no one spouse should think that he/she is entitled to everything with no obligations.
I agree that marriage is about building up something in common, and that this can be beautiful.
You are completely right when you say that one spouse is not responsible for the faithfullness of the other: if one spouse chooses to cheat, it is their decision & responsibility and not their spouse's fault. But in your case, obviously, the problem is not that your wife had an affair, since if this were the case, the rabbis would force you to divorce, as we saw previously in this debate.
I also understand how much heartbreak it means for the spouse who wants to stay in the marriage when the other spouse decides to leave and yes, I think it is fundamentally unfair.
On the other hand, I do not believe that remaining married on paper will change anything to the situation, over a long period of time.
A waiting period of 1, 2 or 3 years might be appropriate, but after that, keeping the marriage unilaterally just means that the person who won't let go continues to live in an illusion. The illusion of the paper will not mend the marriage, and it really prevents the get-refuser from moving on with their life.
B"H I have NO intention of "keeping the marriage unilaterally" for years. In fact I have strongly expressed to those involved that I prefer for EVERYONE's sake to conclude things within THREE MONTHS. Even one of the dayanim once asked us if we're willing to meet with him privately since he believes he has an idea for concluding things much quicker.
DeleteSHE refused! She claimed she can't handle being alone with me in a room (i.e. as per what she told our daughter, that Abba might just do the crime of convincing her to return!!)
Seriously now, while no one can possibly determine in cyber space what's the truth in this case, it's important to show willingness to hear the case AS I PRESENT IT that may differ widely from the evils you are on bandwagons fighting. And that case is one of a woman who is dragging things out with excruciating cruelty to the family simply because she believes, as her lawyer recently told mine, "no one can force her to sit with her husband, so just let her go already."
Well, ok, if she really insists. But then make no wild claims of defamation and maybe he'll consider. In the meantime, remember that ALL he's asking is for three months of dialogue with a professional they'll BOTH choose. Her reisistance to this, along with so many other weird antics, lends reason to view the husband as a HERO for trying to get to the core of the matter.
@R Daniel,
ReplyDeleteR Yossef points out in the beginning of the teshuva that it is a machlokes Rishonim if the Rambam requires an amtalla or not. According to those that require it, it has to be a real good reason. According to those who don't require it, her word is enough.
So what is your question? Is it if Rambam maintain keffiya in all cases or does he mandate a good reason?
Or is your question do any later pokim permit keffiya only on her word or do they only kofeh if there is a good reason to explain the maus allai?
I believe that all poskei zmanenu that allow keffiya, are unwilling to be lenient within daas HaRambam and kofeh without an amtalla.
all of the above and the perceived appropriateness of them. In other words if we adopt the Western idea of marriage then it is enough for subjective repulsion. If we adopt a non-Western view then we need an objective basis for repulsion. I think one of the issues is that marriage in the frum world is really stuck between these two opposite definitions.
DeleteI beg to differ.
DeleteEven a slave cannot be brought back to his master if he does not want. So a wife, who is not a slave, should not be forced back with a husband she does not want.
Sending a wife back to a husband who is disgusting to her - for whatever reason - is the wrong way to promote apparent stability.
Not understanding the reason for the wife's disgust should not be a reason to disregard it.
For those who learn maus alay as purely subjective,I'd like to ask you to explain the elementary meaning of the mitzvah of gerushin requiring the man to give.
ReplyDeleteit's the simplest svara question: Why the need for a male initiated Writ if all the matters is she wants out?
So that he can prove he is a gentleman - by heading her express will and giving the get... or the contrary by keeping her chained against her will.
DeleteIt is really a nissayon for the man. As far as I can see, you are failing it.
Glad to see the consistency fleshed out.
DeleteAnyone else voting for that svara -- that's all a nisayon to see exactly how absolute is a man's willingness is to satisfy his wife?
Having power is always a nissayon- of not abusing it.
DeleteYou sound quite abusive, power-hungry and self-righteous, just based upon what you said here on this blog - without even hearing the other side.
I vote for it. There's another reason as well. Men often abuse (physically or verbally) their wives, or neglect them, and women put up with it for a long time and then reach the breaking point and leave unexpectedly. The reason men and not women can give the get is because this buys the man some time to reform his ways and persuade her to come back. However, once he has tried to get her back and failed, he must give the get, or he is oppressing her -- causing a huge amount of needless suffering. This flies in the the most fundamental beliefs of the Torah, in which compassion, kindness and lovingkindess are all important. (For one source of many, a very nice one I recommend that everyone read, see R' Hirsch's Horeb, chapter 51, paragraph 377).
DeleteYou (and some of the other commenters) seem to think that a woman should remain an aguna for life if she doesn't leave for the "right" kind of reason that makes it halachically mandatory according to all opinions to give a get. You seem to think that some women remaining agunot for life is needed to preserve the stability of marriage. This is really an extraordinary claim, however, because when does the Torah ever tell us it is a good thing to needlessly impose a huge amount of suffering on another human being (who has done nothing deserving actual punishment)? We don't believe in human sacrifices, as you well know! You would think that if this was Hashem's intention, sources would say explicitly that it is a good thing that some women remain chained for life.
Yes, it is a test for the man, to give the get when all hope for reconciliation is past, to overcome his tendencies toward cruelty and revenge and living according to the letter of the law and not its spirit.
It is also a test for the rabbis, that they interpret the Torah with common sense and compassion, rather than with foreign ideologies created in reaction to feminism, which blind men to women's suffering by blaming women and asserting that their suffering is somehow necessary for the social order.
I really thank you, Yeshaya, for spelling out your view. Sadly, like most Benei Torah and certainly those who may not have learned so much, I never fully understood the conflicting approaches to marriage that were underneath the surface of our holy nation until I had to deal with the bizarre nisayon that has recently confronted my family.
DeleteI now understand better why so many thoughtful people have knee-jerk reactions to the supposed evil of a woman not being immediately granted her demand for a Get. I couldn't grasp why they don't presume, as the stats increasingly spell out, that women can also be abusive and especially via the passive-agressive wiles of getting some protective guardian to bash your other half...
Of course I can't expect any of you to realize that I, as per all who know me, am the opposite of a power hungry and macho personality who relishes the thought of "chaining" his wife! My problem is that I am so deeply truth-seeking and genuinely devoted to my wife and family (making admitted mistakes at times) that I just can't let myself get dragged into the maelstrom of these half-baked ideas without doing my best to understand yes the SPIRIT as well as law of what the Torah ha'kedoisha requires of me.
My wife has even admitted so. She told one of our kids (who is an adult) that she really has nothing against me and basically wants me to have a good life, but because she believes (or was LED to believe?) that if she'd sit to dialogue with Abba he'd undoubtedly persuade her to come back, she's concluded these wild tactics are the only tools she has for getting her freedom. And the main Rav who supported her initial interest to make certain demands of me for improving the marriage as she needs it or else, told me that the reason he supported her was that he was sure that her hatred, as probelmatic as it was, was not against me per se. It's just that she needed out and saw me as an obstacle.
Needless, other Rabbonim severely disagreed with this philosophy and her right to employ such tactics.
My lawyer, who has represented plenty of women and is, in my assessment, more in the feminist camp than otherwise (but makes truth-seeking his ikkar), originally took on my case after asking me: "Do I understand correctly that if your wife would have turned to you and said, effectively, that while there have been plenty of ups and downs and she has no intentions of denying the ups, she has gotten to a place in her life where she needs her independence... you would have granted it?"
I thought about it and said, "I probably would have still insisted on a minimal therapeutically guided dialoge, but yes -- I'm not one to hold anyone against their will, and I certainly would see no value in remaining married to someone who clearly feels no bond.
So, sorry to all you agendaists who have a hard time imagining that there are men who are truly sensitive and caring and nevertheless don't buy into the concept that marriage is essentially abt him wooing her. It goes both ways in my book, successfully did for us, by and large, for 25 years, and only once I'm convinced she's truly incapable of plugging back in can I give my blessing to us moving on.
"And the main Rav who supported her initial interest to make certain demands of me for improving the marriage as she needs it or else"
DeleteSo she asked for changes, and you did oblige? or did not oblige?
But wasn't this your chance to keep the binyan adei ad?
YY, I feel for your situation, and I pray that you are able to resolve the situation to everyone's satisfaction. I'm not sure we disagree. It seems appropriate to withhold a get for a while to see if reconciliation is possible -- the question is how long, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
DeleteI'm sure you're right that it's not just a matter of obvious abuse or neglect -- there are cases in which on the surface, from the perspective of an observer with common sense, the man has not done anything so bad.
The "wooing" language is unnecessarily dismissive, in my opinion. A wife's happiness is dependent on her husbands behavior. One part of the nisayon, which I didn't mention above, is that between the time the wife demands a divorce and the man is required to give a get, a man has a chance to change his behavior and change his wife's mind. A wife or therapist might think they know what behavioral changes need to be made, but they may or may not be correct. This is where the shalom bayis sefer by R' Shalom Arush comes in, which everyone in your situation should read (and then get advice and guidance from R' Lazer Brody as needed). Many people, myself included, have been amazed by the effects of implementing that book.
Yeshaya, you see no possibility of a woman flipping out, let's say, at the death of her father and then castigating her man for exagerrated missteps... and then being viewed, morally, as the main part of the unit that needs "behavioral changes"?
DeleteAre you SURE about this: "A wife's happiness is dependent on her husbands behavior"? Dependent?? Perhaps you mean largely affected by. Just like (or to a similar extent) the man's is by hers. I mean, where are all you enlightened types when it comes to equality in such matters?? It can only be "on the surface" that the man is not bad??
Thank you, Ed, below, for some sobriety, though I'm not simply stomping my feet and saying "you can't do this without my consent!" All I ask for is elementary respect for how to consider ending a long marriage with a tight-knit family -- NOT in a huff while foaming at the mouth! Calm down a bit and let's talk. If you want to be sure there's light at the end of the tunnel, ok, so let's ask authorities what's reasonable. EVERYone says 3 months is more than so. But you continue to huff and raise a storm. Sorry, the Holy Torah has more respect for a marriage than that. Not only he needs to try to persuade you of the merits of staying, but she needs to learn a few rules about how to throw a KOSHER Maus Alay tantrum...
As for J.A.M. at the bottom -- pls note how you read my word "persuade" as "manipulate". This is the kind of mentality that leads ORA-niks to go wild.
YY: Sure, it's possible that your wife also should change her behavior, and that other factors other than your behavior influence her happiness. But I'm not sure that trying to convince her that she's the one who needs to change is the best strategy for getting her to change her mind. On the issue of getting women to admit they're wrong, see R' Arush's book. I certainly sympathize with your desire for a respectful discussion on both sides, as opposed to foaming at the mouth. May Hashem bless your family with peace.
Deleteamen.
Delete(just know that no one's trying to convince anyone the s/he's the ONE to change! Just that they, as a responsible family unit, are obliged to work TOGETHER. Even when considering divorce. If they try for a substantial amt of time (usually a yr, tho I'm asking only 3 months) and it gets way out of hand, according to real professionals, then a Get must be urged)
Well, just to tell you: a friend of mine agreed to move back in with her husbands for two weeks (because the Rabbis wanted so) and this is the moment where he resorted to physical violence and imprisonning her. i.e.: by asking her to "try again", the rabbis made my friend suffer bodily harm.
DeleteAccording to specialists in domestic violence, this is not an isolated case, but rather a pattern. The moment of divorce (going back to get one's things, etc) is a very dangerous one for the woman.
I do not think that it comes without reason that your ex does not want to talk to you. To determine the reasons, it would be necessary to hear her side of the story, and this is impossible since your comments are anonymous.
But if she does not want to be in a room with you, why don't you try another way of communicating? Writing a letter with your thoughts? Keeping a diary with all the things you want to tell her and send it to her once it's full?
DeleteAnyway, I don't think that withholding a get to make her "more holy" is good idea...
@dr. Eidensohn
ReplyDeleteI am astonished that you suggest a wife should be medicated so as to be able to stay in her marriage.
If you were a psychiatrist and did this, it would be a clear case of malpractice.
Are you seriously considering that this is a viable possibility?
of course not. There are those who consider the institution of marriage more important than the indivuals - man and woman - who constitute the marriage. This was actually a case that happened to a therapist friend of mine and he refused to take the case and preserve the marriage through medication.
Deleteso of course you are correct that it is malpractice - but it is done.
Again: Anyone voting for that svara that marriage is all a nisayon to see exactly how absolute is a man's willingness to satisfy his wife?
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a marriage can be entered into only with the consent of both parties, and therefore (absent serious cause) can be ended only with the consent of both parties, should not be that foreign. In fact, this was the law though-out the United States several decades ago. This was the also the law in New York State in which Epstein and Friedman were legally married at the time they get married.
ReplyDeleteI'll quote here the part of the Teshuva of Tzemach Tzedek that deals with this issue directly. And he quotes extensively from rishonim's leshonos about this. And he sides, that from the perspective of Geonim (which is a centerpice of his teshuva) and their takana that it extens beyond objective disgust with an amassloh berurah and therefore even though we do not opt for geonim's position; however harchokos rabbeyno tam might be appropriate in these instances:
ReplyDeleteשו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסב
יא. ועוד יש למצוא היתר דיעבד ע"פ דעת הפוסקים דס"ל בטענת מאיס עלי כופין אותו לגרש וס"ל שזהו תקנתא דהגאונים הראשונים וסמכו על אפקעינהו רבנן לקדושין מיניה כמ"ש בתשו' הרא"ש כלל מ"ג סי' ח' דלא כהרדב"ז ח"א סי' קפ"ז ופסקי מהרא"י סי' קל"ח דנמשכו אחר דעת הרמב"ם בגט המעושה שלא כדין בב"ד של ישראל דהגט כשר מדאורייתא מדינא דגמרא. והרי רוב הפוסקים פליגי ע"ז. וכמש"ל וכמ"ש ג"כ ע"ז במ"א. ופי' מאיס עלי היינו שאומרת שרוצה להתגרש דוקא משא"כ באומרת בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה וכמ"ש הרי"ף פרק אף על פי כד אתיא ואמרה לא בעינא ליה להאי גברא ניתיב לי גיטא יהיב לה גיטא לאלתר עכ"ל. אך הרמב"ם פט"ו ה"ח כתב אם אמרה מאסתיהו ואיני יכולה להבעל לו מדעתי כופין לו לשעתו לגרשה לפי שאינה כשבויה כו' עכ"ל. משמע דאין כופין אלא כשמאוס עליה ממש ואינה יכולה להבעל לו מדעתה כו' לא כשרצונה להתגרש מאיזה טעם אחר אף שרצונה להתגרש באמת ולא ע"ד בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה. וכ"כ בהגמי"י שם סק"ה בשם התוספות ובשם תשו' מהר"מ שאין בטענתה ממש אא"כ נותנת אמתלא לדבריה וטענה הנראית לחכמי המקום למה הוא מאוס עליה. וכ"נ ראיה ממ"ש במד"ר סוף איכה ע"פ אם מאוס מאסתנו אם מאיסה היא לית סבר כו'. וכ"מ בתשו' הרשב"א סי' תקע"ג במ"ש שאין החן והמיאוס תלויים אלא ברצון הלב כו' וכ"כ בריא"ז בש"ג פרק אף על פי הואיל ואין דעתה סובלת הרי היא אנוסה בדבר כו' וכ"כ במרדכי ס"פ אף על פי כיון דמאיס לה ולא יכולה לסבול כו' וכ"כ התוספות פרק אף על פי (דס"ג ע"ב) ד"ה אבל אמרה. וז"ל ומיהו יש לדחות דלא מצי למימר מאיס עלי אלא היכא דיש רגלים לדבר שהבעל אינו מתקבל לה כו' עכ"ל ועיין מזה בש"ע סס"י ע"ז בהשגת החמ"ח סס"ק ד'. ומיהו נ' התוספות לא כ"כ רק למאי דקס"ד דמדינא דגמרא כן הוא שכופין אותו כשטוענת מאיס עלי. וכדי לתרץ ממה שהקשו ע"ז מפרק הניזקין הוצרכו לתרץ ומיהו י"ל כו'.
part two
ReplyDeleteאבל לפמ"ש בתשו' רב שרירא שהיא תקנת מר בר רב הונא גאון שלא תצאנה בנות ישראל לתרבות רעה. וכ"כ בהג"א פ' אף על פי בסי' ל"ה. א"כ לפ"ז י"ל דכל שחפיצה דוקא להתגרש הדין כן דהא בכה"ג שייך הטעם שלא תצאנה כו'. וכ"ה בתשו' רב שרירא שהביא בעל העיטור הובא בסד"א בתשו' סי' י"ג דנ"ח ע"ד משמע דכל שתובעת להתגרש הדין כן. ובבעל המאור משמע ג"כ שהבין כן מדברי הרי"ף וע"ז כתב ותימא הוא. והתימא יש ליישב שהוא תקנה כדי שלא תצאנה כו'. ואפ"ל טעמא דהגאונים שתקנו כן הוא משום דבגמרא ריש כתובות אמרינן דרבא מטעמי' דנפשיה אמר דאין אונס בגיטין דאף שמדאורייתא אינו גט כדפרש"י שם דאונס הוי דאורייתא מולנערה לא תעשה דבר אפ"ה משום תקנת בנות ישראל הכשירו גט זה וסמכו על הפקעת הקדושין בכה"ג לכן ראו הם הגאונים הראשונים שההכרח לתקן כן ג"כ בטוענת מאיס עלי לכופו על הגט כו'. וכ"מ ממ"ש בתשו' הרשב"א ח"ב סי' רע"ו הובא בכנה"ג סי' ע"ז בהגב"י ס"ק כ"ה וז"ל כי גם הגאונים ז"ל ידעת שאמרו שכופין לגרש כל שהיא מורדת ובמקום שנהגו על פיהם אין בנו כח לחלוק עליהם ולבטל דבריהם עכ"ל. וכ"מ בתשו' מהרלנ"ח סי' ל"ו שהביא בכנה"ג סי' ע"ז בהגהת הטור ס"ק כ"ח שלא להוציא מכלל התקנה רק באומרת בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה כו' כיון שהיא אינה תובעת גרושין משמע כל שתובעת גרושין זהו בכלל מאיס עלי וכ"כ שם דבכל הפוסקים כשהזכירו תקנת הגאון כתבו לשון מורדת כו' ומ"מ כוונתם באומרת מאיס עלי דומיא דכלתיה דרב זביד אימרדא כו' יעו"ש. וכל כוונתו לאפוקי מאומרת בעינא ליה ומצערא ליה. ע"ש (דף נ"ט ע"א). וכן פרש"י שם גבי כלתיה דרב זביד אימרדא שאמרה מאיס עלי. והקשה הריטב"א הובא בשט"מ וא"ת היכי קרינן לה דאימרדא דהא לא מיקרי מורדת אלא באומרת בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה כדאיתא לעיל הא ליתא דכל שמסרבת על בעלה מורדת היא ואין לך מסרבת יותר מן האומרת מאיס עלי כו' עכ"ל. וכיון שנק' מורדת י"ל דהיינו אף על פי שאין אמתלא גלויה על טענת מאיס עלי וכמ"ש הרשב"א בתשו' סי' תקע"ג אף על פי שהוא איש יפ"ת תקיף וחזק בחור כארזים כו'. ותדע עוד שהרי הרא"ש בתשו' כלל מ"ג סי' ח' שהשיג על הרמב"ם כ' בשביל שהיא הולכת אחר שרירות לבה נשלים תאותה כו' עכ"ל. משמע דס"ל מאיס עלי זהו אפילו בענין שנמשך מחמת שרירות לבה ותאותה כו' וכ"מ בהדיא בתשו' הרשב"א סי' אלף קצ"ב שאלת המורדת כו' אם כופין כו' אלא שהרב אלפסי ז"ל כתב בהלכות שהגאונים ז"ל תקנו לכוף את הבעל ליתן גט כל שהיא מורדת וכן הרמב"ם ז"ל כתב כן באומרת מאיס עלי כו' עכ"ל מדכתב שהרמב"ם כתב כן באומרת מאיס עלי מכלל דהרי"ף כ' כן בכל מורדת ור"ל כל שתובעת להתגרש לאפוקי באומרת בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה. וכ"מ יותר ממ"ש הרי"ף פב"ת דכתובות אמתניתן הפוסק מעות לחתנו. והשתא דתקינו רבנן במורדת כו' ושם אינה אומרת כלל מאיס עלי. והנה הרמב"ם פכ"ג מה"א הלכה י"ו חלק על הרי"ף בזה והיינו משום ששם אינה מורדת כלל מכלל דבמורדת ס"ל להרמב"ם ג"כ דכופין אותו מתקנת הגאונים יעו"ש וע' בהר"ן שם ובתשו' הרשב"א ח"א סי' רל"ה וע' בתשו' מהר"א ששון סי' קפ"ו. וז"ל מהרי"ק שורש ק"ב דהא פשיטא דלדידהו לאו דוקא מאיס עלי אלא היכא דבעינא גיטא יהבינן לה לאלתר וכן לדברי האומר דרבנן סבוראי תקנו כך. וע' בתשו' הסד"א סי' י"ג דף סמך סע"ג מה שהשיג עליו. מ"מ בתקנת רבנן סבוראי ודאי הוא כן כדברי מהרי"ק:
קיצור י"א בטוענת מאיס עלי כופין אותו לגרש. וכמה פוסקים ס"ל דלאו דוקא שאומרת מאסתיהו ואיני יכולה להבעל לו מדעתי הדין כן כי אם כל מורדת שתובעת להתגרש הדין כן לאפוקי במורדת בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה:
שו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסב
ReplyDeletepart 3
יב. וא"כ בנד"ז שהיא טוענת שחפיצה להתגרש דוקא ויושבת כן נפרדת ממנו כמה שנים לא מיבעיא אם טוענת מאיס עלי ואיני יכולה להבעל לו דהרמב"ם ס"ל מדינא דגמרא כופין אותו לגרש. ועיין פנ"י בסוגיא דמורדת פ' אף על פי ובק"א שם סעיף קנ"א הביא סמוכות להרמב"ם מפרש"י. ובכנה"ג סי' ע"ז בהגהת הב"י ס"ק י"ד כ' וז"ל גם שיש מן המפרשים שהבינו מדברי רש"י כן כבר הכו על קדקד סברא זו וביטלוה בראיות ברורות כו' והסד"א בתשו' סי' י"ג דנ"ח ע"א כ' שכ"ד רש"י לפ"ד הסמ"ג וכן הוא דעת הסמ"ג לאוין פ"א. והנה בב"י סי' ע"ז בד"ה כ' הר"ש בן הרשב"ץ כו' דאפילו לאומרי' שאין כופין בטענת מאיס עלי יודו בזה שמה שאמרו שלא לכוף דחיישינן שמא עיניה נתנה באחר כו'. ויש תימה ע"ז דהא האומרים שאין כופין הוא מצד שהאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו וכמ"ש בתשו' הרשב"א סי' אלף קצ"ב וסי' אלף רל"ה. וא"כ אף שלא נתנה עיניה באחר אין כופין. וראיתי בתשובה שבסוף סדר אליה רבא סי' י"ג דף נ"ח ע"ב שעמד ע"ז. וראיתי בתשו' אחרונה שבחלק ד' של התשב"ץ הנק' חוט המשולש סוף הטור הג' הביא שבעה דעות בענין כפייה על הגט במורדת והדעה הג' שהביא שם זהו כמ"ש בשם הרשב"א שלעולם אין כופין את הבעל עכ"ז הדעת הששי והדעת השביעי זהו כמ"ש הרשב"ץ וכפי הנראה מקורם ממ"ש התוספות פרק אף על פי (דס"ג ע"ב) ומיהו יש לדחות דלא מצי למימר מאיס עלי אלא כשיש רגלים לדבר כו'. ותמיהני שבשו"ת מהרי"ט חאה"ע סי' מ"ם הביא ד' הרשב"ץ הנ"ל ומדוע לא חלק עליו. אך אפילו באינה אומרת מאיס עלי ואינה יכולה להבעל לו רק טוענת מאיס עלי ורוצה להתגרש נהי דמדינא דגמרא י"ל לכ"ע אין כופין מ"מ מתקנת רבנן סבוראי כופין את הבעל לגרשה. וכ' הסד"א בתשו' הנ"ל דנ"ח ע"א וז"ל ודעת הרי"ף דתקנה זו הותקנה לכל העולם ונהגא לעולם מדהביאה בהלכות להלכה (וכ"נ ודאי מדברי הרי"ף פב"ת דכתובות אמתניתן דהפוסק מעות לחתנו וכמש"ל) וכ"ה דעת בעל העיטור וכן הוא דעת ריא"ז בש"ג פרק אף על פי בד"ה אף על פי שכך הוא דין המורדת כו' כבר תקנו גאוני הישיבות כו' ואין לנו לזוז מתקנתן כמבואר בקונטריס הראיות עכ"ל. וכ"כ עוד ריא"ז בש"ג ס"פ המגרש בד"ה עשוהו גוים לתת גט וז"ל המורדת על בעלה שכופין את הבעל לגרש כתקנת הגאונים ה"ז גט מעושה כדין שתקנת הגאונים דין הוא כמו שביאר מז"ה עכ"ל אבל הרבה גדולי הראשונים דחו תקנה זו מן הדורות הבאים בכמה טענות מהם שאמרו דתקנה זו לא היתה אלא לשעתא ומהם שאמרו שלא נתפשטה כלל בכל המקומות. ומהם שאמרו דהשתא נתבטלה אותה תקנה מפני פריצות הדורות עכ"ד התשו' סד"א הנ"ל.
part 4
ReplyDeleteועיין במלחמות להרמב"ן פרק אף על פי סיים אבל הם באמת לדורות תקנו כו'. אבל מי שרוצה להחמיר שלא לכוף בגט כדין הגמרא לא הפסיד ותע"ב עכ"ל משמע שגם עכשיו שאין זה רק חומרא שלא לכוף על הגט. וא"כ קאי בשיטת הרי"ף והעיטור וזה נגד מ"ש הר"ן בשמו שעכשיו כבר בטלה מפני פריצות הדורות יעו"ש בסוגיא דמורדת. והנה אף שלענין דינא אנן ודאי קיי"ל כדעת רוב גדולי הראשונים ר"ת והרשב"א והרא"ש והר"ן והה"מ והרב"י בש"ע וכל האחרונים שחלילה לכוף את הבעל לגרש וכל המעשה על הגט מרבה כו'. עכ"ז אנו רואים שלפעמים צירפו דעת תקנת הגאונים לאיזו צירוף (ועיין תשב"ץ ח"ב סי' ס"ט מ"ש ואף לדעת ר"ת והרמב"ן כו') כמו שמצינו 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 אף שטעמו שאין זה קרוי כפייה שאם ירצה ימצא לו מקום כו'. הנה להיות גולה ומטולטל ממשפחתו ומעירו דבר גדול הוא. וה"ז חשוב נסיון באברהם אבינו כשנאמר לו לך לך מארצך כו' ולכן מהריב"ל ח"ב סי' ע"ט וח"ג סס"י ק"א כ' שלא ראה לרבני הדור שעשו מעשה כן לפי שההרחקה קשה עכשיו מן הנדוי ואם הנדוי הוי כפייה כ"ש ההרחקה. וע"כ צ"ל בטעמו דר"ת הוא לפי שצירף לזה תקנת הגאונים שתקנו לכוף ממש בכפייה גמורה. לכן אף שחלק ע"ז סמך לעשות ההרחקה כיון שאין זה כפייה ממש. ועמש"ל מזה ססע"י ג' וגדולי האחרונים החמירו עוד יותר מפני שההרחקה הוא כעין כפייה ממש. גם הרא"ש כלל ל"ה סי' א' נראה שצירף תקנת הגאונים לצד גדול להקל שהרי כ' נהי דקדושין לא נפקיע מ"מ יש לסמוך בנד"ז ע"ד קצת רבותינו שפסקו בדינא דמורדת דכופין אותו לגרשה יעו"ש. וע' תשו' רבינו בצלאל אשכנזי סס"י ך' ג"כ כענין זה. וכבר תמה ע"ז הסד"א בתשו' הנ"ל דנ"ט ע"ג איך סמך הרא"ש ע"ז להתיר לכוף אשר כמעט זולת זה הצד אין שום היתר ותירץ ע"פ תשו' הרא"ש כלל מ"ג סי' ח' יעו"ש. 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:
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. ועכ"פ לענין שאם נשאת שלא תצא ואונס ממון שאשתו אונסתו כיון שהיא בידו כנ"ל י"ל לא חמור מהרחקה דר"ת לכן בדיעבד שכבר נשאת י"ל דלא תצא:
Second suggestion:
ReplyDeleteI think it would be k'dai to post the B"Y on Eh"E 134 from Katuv HaRashba to the end. Reason being that he is discussing Maus Alei, as well as what does and does not constitute אונס. As well as what sort of אונס is permissible and what is not.
Second to that would there be any reason to think that the various poskim who are cautious or uncomfortable with אונס, such as Rav Shterbuch ect would consider something אונס that the B"Y did not?
I just cant fathom wanting to convince someone who didn't want to be married anymore, to stay married. Once it got to the point of someone walking out, leaving, filing for a divorce, my gosh, you cant get more clear than that.
ReplyDeleteAnd yy's hope that because his Ex hinted to her child that Abba could manipulate her into returning, that means there is hope for the marriage, is sad and pitiful. I'm so sorry that you are going thru this, but like, get on with your life already. Why would you want a woman who doesn't want you? Just give her the get and let it go.
see my reply to you above. This isn't just abt me but our family and one of the central pillars of our religion!
DeleteJewish marriage is not just a pair of shoes to discard when someone tramples on it and the soul breaks (pun intended)!
To address the original question, it seems to me pretty straightforward that the question is a subjective one: it says "ma'us ALAI" - disgusting TO ME. It could easily have said "ma'us" or "ma'us lakol" or any number of other formulations which don't specifically indicate that it is the opinion of the person in question which matters, no?
ReplyDeleteThe passuk also says "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth"!
ReplyDeleteTorah and the words of chazal cannot be interpreted "pretty straightforward" when it comes to halacha l'maaseh. There is context and an overall principle that Torah is an elixir of LIFE; meant to be a conduit for furthering our constructive spiritual development. Hence while the "alai" component obviously is about subjectivity, that we must be convinced that she is emotionally through with him (and not contemplating, let's say, getting back together another time under more favorable circumstances), we also have the responsibility to determine that it's not being used as a club to bash him with as well as not the kind of emotionalism that's more about shock reaction to a fight or influence by the ideology of others than genuine, autonomous disgust.
To determine the latter requires extremely level headed, fair minded and l'chatchilla marriage-devoted rabbonim.